• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

iam1me

Active Member
Again not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to qualify the degree of worship which Jesus received compared to other human beings. It is clearly not on the same level as human beings (worshiped by angels and humans, and all of creation). Why would Yahweh allow such a thing?

Jesus was exalted above everyone except God - of course the degree of worship is different. However, he is still explicitly beneath God. As for why he would allow it - because he earned it. It is part of his reward for all that he has done, faithful carrying out God's will in all matters - even unto death - and in the process, saving all of us.

Of course it did. It was Israel's clear rebellion and rejection that Yahweh was their ultimate King.

'The Lord said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. ' 1 Samuel 8:7

As that verse says - the issue was that they rejected God. It was not - as you asserted - because God was worried about the King being honored. In fact, subsequently to the Kingship being instated, the King is treated specially because he is God's anointed. This is why David wouldn't kill Saul - even though he clearly deserved it. Rather, if it were a bad thing for the Kings to be honored then God would have forbid it.

It was never Yahweh's intention to have a mediator between Himself and His people. However Yahweh does not have a problem with Jesus being the mediator. Yahweh is fine with Jesus claiming Kingship.

Mediators existed prior to the Kings. The Angels were mediators. Moses was a mediator. The prophets who would be replaced by Kings were mediators. Mediators are the result of sin, which separates us from God.

'These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." ' Revelation 17:14

The title Lord of lords and King of kings obviously belongs to Yahweh, so why would they refer this to Jesus?

Because, once more, Jesus has been given authority over all - except God himself.

Did Jesus not also establish the covenant between Himself and humans? (Something only God could do?)
'for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. ' Matthew 26:28

Man has always been involved in establishing the covenants. The covenants are an agreement between two parties - they are thus never established by God alone. Since Jesus mediates the New Covenant, he would obviously be involved in establishing it. In fact, it is because his blood was used to establish the Covenant that he is its mediator.

If you are saying that Yahweh calling Jesus 'Your God' reflects the forming of a covenant, whose point are you exactly proving? Mine or yours? Whenever God forms a covenant, He always makes a clear distinction between the two parties: I am God, you are people.

'Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. ' Exodus 6:7

However that that does not seem to be the case between Yahweh and Jesus, where Yahweh addresses Him as God and acknowledges His throne.

The passage with Moses and the Jewish people have nothing to do with forming a covenant. (Nor does it fit these under any of the covenants: Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic etc)

You seem to be confused. My comments to which you are immediately replying here had nothing to do with covenants. It had to do with the term "God"

You seem to be dodging the question, and you still haven't given me a solid argument of why worshiping two entities do not violate the monotheistic belief system. The arguments that I have been hearing is conveniently substituting the word 'worship' with 'obeisance' which the New Testament writers never intended; and justifying worship of Jesus as being the same as that of humans.

I'm not dodging the question at all. If anything, you are ignoring key details in my replies. For instance, it would appear you never watched that short video I supplied you - else you wouldn't be making the above comment. "Worship" and "Obeisance" are the same thing - the underlying Greek and Hebrew can be translated either way. It is the translators who have obfuscated this fact to create an imaginary line between the two - choosing to translate the term as "worship" when applied to God Almighty, and otherwise using "obeisance." The fact of the matter is that the term is applied in scripture to both man and to God. Moses, for instance, worships his father-in-law. This was a common practice. And there is nothing in scripture forbidding it - it is simply one way that cultures have traditionally used to show respect and honor to another.

The worship of Jesus is on a completely different scale (read Revelation). It is actually on the same level as that of Yahweh. The burden of proof is on you to show me that it is different. Humans/angels were never worshiped by all of creation like Jesus has. Only Yahweh deserves this position.


'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, ' Exodus 20:5

For simplicity sake, one could define God as:
1) An entity who has authority over all creation
2) An entity who lies outside boundaries of space and time

Jesus falls under both categories. What category would you add to say that Jesus is not God?

Jesus is on a different scale because - again - God exalted him above all excepting God himself, whom he is subject to. You like to keep ignoring this simple fact. The scriptures plainly and repeatedly declare that Jesus is not God, but is rather at the right hand thereof. A highly exalted position indeed - but still a step beneath God himself.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I am well aware of JW teachings and doctrines, so none of this offends me. I also know that the Watchtower teaches its members that everybody who disagree with them are mortal enemies who will be destroyed by Jehovah at the great battle of Armageddon, which is to come.

