Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

My understanding is that at the Transfiguration the Christ Spirit overshadowed Jesus and for the duration of his Holy Land ministry God 'spoke' through Jesus.

Claims to Divinity need to be taken as being in the third person.

i.e. 'Nobody comes to the Father but through Me', which is a reference to Christ Consciousness.

'God is Love and Love is of God'.... 'Love is the fulfilling of the Law.'...

Christ Consciousness = Love consciousness :flower2:

I believe the only time an overshadowing is referenced is when the angel answered Mary's question of how it could be: Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

In the transfiguration verse there is no mention of the Holy Spirit:
Luke 9:29 And as he was praying, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became white and dazzling.

I beleive you are in error on this by the very verse you quoted.

 

[1robin]

Hold on here, are you saying that just because a few scholars (in your case, all Trinitarian) agree with you that it's a "Reasonable" and "scholarly" claim which you don't have to prove?

No, though the more than a few that actually do exist in reality would be a reasonable point. Mine however is the scholastic quality of the arguments that exist and I have posted that demonstrate what I claimed. Y

you don't have to prove the claim just because some scholars agree with you on the basis of retroactively imposing Trinitarian doctrine? Even then, you're left with Abraham worshiping the other two angels.

Do I have to prove calculus if I provide what Newton said about it? Abraham simply bowing at the waist when Christ and two angels appeared does not help your case in anyway at all.

And no, the other examples are Joshua and Moses worshiping Angels. It doesn't matter if that was my only example,

I only need one of Abraham worshiping at least two other angels.

What you have is not that. You have Abraham bowing to three beings one of whom I claim there is good reason to believe was Christ (The Lord, The spirit, of the Lord, God) many terms are used in the OT. That helps my case not yours. You got some verse for Moses and Joshua?

Now did I read you correctly that you said the only burden of proof is intellectual permissity? So that means I can believe Magical unicorns bring candy canes into my room each night because the KJV says there are Unicorns, and Unicorns likely have magical powers?

No since that claim would have empirical evidence of being false it would not be intellectually permissible. Intellectual permissibility is a long way of saying reasonable.

So therefore, it's possible that they come into my room each night, teleporting themselves through my window, to drop off candy canes that magically form off their hair. Quite permissible, no?

Things that are possible is not the criteria for reasonable.

Homage paid GOES with the bending over. What's absurd is that you think I'm disconnecting the two. What's also absurd is your attempt to say that somehow Jesus received MORE homage than the Angels would have gotten, or an equal homage that God received.

I am saying that whatever homage Christ received can't be less than the most minimalist form of worship possible. Bending over. BTW I have heard worship defined by dozens of people including scholars and not one was even similar to simply bowing. I did not contest your definition because it makes no difference in this context even if false.

So I guess all I have to do is say that since the text says it was Three Angels, that means that it wasn't God, because nowhere does it say God ever comes in the form of an Angel. Thus, my burden of proof to disprove your negative is accomplished in your own logic.

That is funny. Here is the text.

18 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the large trees of Mamre. Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent. It was the hottest time of the day.
2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. He quickly left the entrance to his tent to meet them. He bowed low to the ground.
3 He said, “My lord, if you are pleased with me, don’t pass me by. 4 Let a little water be brought. All of you can wash your feet and rest under this tree.
Genesis 18 NIRV - Three Men Visit Abraham - The LORD - Bible Gateway
You are welcome to prove that translation is wrong but as it appears there what I said is in it and what you said is not.

Your argument that I have to prove that "The worship Christ received was nothing" is completely ridiculous and downright honest. You're the one who said that Christ received worship greater than that received of the Angels.

Where did I claim that? I said Christ (but it was Paul who wrote the words) said do not worship angels. NTW I think you meant dishonest (not honest). You may call me wrong as you wish but do not accuse me of lying if you wish to continue.

After all, the KJV says there are Unicorns, so how do you know these unicorns aren't magically showing up into my room each night dropping off candy canes?

The term unicorn has been interpreted many ways and none are of something that can visit with you. I however have no idea what that has to do with anything.

Quite simply, Jesus was bowed to. That's all it says. He was bowed and respected. Just like the angels.

You first must show that angels and angels alone were worshiped.

You're basically asking me to disprove a negative. Learn how debate works please.

It is not my fault if you must prove a negative to confirm your claims. Atheists do the same everyday but they do not complain about it.

I also see you bring up John 20:28, according to early Dark Age Trinitarian commentators, that was an expression of astonishment, not a statement calling Jesus Lord and God, it was the ancient equivalent of OMG (which is not really a sin to say), and since it's a "Scholarly and reasonable claim", I guess I don't have to back up those dark age commentators. Not only that, but where does it say that Thomas worshiped him when he said this? Yeah, that's right.

