Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[iam1me]

In regards to the worship/obeisance debate: how do you guys define each? Is there a fundamental difference in meaning (though they are the same word in Greek/Hebrew)? Or is the difference purely a matter of emphasis?

 

[Deeje]

So Deeje to answer your question about the Magis 'worshiping' baby Jesus, we need to see what they thought of Jesus at the time.
'Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him." ' Matthew 2:1-2

Note that the magis thought of Jesus as the 'King of the Jews'. The Jewish people were well aware of the coming Messiah, but what they had in their minds was someone more like King David, a human being. Thus we can assume that the Magis simply thought of Jesus as a forthcoming King and not as a divine entity. The worship in this sense was simply paying homage, or giving respect, not the same degree of worship that Jehovah expects from us.

Ah...consensus! So you agree that "worship" is inappropriate in this context? The magi were giving "obeisance" to one born to be King of the Jews.

Just as a side note....it is interesting that the magi did not visit the newborn infant Jesus at the stable...but he was a young child (probably about 2 years of age) living in a house with his parents. How do we know this? Because the offering made by Mary and Joseph at the Temple after Jesus was born, (according to the Law) was the offering of the poor. Two small turtledoves. Had they been in possession of the gifts then a much more expensive offering would have been made by such a devout couple.

This scenario differs very much in the next passage:
'When they got into the boat, the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!" ' Matthew 14:32-33

The context here is that Jesus was walking on water, and he demonstrated to his disciples that even nature was under his authority. After seeing this, they worshiped him as God's Son. Now was this simply paying homage, or were they worshiping his divinity? The arguments I've been hearing for justifying Jesus' worship is his sacrifice on the cross, but note that this is before his crucifixion. And Jesus is not directing the worship back to God, which should have been a violation of the ten commandments.

The apostles were aware of Jesus 'power of holy spirit. For his first 30 years as Jesus the carpenter's son, there was nothing supernatural about his abilities.
Before his receiving the holy spirit at his baptism, Jesus was just Jesus the man.....sinless but 100% human and with no more supernatural abilities than his siblings. This is why they were late in coming to accept him as Messiah. He was just their older brother.

Jesus is not the first human to exhibit supernatural abilities. Moses possessed such by means of God's spirit too. He warned Pharaoh about the 10 plagues and participated in their execution.....he parted the Red Sea and produced water from desert rocks for hundreds of thousands of people in a dry wilderness. Yet the people did not worship Moses.....Elijah too performed miracles, but no one wanted to worship Elijah.
No Jew would have ever fallen down to worship any human because it was a violation of the first Commandment....so I don't see your argument as holding up here.

Also read the following passages in Revelation:
'Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." ' Revelation 5:11-12

I see the Lamb as worthy of power, riches, wisdom, might, honor, glory and blessing......but not worship.

'And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, " holy , holy , holy is the Lord God , the almighty , who was and who is and who is to come ." And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created." ' Revelation 4:8-11

Who is addressed in these verses? "The Lord God, the Almighty" is Jehovah. God is pictured sitting on a throne and 'the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne'. The 24 elders are rendering worship to God here.

'And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped. ' Revelation 5:13-14

So we know that this worship described in Revelation 5:13-14 was not only to Yahweh, but also to Jesus as well. This honor and glory and blessing is being attributed to both Jesus (Revelation 5:11-12) and Yahweh (Revelation 4:8-11).

I disagree. I see a clear distinction between the one sitting on the throne AND the Lamb. If you read Revelation 5 as a whole, the picture emerges more clearly than in just reading selected verses to prove a point.

The one sitting on the throne has a book with 7 seals and it was lamented that no one was found worthy to open the seals....but the Lamb who is identified as "the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah" (Jesus) would do the job.
Verses 5-6 say..."and one of the elders said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne."

Again there is blessing, glory, honor and dominion given to God and the Lamb.....but it is the one sitting on the throne who receives the worship from the elders.

The question is just how far must worship go to violate the commandment of "You shall only serve and worship the Lord?" We see that bowing down to angels is not acceptable in the Bible, nor is confessing divinity for another human being. Surely what we are seeing in Revelation is going past simple 'obeisance'. It is one thing to acknowledge someone's authority on Earth, it is another to have myriads of angels and elders giving you honor and glory.