Oh my......you have obviously been visiting misinformation sights for your ammunition against JW's. Rather than being mortal enemies, we are sent to all people regardless of their religious background because of the fact that Jehovah wants none to be destroyed when he cleanses the world of all opposers of his incoming Kingdom in the hands of his appointed King. We are like Noah in very similar times. (Matthew 24:37-39) Noah preached to the people for the whole time he was building the ark.....as Jesus said, no one took any notice of Noah's message because it seemed like the ravings of a nutter and no one else was taking him seriously. They felt that there was safety in numbers.....since Jesus said that again those being saved are "few", it gives us pause to reflect.

Just ask yourself where you got that interpretation. Is that a conclusion you came to on your own, or something that was taught?

Ask yourself where your trinity doctrine came from? Is the pot calling the kettle black here?

Daniel was told to seal up his book of prophesy because none of it would be understood until "the time of the end"....and here we are.
God has revealed all to those who accepted the cleansing and refining, ridding themselves of the stain of false doctrines....the "weeds" foretold by Jesus. (Daniel 12:4; 9-10)

'I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, "Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God." ' Revelation 22:8-9

Inappropriate acts of worship or even reverence are rejected by angels who identify themselves as "fellow servants" of man. They are messengers of God like we are.....in the service of their God. Would we accept fellow believers bowing down to us?

Do you see the low threshold of what constitutes as worship in the Bible? Just bowing down to an angel counts as worship. The entity itself doesn't matter. You can worship a human being, idol, God whatever. Also note the following verse:

'And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, " and let all the angels of God worship Him ."' Hebrews 1:6

Now it becomes clear that Yahweh allowed for angels to worship Jesus.

Nonsense. Jesus is also a servant of his God....but as the unique son of the Most High, he rejects worship also, telling the devil that it is Jehovah alone that is to be worshipped. (Luke 4:5-8) What he accepts from the angels he commands is respect for the unique position of authority given him by their God.

The term 'firstborn' has been used as a Messianic reference which was clearly understood by the Jewish writers. It also says that 'firstborn' will be brought again into the world, which tells of his Second Coming (which I believe has not happened yet).

Agreed.

The words 'other' does not even appear in the Greek so how can he say it is implied in the Greek? How much is the organization paying this guy? Can we not hide behind degrees and use our own logic, seeing as we are both intelligent people? Please check out what the original Greek says for yourself.

BeDuhn explains the reasons why trinitarians have a problem with the word "other" and even if you leave it out, it does not alter the fact that Jesus is before ALL things.....but he is not before God because God created him as the "beginning" of his works. Trinitarians will continue to rail against any suggestion that Jesus isn't God. In that case it will have to be Jehovah himself who corrects them when the time for judgment arrives. Putting another God in Jehovah's place is a serious case of blasphemy. (Exodus 20:3) .

Of course it alters the meaning. It fits in perfectly with JW doctrine that says Jesus was the first created being, and all other things were created by him. If you leave out the word 'other', you are effectively making Jesus the sole Creator, which is only reserved for Yahweh.

Again...this is nonsense. It is clear from scripture that the pre-human Jesus is the agency "through" whom God created everything. If you dismiss this fact, you yourself make Jesus the the Creator. With any construction of significance built by man, who is credited with the building? The architect, or the construction company who follows his plans and specifications?

Read the verse again:
'"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." ' Revelation 22:12-13

Who is speaking? Yahweh? It cannot be, since the person in question is claiming to John that He is coming quickly. This is obviously Jesus referring to His second coming.

Just because the verse preceding Revelation 22:13 speaks of that “Alpha and Omega” as coming does not necessarily mean it refers to Christ Jesus, whose second coming is frequently mentioned. Revelation 1:8 shows Jehovah as coming, and so Revelation 22:12 may do likewise. He comes representatively, through Christ Jesus. Revelation 4:8 speaks of Jehovah as coming, and Revelation 21 shows his presence with humankind. “Look! the tent of God is with humankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” (Re 21 Vss. 3, 6, 7) This reference is certainly to Jehovah God, for he is God to the anointed body members of Christ and they are his spiritual sons.