What? You are saying that dark age Trinitarians interpreted that verse in a way that does not help trinitariansim. I have never heard a non Muslim make that OMG argument but no matter who uses it , it is without doubt the worst argument I have ever heard used to obscure simple scripture in the long sad record of bad arguments. There are entire web sites that tear that limb from limb. IMO it does not rise to the level of justifying reply. I can't believe you used it. I disagree with you most times but have always thought your were competent. That argument isn't.

So therefore, if there are scholars who agree with me that this idea is nonsense, I don't have to prove mine either?

You may use this as I did. To prove the argument is scholastically valid and the result of Trinitarian conspiracy theories and I would agree with that even if I agreed with the argument its self.

 

[1robin]

Aside from historical documents and textual analysis of early manuscripts, we have recent archeological data from Israel that disputes claims of early Jewish writers about the history of Judah and Israel, particularly with respect to David and his son Solomon. Rather than making legal arguments (Simon Greenleaf) we have science. I prefer archeology to law, it is what you call "raw data." See The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. It's an excellent account of how Bible authors exaggerated stories, embellished myths, and otherwise distorted history for their own agenda.

I think you will find what I posted to apply perfect within the context of the claim it was a response to. I use many different lines of investigation concerning Biblical reliability and archeology is certainly one. However I do not say it exists to prove the Bible so you are wrong. I give specifics. History is full of the consensus adopted by archeologist's against the Bible turning out to be embarrassments (the Midianites is a prime example). I recently gave a whole posts of examples of where the Bible was right and archeology was wrong. If you POST specific examples we can discuss them.

As for the New Testament, there is a huge gap of knowledge between the death of Jesus and earliest writers.

Depends. Paul's writings go back very very close to the events and the Gospel writers tell of very early documents. However none of this is a problem if God exists. The same Gospels record that the Holy Spirit came to them specifically to remind them of events. If you can prove the Holy Sprit which billions claim (as I do) to have experienced does not exist then you have a case.

If you research the resurrection, you will find no historical documents for the event.

You mean in addition to the four we have?

So, to be a believer, you must have faith that gospel writers were honest men on a quest for truth. However, real truth depends on checks and balances, not self-proclaimed testimonies, or legal presentations.

The modern methods used to determine that very thing are what Greenleaf used. In fact he wrote textbooks on those very techniques. I do not agree that they are not binding and applicable.

I believe Archeology is as close as you can get to raw truth.

In what way does that help you?

Ehrman did textual analysis, which is close to truth about original manuscripts. However, there is considerable evidence of fuzzy NT manuscripts. Did you know that we do not even know the real names of gospel authors? Apparently, church leaders gave gospel authors names after they decided to adopt them. Also, manuscript copies of the gospels have been found to be inaccurate based on mistakes and revisions in support of particular agendas.

I use Ehrman's numbers to avoid contention. Even he states that less than 5% meaningful textual error exists in the Gospels. I have transcripts of his debates with White and can demonstrate that if you wish but it will take a bit (forgot where they are). In general NT theologians suggest 99.5% textual accuracy and good critiques are around 95%. I would stick to archeology, textual accuracy is easy to prove. For example the Gallic wars is taught as reliable fact in colleges all over the world. The gap between original and extant is 950 years. The Bible is between 10 and 250. No other work of any type is even remotely close to being as textually accurate as the Bible in any category.

Based on what has been "uncovered" about the Old Testament, you would expect the same long list or historical mistakes, or intentional distortions in the NT. The quest goes on! :shout:sorry1: In Greece, Diogenes with his lamp went from village to village looking for an honest man.

I deny that any meaningful historical inaccuracies exist for even the OT and your simply claiming they do won't affect that. Bring them on, but stick to recorded history. Pre-history is simply a hazy mess.

 

[Shermana]

No, though the more than a few that actually do exist in reality would be a reasonable point. Mine however is the scholastic quality of the arguments that exist and I have posted that demonstrate what I claimed.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that because the non-Trinitarian scholars are in the minority that it's not reasonable to use their arguments?

Do I have to prove calculus if I provide what Newton said about it? Abraham simply bowing at the waist when Christ and two angels appeared does not help your case in anyway at all.

Not only do I not understand what you're trying to say, it seems you're using circular presumption to base your point. What does Abraham bowing at the waist have anything to do with it? Where does it say he only bowed at the waist? At this point I don't even think you're close to the rails. Is this a 1robin attempt to try to create some context out of the text by reading into it what's simply not there? Doesn't work like that.