That is a very easy question to answer if you lose the trinity concept. Only Jehovah is to receive worship...period.
Any who receive "obeisance" are in a position that elicits honor and respect....that is Jesus and any who are authorized by God in positions of power. God called human judges "gods" because of their divinely appointed authority. @iam1me has explained this well.

As Jesus said before his return to heaven...."All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18) Can we imagine that if Jesus is God, that he needs anyone to bestow 'authority' on him 'in heaven and on earth'? If you really read what the scriptures say, rather than what you think they say because of your trinitarian bias, then you might just be able to lift that veil that is blinding you to this simple truth...Jesus is the son of God. He is not, and never was God Almighty. Jesus has no authority except that which is "given" to him by his God and Father.

This is very clear to me, but not so clear to those who cling to this mistaken notion that Jesus has to be God. Can you tell me why he needs to be God in order to provide redemption for the fallen human race?

 

[Thinking Homer]

This is very clear to me, but not so clear to those who cling to this mistaken notion that Jesus has to be God. Can you tell me why he needs to be God in order to provide redemption for the fallen human race?

I think this is the underlying message of this debate. Why does Jesus have to be God? Because it makes the Gospel so much more meaningful if God Himself came down incarnate, to save us from our sins. Of course it was not the Father who came down, but the Son, who I believe formed part of this entity known as "God".

If Jesus was merely a created angel, and God decided to sacrifice him for our sins. Meh, what a meaningless exercise. God basically just "made" a scapegoat to bypass the dilemma which He was facing. Where is the justice?

So far the humanity of Jesus has been the main argument against the Trinity doctrine. But like I said, being subservient in purpose does not mean you are inferior in nature. The employer has more authority than the employee, but that does not change the fact that they are both human beings. I've quote this verse many times, but let me just put it here for reference:

'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 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. ' Philippians 2:5-11

How do I interpret this passage? Jesus Christ existed in the form of God and shared equality with Him, but he decided not to grasp it and emptied Himself, being made flesh as a human being. He was fully subservient to the Father and obeyed His every command even to the point of crucifixion. Therefore God restored Him to His rightful place, as the authority over all creation, so that all may bow down and confess His Lordship to the glory of God the Father.

This is what Jesus refers to when he says:
'I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. ' John 17:4-5

Again there is blessing, glory, honor and dominion given to God and the Lamb.....but it is the one sitting on the throne who receives the worship from the elders.

Where is Jesus in this picture? Sitting on the right hand of the throne correct? Where are the thousands of angles and elders situated? I imagine them to be surrounding the throne, bowing down and worshiping in the direction of Yahweh and Jesus. The Angels declared Jesus to be worthy, and the Elders declared Him to be worthy as well, so why would they not worship Him?

Please read the passage again:
'Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped. ' Revelation 5:11-14

You seem to be concerned that there is a distinction between God and the Lamb in the book of Revelation. But my interpretation is the the Lamb is God, and Jehovah is His God.

I think Hebrews 1 makes this quite clear:
'But of the Son He says, "your throne , o God , is forever and ever , and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom . " you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness ; therefore God , your God , has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions ." And, "you , Lord , in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth , and the heavens are the works of your hands ; they will perish , but you remain ; and they all will become old like a garment , and like a mantle you will roll them up ; like a garment they will also be changed . but you are the same , and your years will not come to an end ."' Hebrews 1:8-12

Note that the latter part in red is still referring to the Son. "But of the Son He says (a) And (b)."

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually Dagon is a false "god" who receives worship from people who think he should be worshiped as a god even though he is a figment of their imagination. Satan is a god, because he puts himself up there to be worshipped like Jehovah is worshipped.

I have explained several times the meaning of "theos" in the Greek. It literally means a "a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities" (according to Strongs) and Jesus qualifies as a divine god-like one....but he is not the Almighty. He has never once asked to be worshipped, and he directs all worship, honor and glory to his Father.

There is the one God, Yahweh (Jehovah) and one only-begotten "god" who is Jesus Christ. (John 1:18) But I have never seen the holy spirit called "God".....have you?

That's how it works.

Dagon is another god, and satan is a false god, as he actually isn't a god. So, no, that really isn't an argument about anything, since god used as a word, or title, is contextual.