I may be changing the meaning to suit my doctrine, but are you not doing the same thing? I take the meaning to be origin, whereas you take the meaning to be sequential.

We can believe whatever we like...that is just the point. God is observing to see what motivates our choices and what we will do when presented with the truth. It is very confronting to change your whole mindset, but the first Christians had to and we are no different in this time of the end. Christendom is a mirror image of Judaism.

Still not answering the question, read what the verse says:

'Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ' Genesis 1:26

Our image? Our likeness? That is surely plural.

Yes, "US" and "OUR" indicates that God was speaking to his firstborn son, whom he used in the creation of all things. But Jesus is not the Creator because he produced nothing. He used the raw materials, brought into existence by his Father to fashion all "other" things.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Yahweh is fine with Jesus claiming Kingship.

First off, he was given it.- Matthew 28:18.

And second, it's His son, His firstborn. That is special to any Father.

No wonder the earth quaked and the skies grew dark when His son was killed!

And yet, that's how much He "loved the world" (John 3:16) ....sending His firstborn as a ransom for us!

Those extreme feelings are taken away from the story, IMO, when trinitarians assert it was just God giving part of Himself.
 

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
Jesus was exalted above everyone except God - of course the degree of worship is different. However, he is still explicitly beneath God. As for why he would allow it - because he earned it. It is part of his reward for all that he has done, faithful carrying out God's will in all matters - even unto death - and in the process, saving all of us.



As that verse says - the issue was that they rejected God. It was not - as you asserted - because God was worried about the King being honored. In fact, subsequently to the Kingship being instated, the King is treated specially because he is God's anointed. This is why David wouldn't kill Saul - even though he clearly deserved it. Rather, if it were a bad thing for the Kings to be honored then God would have forbid it.



Mediators existed prior to the Kings. The Angels were mediators. Moses was a mediator. The prophets who would be replaced by Kings were mediators. Mediators are the result of sin, which separates us from God.



Because, once more, Jesus has been given authority over all - except God himself.



Man has always been involved in establishing the covenants. The covenants are an agreement between two parties - they are thus never established by God alone. Since Jesus mediates the New Covenant, he would obviously be involved in establishing it. In fact, it is because his blood was used to establish the Covenant that he is its mediator.



You seem to be confused. My comments to which you are immediately replying here had nothing to do with covenants. It had to do with the term "God"



I'm not dodging the question at all. If anything, you are ignoring key details in my replies. For instance, it would appear you never watched that short video I supplied you - else you wouldn't be making the above comment. "Worship" and "Obeisance" are the same thing - the underlying Greek and Hebrew can be translated either way. It is the translators who have obfuscated this fact to create an imaginary line between the two - choosing to translate the term as "worship" when applied to God Almighty, and otherwise using "obeisance." The fact of the matter is that the term is applied in scripture to both man and to God. Moses, for instance, worships his father-in-law. This was a common practice. And there is nothing in scripture forbidding it - it is simply one way that cultures have traditionally used to show respect and honor to another.



Jesus is on a different scale because - again - God exalted him above all excepting God himself, whom he is subject to. You like to keep ignoring this simple fact. The scriptures plainly and repeatedly declare that Jesus is not God, but is rather at the right hand thereof. A highly exalted position indeed - but still a step beneath God himself.

First off, I want to thank you for the highly engaging debate we had thus far. It is becoming clear to me that our differences in theology stems from how much we lean towards linguistics or context. I place context over linguistics, whereas you place linguistics over context. Both are important of course, it just depends how we balance the two out. This is going to be my closing remarks regarding this topic, so feel free to do the same :)

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. ' Genesis 1:1-3

There was God, there was the Spirit, and there was the 'Logos' (Word) through which God spoke everything into creation. God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it. He created us in His image, and called us mankind.

Then came the rebellion, the flood, the patriarchs, and then Moses. Moses was to be the mediator between God and His chosen people, the Israelites. Under the Mosaic covenant, they were bound to worship and serve Yahweh as their one and only God. He was going to dwell among them and be their God, a nation distinct from those around them, with no king, and no idols.

'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." ' Exodus 19:5-6

Then came the rebellion, the idolatry and the judges. Israel prostituted themselves to the Canaanite gods, the Asherah poles, the Baals, and they burnt their own children in the fire of Molek. They turned away from worshiping the only true God and were alluded to the shrine prostitutes and idol worship. God's wrath burned against them and he exacted judgement through His appointed judges. But they themselves were corrupt.