What you have is not that. You have Abraham bowing to three beings one of whom I claim there is good reason to believe was Christ (The Lord, The spirit, of the Lord, God) many terms are used in the OT. That helps my case not yours. You got some verse for Moses and Joshua?

It specifically says that he bowed to the Angels. It says The LORD Appeared to Him. It also says 3 Angels appeared to Him. Taking the leap to assume those 3 beings, or one of them was the LORD and saying I have to disprove it wasn't, is what you're doing.

Joshua 5:14

World English Bible
He said, "No; but I have come now as commander of Yahweh's army." Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?"

Now at best, you may try to say that "worshiped" does not imply worshiping the Angel, but the word "And" likely means that he worshiped AND spoke to the Angel.

No since that claim would have empirical evidence of being false it would not be intellectually permissible. Intellectual permissibility is a long way of saying reasonable.

You're trying to talk about empirical evidence here? I have empirical evidence by the same standard that you reading something into the text that's plainly not there is wrong.

Things that are possible is not the criteria for reasonable.

Ah, now it's about what's "reasonable". I guess we all have our idea of what's "reasonable". Believing God manifests as "3 persons" must totally be reasonable. Right.

I am saying that whatever homage Christ received can't be less than the most minimalist form of worship possible

.

Okay, so what would be a form of worship that's not so "minimal"? I've asked you more than twice I believe to explain what exactly constitutes, especially in textual terms, what this "Greater", "more profound" worship entails.

Bending over. BTW I have heard worship defined by dozens of people including scholars and not one was even similar to simply bowing. I did not contest your definition because it makes no difference in this context even if false.

No difference? Any scholar who tells you that worship does not involve bowing or kneeling should be consigned to the list of frauds that should be tarnished as abject liars and dishonest . I don't care if "Dozens of people" have defined the HEBREW word for worship as anything but bowing down. If they are defining it in anything other than the Hebrew and Greek, they're not honestly defining what the text means. The word "Worship" in English has taken on a new meaning since it's original use in the 16th century, where it meant "One worthy of being kneeled to". I asked you to go to the Judaism DIR and ask what "worship" means. I'm guessing you're not going to do that. The word means to bow down. That's it. Anyone who says anything differently, let them be ostracized as a complete fraud.

That is funny. Here is the text.

Umm, what's the problem? What's so funny? Many translations use "Bowed low to the ground" perhaps as a way of getting around this pesky problem of the word "Worship". The mere fact that it's the same word for "worship", translated as "bowed down" should be all you need. What else do you think the word "worship" actually means? Many words have different English translations for them. The fact remains, Shakaw refers to physical prostration and that's 100% proof right there. Do you think they have to use the English word "worship" in the translation to count as being the same thing? In what way do you think the Hebrew would mean a different context than how "worship" is used elsewhere?

How about when it directly says that the people worshiped King David?

Strong's Hebrew: 7812. ?????? (shachah) -- to bow down

By all means, show me a single example from that list of where you can find a unique case where "Worship" does not mean to bow down.

Here's a great example showing the trickery possibly involved with translations that switch "worship" with "Bow down".

1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king.

NIV

So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king.

vs.

Young's Literal Translation
And David saith to all the assembly, 'Bless, I pray you, Jehovah your God;' and all the assembly bless Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bow and do obeisance to Jehovah, and to the king.

Uh oh, here comes the KJV

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king

What's that? King David got "worshiped"? Hmmm..

There's a reason most other (Trinitarian) translations wanted to avoid the KJV example there....it exposes a problem with their Theological use of the word "Worship".

You are welcome to prove that translation is wrong but as it appears there what I said is in it and what you said is not.

It appears you simply don't know how to use a Concordance, or understand how equivalent translations work. It also appears I offered you twice to go to the Judaism DIR and get their opinion on that. Let me know when you want do to that.

Where did I claim that? I said Christ (but it was Paul who wrote the words) said do not worship angels. NTW I think you meant dishonest (not honest). You may call me wrong as you wish but do not accuse me of lying if you wish to continue.

Are you forgetting what you said? You said I have to prove that the worship Christ received was somehow different.

The term unicorn has been interpreted many ways and none are of something that can visit with you. I however have no idea what that has to do with anything.

Oh really? Now you know that Unicorns are not something that can visit me? By all means, prove to me that Unicorns are not magical creatures that can teleport and leave me candy canes, especially with the powers of their horns.

You asked me to prove a negative. That's what it has to do with anything. Rather than take the plain reading of the text.

You first must show that angels and angels alone were worshiped.