 

[Desert Snake]

The relevance is that the term "God" is appropriately applied to others who are not God Almighty himself in scripture. These aren't false gods. These are God's agents, his mediators, his people who are to do his will. These are addressed as if God himself and as gods generally. This is a perfectly valid usage of the term which no one interprets literally in these cases.

It is thus perfectly reasonable to interpret the term in this same manner when it is applied to Jesus - without introducing all kinds of logical contradictions into the scriptures as you would if you interpret the term in a literal sense.

It is obscure, because when you wrote god, there, in your argument, we know that it doesn't mean Moses, etc etc.
You would have to literally write, Moses, or, 'the god Thor', or whatever.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If the Son is subordinate to God - that means he is both distinct and lesser than God.

John 13:16
Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

John 14:28
You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

1 Cor 15:27-28
For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

And Jesus only ever asserted himself to be the Son of God - which Trinitarians effectively reject. They reject when the scriptures say that Jesus is Son, Only Begotten, and Firstborn of Creation. They must writhe and wriggle to deny what the scriptures plainly declare.

Pardon me, but my wife, who submits to me, is not subordinate to me, or distinct from our one flesh, or not a human. Nor am I when I submit to her. Nor am I distinct and lesser than a human when I submit to an elder or to the government.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Oh, you said it so matter-of-factly, I thought you had something to back it up with. That's quite a serious statement to make as an opinion, but I respect your opinion.

 

[nPeace]

@Thinking Homer
Let me know if I am following you correctly.

You said:
So we can all agree that there is worship that is acceptable in God's eyes as long as it is done in respect, but it cannot be done as if we are worshiping a divine entity (which only belongs to Jehovah).

I think in all instances where worship is mentioned, we need to look at the context and decide for ourselves whether it is merely 'obeisance' or 'worship', which God forbade to other entities. That's why I was insistent that we should look at the context for ourselves and not let the translators decide what was and wasn't worship.

So you are using worship in the broadest sense you think possible.
So worship to you means do obeisance, bow down, give homage, honor, etc.
Could you find a reference that supports this view?

I think I need to get this information, before I can go on.

 

[nPeace]

In regards to the worship/obeisance debate: how do you guys define each? Is there a fundamental difference in meaning (though they are the same word in Greek/Hebrew)? Or is the difference purely a matter of emphasis?

This is an excellent question. I hope to get answered shortly, hopefully.

 

[Deeje]

In regards to the worship/obeisance debate: how do you guys define each? Is there a fundamental difference in meaning (though they are the same word in Greek/Hebrew)? Or is the difference purely a matter of emphasis?

Giving honor and respect to others has been practiced since time immemorial. Greetings among God's worshippers demonstrating such respect have been common practice since before Israel became a nation. Abraham prostrated himself to the sons of Heth, but there is no way to interpret it as worship. It was customary.
When Jacob reconnected with his estranged brother Esau, he prostrated himself to his brother 7 times. (Genesis 33:3) This was clearly an act of respect in order to deflect a hateful spirit that had been held by Esau towards Jacob.

The difference in the act as given to God, as opposed to giving it to others is what we in English, understand "worship" to mean.

In essence, it is giving honor, respect and a humble acknowledgment of ones own inferior position towards the person to whom it is being given, even if there is a divide in status. It elicits good feelings between the two parties. Between humans, it helps to keep pride out of relationships, which is often destructive to many relationships.

When it came to bowing to angels or even to the man Jesus, it was something angels rejected flat out. When it came to honouring the son of God, Jesus did not reject obeisance, (because his position warranted it) but he would have rejected worship, because he himself said that only his Father was to receive that.

But when it is between God and humans, it takes on a whole different connotation. The superiority of the one receiving the "worship" is so far removed from what any human can claim, it is not even in the same ball park. So if we don't make the distinction, we run the risk of blaspheming by giving "worship" to one who is not God.

 

[nPeace]

@Thinking Homer

I have to go now, so I will just go ahead.
I believe the problem you may be having is with a preference you have because of maybe a belief you may be trying to hold on to.

Why I say this comes down to why I think (I can only assume since you haven't told me) you prefer to have the word worship in all places, because it allows one to have the liberty of applying worship to the son of God.