Then came Samuel, God's last judge. He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and kept his decrees. However the people pleaded with him to anoint a king, so that they would be like the other nations around them. They had rejected God's command, and now they were rejecting God's authority. However God respected their wishes, and granted them a king, even after He had told them of the consequences. First came Saul, then David, a man after his own heart, then came Solomon.

After Solomon, the country of Israel was divided. Northern Israel came under Jeroboam, whereas Southern Judah was under Rehoboam. Both countries continued in their sin of idolatry under successive kings who tolerated and permitted such practices, leading the Israelites into sin. God sent his prophets to warn them of the impending punishment, but they would not listen. They shed the blood of the prophets and continued to sacrifice their children. God's wrath poured out on them, and He allowed the surrounding pagan nations to destroy them. Northern Israel fell to the Assyrian Empire, and Southern Judah fell subsequently to the Babylonian Empire. During the time of exile, God revealed a word to the prophet Jeremiah:

'"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord , "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord . "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord , "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord ,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord , "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." ' Jeremiah 31:31-34

Then came a succession of power. After the Babylonians came the Persians, under which Israel's temple and walls were restored. Many of the exiled Israelites returned to Jerusalem. Then came the Macedonians, and thereafter the Roman Empire.

400 years passed without a single prophet or a word from God. Then came John the Baptist, baptizing people for repentance and proclaiming the coming of the Messiah, who was going to restore Israel to its former glory. The Logos, although it existed in the form of God since creation, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself and became flesh. He took on the nature of a servant, and preached the coming of a new covenant, where God would no longer dwell in the temple, but within our hearts. He submitted fully to the Father, and the fullness of the deity dwelled in him, granting him authority over all creation. He declared himself as Lord of the Sabbath, as one who could forgive sins, as the Son of God, and the Jews rejected him the basis of blasphemy. Like a lamb led to a slaughter, he did not open his mouth to the accusations. He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

He is now sitting at the right hand of God, as the Lamb who was slain, and He is coming back again. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. He is the Logos who is God, the one who has authority over all creation, and the one who deserves our highest praise and honor.

To the glory of God the Father.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
You have no understanding of the trinity at all, and I'm a Satanist. :D

it works like this

Son is God
Father is God
Holy spirit is God

But none of those are each other....

God is basically a composite of these based on Christian doctrine or encompasses all of them, but also exists independently... Best to say these other things are manifestations of the one.

I believe that is not the case. There are not separate entities that need to be composed into one. God is one. He is one in Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Yes :) He says that he and the Father are one, but one in what way?

Jesus also prays... "I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one." John 17:11

No on interprets this to mean that all believers are or should be one believer. Rather, it is clearly a call for unity in spirit and action.

I believe one as in not being two or more. Adding anything else to the One is blasphemy.

I believe those views are incorrect. Jesus prays for us to be one with Him and the Father because it is not a certainty that we will be even with the availability of the Holy Spirit.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Jesus is whatever we say he is, historical, mythical, God, not God, he is all these things or none of these, because none of what is said about Jesus should be taken seriously.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Our perspective on the matter do not matter as much as to what the original NT writers intended to say. If they wanted to address worship to Jesus as simply paying homage or obeisance they could have used another Greek word: ypakoí. Instead they decided to use the word: proskuneo, to address worship to Jesus, the same word which Jesus used when he said: "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'you shall worship (proskuneo) the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" ' Matthew 4:10

It is also important to mention that the New World Translation is very biased with its translation in this regard. Whenever proskuneo/prosekunhsan is used for Yahweh, it is translated as 'worship' (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20), but when proskuneo/prosekunhsan is used for Jesus it is translated as 'obeisance' (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6). I highly recommend switching to the NASB version as it is more consistent in its translation between Greek and English.

Please check the original Greek for yourself:
Matthew 1 Interlinear Bible
Why do you say
the New World Translation is very biased with its translation in this regard
From what you have been saying all along, I think you are trying to be reasonable, and I understand the perspective you are trying to project. So let us reason on it.

Do you agree that proskuneó (προσκυνέω) can be translated to mean go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship, to do reverence to, as I referenced here?