I've plainly demonstrated that angels were worshiped. You simply won't accept the direct interpretation and you want to redefine what "worship" means as if it doesn't mean "To bow down to".

It is not my fault if you must prove a negative to confirm your claims. Atheists do the same everyday but they do not complain about it.

Ummm, yes, you're the one insisting on something and then putting the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim that's unprovable. What do you mean Atheists do the same everyday? You're the one saying "Prove that it wasn't God in the form of 3 Angels or God and 2 Angels". Then when I ask you to prove it, you say "Oh these scholars have said so (without stating any real reason other than placing their opinion which is a defense of Trinitarian doctrine) and then said it's "reasonable". That's not how proof works.

What? You are saying that dark age Trinitarians interpreted that verse in a way that does not help trinitariansim.

That's correct. Many Trinitarians had interpretations of oft-abused verses that were not useful Trinitarian doctrine. Such as Colossians 2:8. Shocker, isn't it.

I have never heard a non Muslim make that OMG argument but no matter who uses it , it is without doubt the worst argument I have ever heard used to obscure simple scripture in the long sad record of bad arguments. There are entire web sites that tear that limb from limb. IMO it does not rise to the level of justifying reply. I can't believe you used it. I disagree with you most times but have always thought your were competent. That argument isn't.

Okay, so how exactly did you disprove what I said there? Do I get to just dismiss whatever you say as an incompetent argument? There are entire websites that tear this limb from limb? Let's see them. Let's see what they have to say other than saying its a sin to use OMG.

Perhaps I should also get into how the ending of John totally clashes with the ending of Matthew and Luke and may in fact be an interpolation as well.......

You may use this as I did. To prove the argument is scholastically valid and the result of Trinitarian conspiracy theories and I would agree with that even if I agreed with the argument its self

In a rush to finish your sentence there?

Anyone who denies Trinitarian conspiracy theories is plain out dishonest, misinformed, uneducated, or in militant denial of basic history. Heard of 1 John 5:7? How'd that get in there? Accident?

 

[1robin]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that because the non-Trinitarian scholars are in the minority that it's not reasonable to use their arguments?

This post is exponentially growing. No, you are confusing things badly here. You said that the claim that the Lord is one of the three MEN Abraham bowed to was the result of Trinitarian conspiracy. My point was that as long as the argument made is logical, reasonable, and scholarly that you can't know that it is not true, much less that it is the result of some dang conspiracy. I think I hate all conspiracy claims though I imagine a few are true.

Not only do I not understand what you're trying to say, it seems you're using circular presumption to base your point. What does Abraham bowing at the waist have anything to do with it? Where does it say he only bowed at the waist? At this point I don't even think you're close to the rails. Is this a 1robin attempt to try to create some context out of the text by reading into it what's simply not there? Doesn't work like that.

Where he bowed from means nothing to me. That was a figure of speech. Take it out if you wish I have no attachment to where he bowed from though that is the most common assumption. That is your attempt the extract meaning and relevance for something I never intended it to have nor could have guessed anyone would have. I do not care or claim to know where he bowed from and it makes no the slightest difference.

It specifically says that he bowed to the Angels. It says The LORD Appeared to Him. It also says 3 Angels appeared to Him. Taking the leap to assume those 3 beings, or one of them was the LORD and saying I have to disprove it wasn't, is what you're doing.

Not in the verse that I posted. What interpretation or version are you using?

Joshua 5:14

World English Bible
He said, "No; but I have come now as commander of Yahweh's army." Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?"

This would be much more help to your case if the word Lord did not appear yet again. If the word Lord is applied to the being in question by what standard under heaven is Lord equivalent to mere angel. If You go to this site you will find exhaustive research that confirms that the argument against this not being a mere angel is very very well founded. Since the only being is called Lord I simply must say you are wrong. Not that I have a good case, nor that Christian's believe this or that, but that by any plain reading that is no mere angel. Is the Hebrew different. That is the only hope for your position on this verse.
Joshua 5:14 "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord have for his servant?" You will all the common interpretations there going back to maimonides.

It says Lord in every single major English translation I can find (over 20).

Now at best, you may try to say that "worshiped" does not imply worshiping the Angel, but the word "And" likely means that he worshiped AND spoke to the Angel.

I do not need to equivocate on that. Do you also notice that it says be bowed (face to Earth) and that he worshipped. If worship meant bow then why are they saying he bowed with face to earth and bowed. That makes no sense. This verse seems to indicate prostration and worship are distinct concepts.

You're trying to talk about empirical evidence here? I have empirical evidence by the same standard that you reading something into the text that's plainly not there is wrong.

You totally missed what I said but in the interest of space let's drop that one. It apparently would take a while to get you to understand.