In other words, if proskyneo is translated worship only, then a trinitarians would think it is to their advantage to argue that the text says worship - although that would still be a weak argument and to a trinitarians disadvantage still, because they then have to explain what the difference is between worship of Moses and worship of Jesus.
Oh, and very importantly, you can't interpret worship to mean anything more or less than what it means. It doesn't mean do obeisance.

However, this is not how it is.
Proskyneo does not only mean worship, so any translator that uses the word worship, wherever proskyneo is found, is probably not a very good scholar.

The NWT, is not translated from another Bible translation, but from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
So as good Bible students, they translated the word proskyneo 'worship', where is is appropriately applicable, and 'do obeisance' likewise.

This is in no way being biased, but if one insists that the word proskyneo be translated worship where it clearly present a contradiction, this would evidently be a biased leaning toward a particular doctrine - in this case the trinity doctrine.

By the way, did you see my post here. All the trinitarians seem to have avoided any debate on it. I figured because it was undeniable.
What would be your response to it?

 

[Deeje]

I think this is the underlying message of this debate. Why does Jesus have to be God? Because it makes the Gospel so much more meaningful if God Himself came down incarnate, to save us from our sins. Of course it was not the Father who came down, but the Son, who I believe formed part of this entity known as "God".

Can I ask you who told you that? Why is it 'more meaningful if God himself came down incarnate to save us from our sin'? To hold such a view confirms that you do not understand the mechanics of the ransom.

Matthew 20:28 (NASB)..."just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (NASB)

What is a ransom? It is the price demanded to release a captive, or many captives. What was the ransom price for the human race?
The Law of God stated that whatever was done, needed an equivalent to undo it.

Exodus 21:23-25...."But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, a bruise for bruise." (NASB)

When Christ offered his human life to release us from sin and death...whose life was his the equivalent of? It was Adam's. Jesus is called "the last Adam" because his life cancelled the debt that Adam left for his children.

Christ is a redeemer because he bought back what Adam lost. Adam paid for his own sin with his own life, but there was no equivalent life to offer to cancel the debt he left for his children. No human after him was sinless. That is why Jesus had to become a human child, but not from sinful human stock. His lifeforce was transferred from heaven into the womb of a Jewish virgin. So why would God have to do that himself when his son so willingly offered to accomplish the task? The ransomer did not need to be God to do that....all he needed to be was the equivalent of Adam. If God had become incarnate, not only was he was an immortal being who could not die, but it would have meant that the ransom paid so far exceeded the demand, that it would have been like paying trillions for a ransom demanding only thousands.

If Jesus was merely a created angel, and God decided to sacrifice him for our sins. Meh, what a meaningless exercise. God basically just "made" a scapegoat to bypass the dilemma which He was facing. Where is the justice?

Really? You see the sacrifice of Jesus as "meh...a meaningless exercise"? That really demonstrates how twisted the trinity has made the value of the ransom. Go back to Abraham's command from God to sacrifice his beloved son. Now ask yourself what is this an illustration of? It is putting in human terms what it meant for God to have to sacrifice his son. It also shows us the willingness of the son to be the sacrifice, remembering that Abraham was at that time a very old man, and Isaac was a strong young adult. Have you missed all these clues?

Who told you that Jesus had to be God? The ransom shows us that he didn't. What Christ offered was the equivalent of what was owed....a perfect sinless life for the perfect sinless lives that Adam stole from his children by his disobedience. It is really that simple.

So far the humanity of Jesus has been the main argument against the Trinity doctrine. But like I said, being subservient in purpose does not mean you are inferior in nature. The employer has more authority than the employee, but that does not change the fact that they are both human beings. I've quote this verse many times, but let me just put it here for reference:

Again...who said so? God? Jesus? Who gave you this idea that Jesus had to be God? Wasn't it trinitarian Christendom?
Jesus is an "apostle" (one sent forth) so who sent him? Jesus is also called a "servant"....who does he serve? Jesus is a son, so who is his Father? Can a father be the same age as his son? Why use human terminology if it doesn't apply? The confusion about the nature of the Christ is the product of an apostate church system that lost its way very early in "Christian" history. That apostasy was foretold so why do the churches pretend that it didn't happen?