So when one is translating the text at Hebrews 1:6, can you give me one reason why the translator should use worship, instead of do obeisance to?

Philippians 2:10-11 says, every knee should bend. Can you give me one reason why you prefer that to mean worship?
 

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
From what you have been saying all along, I think you are trying to be reasonable, and I understand the perspective you are trying to project. So let us reason on it.

Do you agree that proskuneó (προσκυνέω) can be translated to mean go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship, to do reverence to, as I referenced here?

So when one is translating the text at Hebrews 1:6, can you give me one reason why the translator should use worship, instead of do obeisance to?

Philippians 2:10-11 says, every knee should bend. Can you give me one reason why you prefer that to mean worship?

The premise of my argument is not what constitutes worship. It has to do with consistent translation. It's fine if you translate proskuneo as worship or obeisance provided you are the author of the book. You know exactly the places where you intended to mean proskuneo as worship, and where proskuneo simply meant paying homage. However seeing as the translators are not the authors of the book, we cannot make such assumptions and translate the same word (proskuneo) as 'worship' in one instance, and 'obeisance' in the other. If you want to translate proskuneo as 'obeisance' make sure every proskuneo gets translated as 'obeisance' and vice versa. And note that the Greek word for obeisance is ypakoí, so if the NT authors wanted to say "obeisance to Jesus" they could have just wrote that. However they used the word proskuneo. That is why I prefer the NASB. They consistently use the same English word for the original Greek.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The premise of my argument is not what constitutes worship. It has to do with consistent translation. It's fine if you translate proskuneo as worship or obeisance provided you are the author of the book. You know exactly the places where you intended to mean proskuneo as worship, and where proskuneo simply meant paying homage. However seeing as the translators are not the authors of the book, we cannot make such assumptions and translate the same word (proskuneo) as 'worship' in one instance, and 'obeisance' in the other. If you want to translate proskuneo as 'obeisance' make sure every proskuneo gets translated as 'obeisance' and vice versa. And note that the Greek word for obeisance is ypakoí, so if the NT authors wanted to say "obeisance to Jesus" they could have just wrote that. However they used the word proskuneo. That is why I prefer the NASB. They consistently use the same English word for the original Greek.
I understand what you are saying, and this is precisely what the NWT tries to accomplish. (There is a lot more information, but I think it is too much to place on this page. i encourage you to read it.)

Obeisance in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Greek pro·sky·neʹo corresponds closely to the Hebrew hish·ta·chawahʹ as to conveying the thought of both obeisance to creatures and worship to God or a deity. The manner of expressing the obeisance is perhaps not so prominent in pro·sky·neʹo as in hish·ta·chawahʹ, where the Hebrew term graphically conveys the thought of prostration or bowing down. Scholars derive the Greek term from the verb ky·neʹo, “kiss.” The usage of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures (as also in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) shows that persons to whose actions the term is applied prostrated themselves or bowed down. - Mt 2:11; 18:26; 28:9.

As with the Hebrew term, the context must be considered to determine whether pro·sky·neʹo refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship. Where reference is directly to God (John 4:20-24; 1 Corinthians 14:25; Revelation 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Acts 7:43; Revelation 9:20), it is evident that the obeisance goes beyond that acceptably or customarily rendered to men and enters the field of worship. So, too, where the object of the obeisance is left unstated, its being directed to God is understood. (John 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Hebrews 11:21; Revelation 11:1) On the other hand, the action of those of “the synagogue of Satan” who are made to “come and do obeisance” before the feet of Christians is clearly not worship. - Revelation 3:9.

The translator has the obligation to produce a translation that is as accurate as possible, and easy to read and understand.

Consider for example, the translation you prefer.

Matthew 8:2
Matthew 8:2 Interlinear: and lo, a leper having come, was bowing to him, saying, 'Sir, if thou art willing, thou art able to cleanse me;'

...(proselthōn προσελθὼν) ,having come (prosekynei προσεκύνει)
worshiped
(autō αὐτῷ) ,him (legōn λέγων) ,saying (Kyrie Κύριε) ,
Lord...

Matthew 8:2-3 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 And a leper came to Him and [a]bowed down before Him, and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” 3 Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Footnotes:
  1. Matthew 8:2 Or worshiped

Matthew 9:18
Matthew 9:18 Interlinear: While he is speaking these things to them, lo, a ruler having come, was bowing to him, saying that 'My daughter just now died, but, having come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.'