Ah, now it's about what's "reasonable". I guess we all have our idea of what's "reasonable". Believing God manifests as "3 persons" must totally be reasonable. Right.

Some things that indicate reasonability.

1. Logical possibility as you stated.
2. No proof that the claim is not true. That is where your unicorns would loose out.
3. Agreement by a significant amount of competent authority. A few respected experts. Who provided rational if not proven arguments.

My claim has all 3 your unicorns have 1 at best.

Okay, so what would be a form of worship that's not so "minimal"? I've asked you more than twice I believe to explain what exactly constitutes, especially in textual terms, what this "Greater", "more profound" worship entails.

Actually you have found it your self though that doe snot help your argument. Bowing down plus as Joshua 5:14 suggest additional if not completely independent worship (no matter what that is it would still be greater than bowing alone). Your bigger problem is going to be why Lord is showing up in every verse you claim and angel is worshipped. I will explain why later in detail.

No difference? Any scholar who tells you that worship does not involve bowing or kneeling should be consigned to the list of frauds that should be tarnished as abject liars and dishonest

Now that is abjectly absurd and intellectually invalid. You do not have the slightest capacity to demand this. I hate when people destroy the credibility I had credited them with by claiming to know what they can't possibly know.

I don't care if "Dozens of people" have defined the HEBREW word for worship as anything but bowing down. If they are defining it in anything other than the Hebrew and Greek, they're not honestly defining what the text means. The word "Worship" in English has taken on a new meaning since it's original use in the 16th century, where it meant "One worthy of being kneeled to". I asked you to go to the Judaism DIR and ask what "worship" means. I'm guessing you're not going to do that. The word means to bow down. That's it. Anyone who says anything differently, let them be ostracized as a complete fraud.

Apparently whatever Shermana wants to be true is enough to judge the world. Where is that verse at?

Continued below: Shorten this dang thing.

 

[1robin]

Umm, what's the problem? What's so funny? Many translations use "Bowed low to the ground" perhaps as a way of getting around this pesky problem of the word "Worship". The mere fact that it's the same word for "worship", translated as "bowed down" should be all you need. What else do you think the word "worship" actually means? Many words have different English translations for them. The fact remains, Shakaw refers to physical prostration and that's 100% proof right there. Do you think they have to use the English word "worship" in the translation to count as being the same thing? In what way do you think the Hebrew would mean a different context than how "worship" is used elsewhere?

Worship has nothing to do with as the fact I bolded the funny parts to indicate what was. You said it says angels (it said men). You said it says angels but one is called Lord. If a verse assigns the very different term Lord instead of angel to a being then who side is being conspiratorial? BTW insisting anyone who disagree with your take on worship is a fraud is very conspiratorial (that is conspiracy). Whether Abraham bowed or not was never challenged by me.

How about when it directly says that the people worshiped King David?

Unless God said that was ok then since I think neither me or you think so it would be irrelevant. I do not contend the fact that people worshiped rocks, statues, places, people, and even probably animals. The issue is was that acceptable to God.

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7812.htm

Strong's Hebrew: 7812. ?????? (shachah) -- to bow down

By all means, show me a single example from that list of where you can find a unique case where "Worship" does not mean to bow down.

I already have or should say you have. Joshua both prostrated and then worshiped.

Here's a great example showing the trickery possibly involved with translations that switch "worship" with "Bow down".

1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king.

Where is the trickery. I have not seen any need to distinguish between bowing down but when you keep posting verses that do I can't help it. It lists bowing down as a component of worship. I do not see how that verse demonstrates that worship is only bowing. I would agree that bowing is probably the most recognizable constituent of worship but would praise or hymns to his greatness not also be components of praise? I however have not been contending your definition.

NIV

So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king.

vs.

Young's Literal Translation
And David saith to all the assembly, 'Bless, I pray you, Jehovah your God;' and all the assembly bless Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bow and do obeisance to Jehovah, and to the king.

Uh oh, here comes the KJV

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king

The KJV is well known to contain many errors. I do not use it nor do I defend it. I do not understand what pointing out a translations errors does in this context. I have never claimed that intentional changes have not occurred to produce desired effects. I have said you can't blame everything on them and that my argument showed no signs of it. Yes intentional changes have occurred in both our texts, no it has no effect on what we have discussed (or at least you have not demonstrated any reason to think that it has).

What's that? King David got "worshiped"? Hmmm..

There's a reason most other (Trinitarian) translations wanted to avoid the KJV example there....it exposes a problem with their Theological use of the word "Worship".