'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 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. ' Philippians 2:5-11

How do I interpret this passage? Jesus Christ existed in the form of God and shared equality with Him, but he decided not to grasp it and emptied Himself, being made flesh as a human being. He was fully subservient to the Father and obeyed His every command even to the point of crucifixion. Therefore God restored Him to His rightful place, as the authority over all creation, so that all may bow down and confess His Lordship to the glory of God the Father.

Of course I see that as an invalid interpretation because I do not subscribe to a doctrine that twists everything out of shape regarding the nature of God, his Christ and the role of the holy spirit.

If Jesus returned to heaven, still regarding his Father as his God, then something is wrong with your doctrine.

Revelation 3:12 (NASB)..."He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name."

Jesus calls his Father "my God" 4 times in that one verse. How does God have a God in heaven? How does God give himself a name higher than the one he already has? If there is equality, as the trinity teaches, then how does one part of God exalt an equal part of himself? Seriously...you don't even see the glaring inconsistencies in what you believe.

'I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. ' John 17:4-5

Did the son have glory in heaven? All angels are glorious and the heavens themselves are glorious, becoming a mere human after countless eons of time spent in those conditions, in close contact with his Father, then why would Jesus not desire his former existence?

'Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped. ' Revelation 5:11-14

You seem to be concerned that there is a distinction between God and the Lamb in the book of Revelation. But my interpretation is the the Lamb is God, and Jehovah is His God.

AFAICS, the Lamb is a completely separate entity. And you will notice that in almost every mention of Jesus and his Father together, the supposed third part of the trinity is invariably, missing. Why, if they are equals?

John 17:3 Jesus prayed to his Father....."This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." There is no mention of the holy spirit...so why does eternal life not also depend on knowing the holy spirit?

 

[Deeje]

'But of the Son He says, "your throne , o God , is forever and ever , and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom . " you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness ; therefore God , your God , has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions ." And, "you , Lord , in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth , and the heavens are the works of your hands ; they will perish , but you remain ; and they all will become old like a garment , and like a mantle you will roll them up ; like a garment they will also be changed . but you are the same , and your years will not come to an end ."' Hebrews 1:8-12

Again the understanding is dependent on translation. God's throne is forever, but You see where it says "God, your God"? Can God have a God? This is how we understand this passage.....

"RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)


Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.


Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26."

Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Oeste]

The main reason why mainstream Christians accept the Trinity is because that is what they were taught - and 99% of those people will never seriously study theology; including the priests. They learn what their particular denomination has to say and they stick to it like glue.

Non-Trinitarians don't do the same?

I was "non-Trinitarian" once. I decided to study the bible on my own and eventually came, kicking and screaming to the Trinity.

This is incorrect. Prostrating oneself before another as an act of honoring them is not, in of itself, worshiping someone as God. Also, I don't know too many Christians who practice prostration to begin with. However, historically, scripturally, prostrating oneself before another man was perfectly acceptable. Here's a good video on the topic:

This video is by Jeff Benner who is non-credentialed and taught himself Hebrew. He sells books like "How to do a Hebrew word study without knowing Hebrew". He also believes that approximately 3,000 years ago Jews descended upon Los Lunas, New Mexico and left an "ancient Hebrew script".

I would approach his material with extreme caution.

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.

Bingo!

You've struck the nail on the head TH. But you're trying to reason with non-Trinitarians using hermeneutics, a practice they're not familiar with.

I find non-Trinitarian theology seeks recognition. As such, it's sometime better to simply walk with them awhile, give them what they want, and see where our new guides might lead us. In other words, give them a little rope and the arguments generally take care of themselves.

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.

Correct, but our non-Trinitarian friends claim they're not giving worship at all. That's reserved for Jehovah, and "obeisance" is given Jesus.

I think you've elicited quite a few responses already, more than enough for us to work with, so I thank you for that.

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.

Correct...did any of the non-Trinitarians address or explained this? I didn't see it.

 

[Oeste]

Yahweh is fine with Jesus claiming Kingship.

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

I disagree, but let's assume HC's point is correct...Jesus was given Kingship.

That of course leads us to a question I would like non-Trinitarians to answer. @Deeje @iam1me, @nPeace

According to the numerous posts here, proskuneo can be divided into obeisance and worship. Jesus receives the exact same obeisance we give a local magistrate or judge. When the magi came and worshiped, they gave secular proskuneo (obeisance) to Jesus, described as the same proskuneo we give to kings, judge, or local magistrate, but not the spiritual proskuneo (worship) we give God. In other words, obeisance is secular honor but never spiritual worship. Why? Because Jehovah require exclusive and not partial devotion. He is a jealous God.