(archōn ἄρχων) a ruler (heis εἷς) certain (elthōn ἐλθὼν** ) ,having come (prosekynei προσεκύνει) knelt down (autō αὐτῷ) ,to him (legōn λέγων) , saying

Matthew 9:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Miracles of Healing
18 While He was saying these things to them, [a]a synagogue official came and [c]bowed down before Him, and said, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.”

Footnotes:
  1. Matthew 9:18 Or one
  2. Matthew 9:18 Lit ruler
  3. Matthew 9:18 Or worshiped

Notice that Jesus used the expression in an illustration also.

Matthew 18:26
Matthew 18:26 Interlinear: The servant then, having fallen down, was bowing to him, saying, Sir, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all;

(doulos δοῦλος) servant (prosekynei προσεκύνει) fell on his knees (autō αὐτῷ) , to him (legōn λέγων) , saying

Matthew 18:26 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’

You notice there is no footnote, and they changed the word in this context. Why? Because it now is not to Jesus - the man, but to another man?
So how consistent is that?
 
Last edited:

iam1me

Active Member
First off, I want to thank you for the highly engaging debate we had thus far. It is becoming clear to me that our differences in theology stems from how much we lean towards linguistics or context. I place context over linguistics, whereas you place linguistics over context. Both are important of course, it just depends how we balance the two out. This is going to be my closing remarks regarding this topic, so feel free to do the same :)

I would disagree with that analysis - my argument stems from both linguistics and context. I pull in everything that scripture says on a topic. Your arguments, on the other hand, tend to center around isolated proof texts.

But all good things must come to an end. Thank you for the engaging and respectful debate. It is quite refreshing to find another Christian who is willing to actually study and debate these matter rather than throw a hissy fit and blindly call everything that doesn't match their own preconceived views as heresy. I hope our conversation was informative to you and that it will inspire you to do further research - even if only to figure out how to better defend the Trinity, like I once did ;) Speakijng from experience, it is not an easy thing to undo the indoctrination that these churches have infused into their congregants so that you may see what the scriptures actually say - but if you seek the truth, God promises you will find it.


Matthew 7:8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

John 4:23But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
 

iam1me

Active Member
I believe one as in not being two or more. Adding anything else to the One is blasphemy.

I believe those views are incorrect. Jesus prays for us to be one with Him and the Father because it is not a certainty that we will be even with the availability of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus prays that we be one as he and the Father are one. So what do you think it means when he calls for us to be one? In what manner are we believers one?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
@Thinking Homer can I ask you if you believe that the magi "worshipped" the child Jesus when they brought their gifts to him?
Using context and linguistics, was their bowing down to "the born King of the Jews" an act of worship?
 
Last edited:

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
the context must be considered to determine whether pro·sky·neʹo refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship.

I agree with this fact. But there needs to be clear boundaries of what a translator can do, and should not do. And translations shouldn't be biased towards a particular doctrine, but towards what the original author was trying to say.

The translator has the obligation to produce a translation that is as accurate as possible, and easy to read and understand.

Translations can be functionally equivalent or formally equivalent. It is more of a spectrum. Translations that lean more towards functionally equivalent generally try to make the translation easy to understand (e.g. New living translation) at the cost of accuracy. Formally equivalent translations focus more on accuracy (e.g. NASB) rather than it being easy to read. So in the NASB, if you have 7 Greek words, they will try to get the English version to also have 7 words, although it is not always possible.

Matthew 18:26 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’

You notice there is no footnote, and they changed the word in this context. Why? Because it now is not to Jesus - the man, but to another man?
So how consistent is that?

Yeah that was negligent of them. It should have been in the footnotes. I downloaded the silver sword NWT now, let's see what it says regarding these verses:
And look! a leper came up and did obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, if you just want to, you can make me clean.”
Matthew 8:2 - footnote says or "bowed down"


While he was telling them these things, look! a certain ruler who had approached did obeisance to him, saying: “By now my daughter must be dead, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will come to life.”
Matthew 9:18 - footnote says or "bowed down"


So the slave fell down and did obeisance to him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay back everything to you. Matthew 18:26 - footnote says or "bowed down"

Interesting how they leave out "worship" in all 3 instances. I think if you look at other translations, you will see that none of them translate proskyneo as obeisance. They usually use worship, bow down, prostrate because that is what it means.