I am lost here. Are you saying the KJV is non-Trinitarian? Or that worshiping humans is ok with God? That all non-KJV versions are corrupt? or what?

It appears you simply don't know how to use a Concordance, or understand how equivalent translations work. It also appears I offered you twice to go to the Judaism DIR and get their opinion on that. Let me know when you want do to that.

I have saved links to look up Hebrew and Greek in minutes and do so regularly. However when debating a Jewish person it is more fun to get them to deal with translating Hebrew, unless I am mistaken about you being Jewish, what's the problem.

Are you forgetting what you said? You said I have to prove that the worship Christ received was somehow different.

Actually since the word Lord keeps appearing in your verses I do not think this necessary any longer. Got any more versus. Your 0 and 2 so far.

Oh really? Now you know that Unicorns are not something that can visit me? By all means, prove to me that Unicorns are not magical creatures that can teleport and leave me candy canes, especially with the powers of their horns.

I am saying that it can be tested and would probably reveal your claim silly and unreasonable. That is not true of what I claimed.

I've plainly demonstrated that angels were worshiped. You simply won't accept the direct interpretation and you want to redefine what "worship" means as if it doesn't mean "To bow down to".

You find an angel that does not appear with the Lord or is the Lord and is worshiped and you might have a point at that time.

Ummm, yes, you're the one insisting on something and then putting the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim that's unprovable. What do you mean Atheists do the same everyday? You're the one saying "Prove that it wasn't God in the form of 3 Angels or God and 2 Angels". Then when I ask you to prove it, you say "Oh these scholars have said so (without stating any real reason other than placing their opinion which is a defense of Trinitarian doctrine) and then said it's "reasonable". That's not how proof works.

My use of reasonable and proof have nothing to do with each other in any of my claims. You just do not get it. I hope the above helped you do so.

That's correct. Many Trinitarians had interpretations of oft-abused verses that were not useful Trinitarian doctrine. Such as Colossians 2:8. Shocker, isn't it.

Let's say I agree with everything you said here and before on this. Of what use is that in this debate? I made no claim that all types of people (including Trinitarians) never changed anything and are perfectly smart. I said if you claim they did then it is your burden to prove it.

Okay, so how exactly did you disprove what I said there? Do I get to just dismiss whatever you say as an incompetent argument? There are entire websites that tear this limb from limb? Let's see them. Let's see what they have to say other than saying its a sin to use OMG

I do not have to. You made a claim to absolute knowledge in the interpretation of that verse. It is your burden. If it was not then why do I have to disprove an opinion? You can have that opinion if you wish but it would embarrass me. I was very careful to throw in IMO for my claims so I have no burdens here at all.

Perhaps I should also get into how the ending of John totally clashes with the ending of Matthew and Luke and may in fact be an interpolation as well.......

I agree that several changes exist in the NT and would have to examine each one independently. There however is far more than enough that is free from any potential of changes to conclude Christ's character from.

In a rush to finish your sentence there?

My fingers are killing me. You are one of half a dozen people I am debating and you are far les prolific than most.

Anyone who denies Trinitarian conspiracy theories is plain out dishonest, misinformed, uneducated, or in militant denial of basic history. Heard of 1 John 5:7? How'd that get in there? Accident?

One more occurrence of you indicating I am lying and I am done. I do not care half enough about what you think to bother lying. I never said what you claimed anyway so if anyone has lied it is not me.

 

[Shermana]

Worship has nothing to do with as the fact I bolded the funny parts to indicate what was. You said it says angels (it said men). You said it says angels but one is called Lord. If a verse assigns the very different term Lord instead of angel to a being then who side is being conspiratorial? BTW insisting anyone who disagree with your take on worship is a fraud is very conspiratorial (that is conspiracy). Whether Abraham bowed or not was never challenged by me.

Has nothing to do with it? 1 Robin you're so far off base it's not even funny. I'm talking to someone who refuses to acknowledge basic things like what the concordances reveal. You won't even go to the Judaism DIR as I told you. It's clear as day that the bowing was the worshiping. It's the same word. There's no reason to believe that the LORD who was present, was those 3 persons themselves. It's a matter of you interpreting vs my interpreting, insisting yours is right, asking me to disprove a negative for something that's not in the text, and so on. There's no precedent for it in any Jewish theology or Midrash, yet I'm the one who has to prove it's not true? Call me a conspiracy theorists. Those who say that worship does not involve bowing down alone are frauds. Want to make a poll about it? If your argument is to simply call me Conspiracy Theorists as if that disproves me, let's just agree to disagree.

Unless God said that was ok then since I think neither me or you think so it would be irrelevant. I do not contend the fact that people worshiped rocks, statues, places, people, and even probably animals. The issue is was that acceptable to God.