With this in mind let's start our discussion with 3 questions:

1. We know the Magi came to worship Jesus. Did they come to render the same secular worship (obeisance) of a magistrate, or did they come to give spiritual worship?

2. If the Magi came to give secular worship (obeisance) what secular activity did Jesus engage in to earn it? Or did the Jews or Romans confer a secular title we're unaware of?

3. How does your answer tie into Hockey Cowboy's statement that Christ had to be given his kingship? Were the Magi "jumping the gun" by giving him "obeisance"?
​

One bonus question, if it can be answered:

4. We know the angels worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6). But this is only "obeisance", correct? But we also know that in heaven, God is the King and God is the judge, so why are the angels of heaven following the traditions of earthly men?​

​

 

[Thinking Homer]

So you are using worship in the broadest sense you think possible.
So worship to you means do obeisance, bow down, give homage, honor, etc.
Could you find a reference that supports this view?

I think I need to get this information, before I can go on.

I want to give an illustration because I don't think people are following what I'm saying. Let's say your best friend wrote a book in English and he asked you to translate it into German. Is it your job as the translator to interpret the context and write your own story, or faithfully and consistently use the same words he has been using? Yes it's true that the original word 'proskyneo' has many meanings in different contexts, but that is not our call to make. We did not know the NT authors personally, so all we can do as translators is faithfully copy 'word for word' and make the interpretation afterwards based on the context. Doctrines should be derived from the original text, not the other way around, which the New world translation does.

Note that what I am saying has nothing to do with Trinitarian doctrine. You are free to interpret proskyneo as 'obeisance' or 'worship' as you understand it in the context, but the words should not be the context themselves. The reason you say that worship to Jesus is obeisance, is because it has been translated that way.

When it came to bowing to angels or even to the man Jesus, it was something angels rejected flat out. When it came to honouring the son of God, Jesus did not reject obeisance, (because his position warranted it) but he would have rejected worship, because he himself said that only his Father was to receive that.

But when it is between God and humans, it takes on a whole different connotation. The superiority of the one receiving the "worship" is so far removed from what any human can claim, it is not even in the same ball park. So if we don't make the distinction, we run the risk of blaspheming by giving "worship" to one who is not God.

But that is exactly the point which I am trying to make. Angels say we should only worship God, yet they 'proskynēsatōsan' Jesus. Jesus says we should only worship Jehovah, and yet he never rejects worship for himself. How is the worship that Jesus receives in Revelation different from that of Jehovah?

When Christ offered his human life to release us from sin and death...whose life was his the equivalent of? It was Adam's. Jesus is called "the last Adam" because his life cancelled the debt that Adam left for his children.

Christ is a redeemer because he bought back what Adam lost. Adam paid for his own sin with his own life, but there was no equivalent life to offer to cancel the debt he left for his children. No human after him was sinless. That is why Jesus had to become a human child, but not from sinful human stock. His lifeforce was transferred from heaven into the womb of a Jewish virgin. So why would God have to do that himself when his son so willingly offered to accomplish the task? The ransomer did not need to be God to do that....all he needed to be was the equivalent of Adam. If God had become incarnate, not only was he was an immortal being who could not die, but it would have meant that the ransom paid so far exceeded the demand, that it would have been like paying trillions for a ransom demanding only thousands.

I find Watchtower theology extremely confusing with this regard. So Jesus = archangel Michael = Spirit of Adam = Son of God? What in the world... please explain this to me. When and how did this happen?

Really? You see the sacrifice of Jesus as "meh...a meaningless exercise"? That really demonstrates how twisted the trinity has made the value of the ransom. Go back to Abraham's command from God to sacrifice his beloved son. Now ask yourself what is this an illustration of? It is putting in human terms what it meant for God to have to sacrifice his son. It also shows us the willingness of the son to be the sacrifice, remembering that Abraham was at that time a very old man, and Isaac was a strong young adult. Have you missed all these clues?