I recommend you look over the verses below and tell me what you notice. You can compare the NWT with any other version.
  • Matthew 14:33
  • Matthew 28:9
  • Matthew 28:17
  • Luke 24:52
  • Hebrews 1:6
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I agree with this fact. But there needs to be clear boundaries of what a translator can do, and should not do. And translations shouldn't be biased towards a particular doctrine, but towards what the original author was trying to say.



Translations can be functionally equivalent or formally equivalent. It is more of a spectrum. Translations that lean more towards functionally equivalent generally try to make the translation easy to understand (e.g. New living translation) at the cost of accuracy. Formally equivalent translations focus more on accuracy (e.g. NASB) rather than it being easy to read. So in the NASB, if you have 7 Greek words, they will try to get the English version to also have 7 words, although it is not always possible.
Yes. That is why the producers of NWT sought to produce a translation that is as accurate as possible, and easy to read and understand. Both together. Not one or the other.
So you admit that the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is not consistent, and might have a bias leaning toward supporting a doctrine.
Unlike the NWT, which is consistent throughout.


Yeah that was negligent of them. It should have been in the footnotes. I downloaded the silver sword NWT now, let's see what it says regarding these verses:
And look! a leper came up and did obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, if you just want to, you can make me clean.”
Matthew 8:2 - footnote says or "bowed down"


While he was telling them these things, look! a certain ruler who had approached did obeisance to him, saying: “By now my daughter must be dead, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will come to life.”
Matthew 9:18 - footnote says or "bowed down"


So the slave fell down and did obeisance to him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay back everything to you. Matthew 18:26 - footnote says or "bowed down"

Interesting how they leave out "worship" in all 3 instances. I think if you look at other translations, you will see that none of them translate proskyneo as obeisance. They usually use worship, bow down, prostrate because that is what it means.

I recommend you look over the verses below and tell me what you notice. You can compare the NWT with any other version.
  • Matthew 14:33
  • Matthew 28:9
  • Matthew 28:17
  • Luke 24:52
  • Hebrews 1:6
Deliberate negligence then on the part of NASB?

The NWT uses "do obeisance" in all those verses - consistently, as I said.
Remember how I started.
Do you agree that proskuneó (προσκυνέω) can be translated to mean go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship, to do reverence to, as I referenced here?

If you agree, why do you think they should use worship instead, unless.... you are not being biased, are you?
Why do you prefer or insist they remove do obeisance to, and replace it with worship... What is your reason?
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic...

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:

If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent established by scripture with others who have been addressed as God.

Yet another reason to stop being in agreement with Shaul.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
May I ask, why do you hold that opinion?

Religion is a subjective exercise which is why we can only offer opinions as to what Christianity is, and it explains why opinions vary so much. It's like art, literary works of art, we can only offer opinions about what we are reading, anyways, that's my opinion, and I'm Walter Cronkite, telling it like it is.
 
Last edited:

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
Yes. That is why the producers of NWT sought to produce a translation that is as accurate as possible, and easy to read and understand. Both together. Not one or the other.
So you admit that the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is not consistent, and might have a bias leaning toward supporting a doctrine.
Unlike the NWT, which is consistent throughout.

Okay now read the following verses:
John 4:20
Revelation 5:14
Revelation 7:11
Revelation 11:16
Revelation 19:4

You are going to notice that all the words have been changed to 'worship' or 'worshiped' in the NWT. It seems whenever 'proskyneo' is applied to Jesus or other people it is translated as obeisance, and whenever this word is applied to Jehovah it is translated into 'worship'. You might not see a problem with that, but that is because you have gone in with the presupposition that worship only belongs to Jehovah.

It seems that you are applying a double standard to the NASB and the NWT. If are going to criticize one version very strictly, apply that same level of skepticism to the other, otherwise you are not being objective.

You might ask me, does worship not only belong to Jehovah? Again not the point I am trying to make. The role of the translators is not to interpret the context for us. Their role is trying to translate the text as accurately as possible, to the best of their ability from the original Greek. The interpretation then after lies with the reader.
 
Top