So now God has to specifically say it was okay to bow down to/worship Angels? Wow, your goalposts are quite well greased I see.

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7812.htm I already have or should say you have. Joshua both prostrated and then worshiped.

How do you in any way derive from the text itself that Joshua prostrated and then worshiped? I'm arguing with someone who thinks he can read whatever he wants into the text. Let's just agree to disagree.

Where is the trickery. I have not seen any need to distinguish between bowing down but when you keep posting verses that do I can't help it. It lists bowing down as a component of worship. I do not see how that verse demonstrates that worship is only bowing. I would agree that bowing is probably the most recognizable constituent of worship but would praise or hymns to his greatness not also be components of praise? I however have not been contending your definition.

How does it list bowing down as a "Component" of worship exactly? Bowing down IS the worship!!! What else does "Worship" entail? I've asked you several times to explain what exactly worship means, but you have refused each time. Praise and singing hymns is not "worship". Completely different concepts. Why do you keep refusing to go to the Judaism DIR to ask them, about this?

The KJV is well known to contain many errors. I do not use it nor do I defend it. I do not understand what pointing out a translations errors does in this context. I have never claimed that intentional changes have not occurred to produce desired effects. I have said you can't blame everything on them and that my argument showed no signs of it. Yes intentional changes have occurred in both our texts, no it has no effect on what we have discussed (or at least you have not demonstrated any reason to think that it has).

So now when I show that the KJV used that particular translation, we simply write if off as having errors. Okay, guess what, all the other versions have errors too. Seriously, this is ridiculous.

I am lost here. Are you saying the KJV is non-Trinitarian? Or that worshiping humans is ok with God? That all non-KJV versions are corrupt? or what?

This is getting even MORE ridiculous. Where did I say it wasn't Trinitarian? Yes, worshiping Humans is okay with God. He obviously didn't have a problem with David being "worshiped". And yes, all non-KJV versions are just as corrupt as the KJV. In this particular verse, the KJV is right. There are many cases where the KJV, and the Douay Rheims are the only ones to get it right and the other orthodox versions deliberately twist and distort, like with Mark 7:14, but that's another story.

I have saved links to look up Hebrew and Greek in minutes and do so regularly. However when debating a Jewish person it is more fun to get them to deal with translating Hebrew, unless I am mistaken about you being Jewish, what's the problem.

Yet you consistently refuse to go to the Judaism DIR to ask them about the Hebrew for Shakaw.

Actually since the word Lord keeps appearing in your verses I do not think this necessary any longer. Got any more versus. Your 0 and 2 so far.

No, you are 0 for 2. The LORD appearing in the verses doesn't render me wrong.

I am saying that it can be tested and would probably reveal your claim silly and unreasonable. That is not true of what I claimed.

Oh it can be tested now? You can test that there are NOT magical unicorns who drop candy in my room and change into leprachauns, and that you can test that Christ was worshiped differently?

You find an angel that does not appear with the Lord or is the Lord and is worshiped and you might have a point at that time.

I already did, with Joshua. It says he worshiped and Spoke to him. You somehow changed it to something else like he bowed down THEN worshiped, without any reason to do so other than it conveniently fitting your view.

My use of reasonable and proof have nothing to do with each other in any of my claims. You just do not get it. I hope the above helped you do so.

No 1Robin, YOU do not get it. You don't get to rewrite the grammar and read into the text what's not there, and then declare what's reasonable. I've had enough of this!

Let's say I agree with everything you said here and before on this. Of what use is that in this debate? I made no claim that all types of people (including Trinitarians) never changed anything and are perfectly smart. I said if you claim they did then it is your burden to prove it.

And you have failed each time to prove your claims, and then asked me to disprove your claims for you in terms that you won't even accept, even when I give you proof of the grammar, you twist and change it!! You have refused to even get our resident Jewish knowledgeable people on the Judaism DIR. You are clearly afraid that what I say is the facts, and that your 'scholars" really don't have any solid reason for pushing their opinion there.

I do not have to. You made a claim to absolute knowledge in the interpretation of that verse. It is your burden. If it was not then why do I have to disprove an opinion? You can have that opinion if you wish but it would embarrass me. I was very careful to throw in IMO for my claims so I have no burdens here at all.

I made a claim to absolute knowledge? But you have no burden of proof to your claim of knowing what the text says because you add IMO?

I agree that several changes exist in the NT and would have to examine each one independently. There however is far more than enough that is free from any potential of changes to conclude Christ's character from.

Edit: Not sure quite what you mean there.

My fingers are killing me. You are one of half a dozen people I am debating and you are far les prolific than most.

I've been trying to keep my post count down.

One more occurrence of you indicating I am lying and I am done. I do not care half enough about what you think to bother lying. I never said what you claimed anyway so if anyone has lied it is not me.

I'll accuse you again if I have to, you said I have to prove that the worship Christ received was somehow different. Which is what I asked YOU to prove. I'll go back to get your quote later if you keep insisting.

 

[1robin]

Shermana our post is so long it is prohibitive at this time. Try to catch up Monday. Sorry

 

[Shermana]

Shermana our post is so long it is prohibitive at this time. Try to catch up Monday. Sorry

How about a whole fresh thread on the subject of the Hebrew meaning of "worship" instead? That way it can be more than just asking the Judaism DIR.

 

[1robin]

How about a whole fresh thread on the subject of the Hebrew meaning of "worship" instead? That way it can be more than just asking the Judaism DIR.

You think bowing down would require a whole thread? Since I once gave a pathetic attempt to teach the meaning of worship at one and only one time, I will do what I rarely do and adopt another thread if you will create it and let me know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Matthew 24:36 "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the Angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows".

Seems Jesus is making an unambiguous distinction here, the angels and himself are revealed to lack the omniscience of God.

 

[jock motz]

Jesus said "The father is greater than me."
Being one in the same as God the Father does not mean you are God the Father.
This drop of ocean water I'm holding in my hand is one and the same with the ocean but this does not mean I am holding the entire ocean in my hand.
Jesus was and is part of God the Father, our one and only teacher. He is not God the Father in totality.

 

[nash8]

worship - definition of worship by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Doesn't say bowing in there anywhere. But bowing can be a form of worship, but it can also be a sign of respect that doesn't inherently entail worship. As when a martial arts student bows to his master. It doesn't mean he is worshipping his master, just showing respect.

But according to the strictly Hebrew "definition", sorry you lose Robin1.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_worship.html

 

[Muffled]

Matthew 24:36 "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the Angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows".

Seems Jesus is making an unambiguous distinction here, the angels and himself are revealed to lack the omniscience of God.

I believe you are correct in saying there is a distinction. The distinction is that Jesus is God in a body and the Fathe is God not in a body.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus said "The father is greater than me."
Being one in the same as God the Father does not mean you are God the Father.
This drop of ocean water I'm holding in my hand is one and the same with the ocean but this does not mean I am holding the entire ocean in my hand.
Jesus was and is part of God the Father, our one and only teacher. He is not God the Father in totality.

I believe God is one. He is not divided into parts. Therefore that which is in the body of Jesus is the same spirit as that which is not in the body. However if one were to forget that and perceive God as just being in the body of Jesus it would be erroneous since God is greater than that.

This simile doesn't work. An ocean is made of parts but God although diffuse is not divided into parts.

 

[Shermana]

I believe you are correct in saying there is a distinction. The distinction is that Jesus is God in a body and the Fathe is God not in a body.

Jesus still acquires "revelation" (something he didn't know earlier) even after his ressurection in Revelation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe you are correct in saying there is a distinction. The distinction is that Jesus is God in a body and the Fathe is God not in a body.

Fine and so you accept the distinction also covers the Father God being omniscient yet Jesus is not omniscient?

 

[1robin]

Matthew 24:36 "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the Angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows".

Seems Jesus is making an unambiguous distinction here, the angels and himself are revealed to lack the omniscience of God.

I believe this distinction was made concerning his relinquished capacity while on Earth. Many verses indicate that Christ voluntarily surrendered for the time on Earth much of his capacity so as to be a more applicable example to man.

 

[1robin]

worship - definition of worship by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Doesn't say bowing in there anywhere. But bowing can be a form of worship, but it can also be a sign of respect that doesn't inherently entail worship. As when a martial arts student bows to his master. It doesn't mean he is worshipping his master, just showing respect.

But according to the strictly Hebrew "definition", sorry you lose Robin1.

Hebrew Word Meanings

You need to get it straight what it is I am saying first nash rambler. It was Shermana not me that claimed bowing down is the definition of worship and me that claims that bowing down is a component or worship. Try and keep up.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe this distinction was made concerning his relinquished capacity while on Earth. Many verses indicate that Christ voluntarily surrendered for the time on Earth much of his capacity so as to be a more applicable example to man.

Sure, you may interpret that way, but my own interpretation is that when God incarnated in the human body known as Jesus, the intrinsic Divine transcendent timeless, omnipresent and omniscient nature can't be expressed fully in the finite physical domain of 3D time space reality.