Who told you that Jesus had to be God? The ransom shows us that he didn't. What Christ offered was the equivalent of what was owed....a perfect sinless life for the perfect sinless lives that Adam stole from his children by his disobedience. It is really that simple.

Let me ask you this, what is the difference between sacrificing one sheep and one angel among thousands? Which is the bigger sacrifice, a 'portion' of God Himself, or just another created being?

Again...who said so? God? Jesus? Who gave you this idea that Jesus had to be God? Wasn't it trinitarian Christendom?
Jesus is an "apostle" (one sent forth) so who sent him? Jesus is also called a "servant"....who does he serve? Jesus is a son, so who is his Father? Can a father be the same age as his son? Why use human terminology if it doesn't apply? The confusion about the nature of the Christ is the product of an apostate church system that lost its way very early in "Christian" history. That apostasy was foretold so why do the churches pretend that it didn't happen?

Why would you go beyond the interpretation that the original NT writers intended, and see spiritual beings as the same as humans? Human terms are merely used to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son, it is not to be taken in the literal sense. If you are going to take it in the literal sense, where is the Mother?

AFAICS, the Lamb is a completely separate entity. And you will notice that in almost every mention of Jesus and his Father together, the supposed third part of the trinity is invariably, missing. Why, if they are equals?

'John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood- ' Revelation 1:4-5

'Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; ' Revelation 4:5

'And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. ' Revelation 5:6

Notice that the Book of revelation opens with 'Grace and peace, from God, 'the seven spirits' and Jesus' (Revelation 1:4-5)

From Revelation 5:6, we see that the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes, and that these represent the seven spirits of God which are sent to the Earth. And we know that it is Jesus who asked the Father to send the Holy Spirit to us. So it seems obvious that these 'seven spirits' are referring to the Holy Spirit.

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

This is the linguistic argument which I have been talking about. "Jesus is God, but he's not Almighty God", "Jesus is Mighty God, not Almighty God", "Jesus is Son of God, but not God." You have literally included no context in the argument.

Yes the Jewish people at the time understood Psalms 45 as a reference to the Messianic King. But the author of Hebrews is not the same author as Psalms 45, he is merely quoting it. And it is not only Psalm 45 he quotes, but also Psalms 102 in reference to the Son. Psalms 102 is clearly talking about Yahweh, and yet the author decides to quote this passage when referring to Jesus.

 

[Deeje]

You are free to interpret proskyneo as 'obeisance' or 'worship' as you understand it in the context, but the context should not be derived from the words themselves. The reason you say that worship to Jesus is obeisance, is because it has been translated that way.

Not just that....the fact is, no devout Jew would have "worshipped" a human being as if he were God. The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for even calling God his Father. Jesus the man was never worshipped by humans or angels. That act of blasphemy would have meant certain death because it was a violation of the first Commandment. At no time did Jesus ever claim to be God.... if he had, he would have been guilty of the Jews' accusation against him, making him guilty of their charge, rather than an innocent man.

If you have a direct statement of Jesus ever claiming to be the Almighty, then please provide it.

But that is exactly the point which I am trying to make. Angels say we should only worship God, yet they 'proskynēsatōsan' Jesus. Jesus says we should only worship Jehovah, and yet he never rejects worship for himself. How is the worship that Jesus receives in Revelation different from that of Jehovah?

Oh good grief! are you serious?

After all the explanations about the difference between "obeisance" and "worship" and the connotations attached to each word in English, you still don't get it? As a human Jesus would have most certainly rejected any worship for himself. He directed all worship to his God and Father, as did the angels.

There is one word used in Greek (proskyneo)....but two words used in English mean that the one Greek word can have two very different meanings. Context determines the translation....and the meaning is very significant since our worship is involved and it can only be given to one God.....the one in heaven. Jesus prayed to him and taught us to do the same. Remember...."Our Father who art in heaven"?

Does one part of God pray to another equal part of himself? Does that make sense to you?

Translation is not a cut and dried thing. It requires knowledge of the original language and its nuances. It also requires knowledge of Jewish laws and practices and an understanding of what Christ taught in that Jewish system, under Roman domination.

There is one word for "god" in Greek (theos) but in English it isn't only used for the one God of the Jews and Christians, (who is the same God.) Jesus is of divine origin but he is not a deity. No one was ever told to pray to Jesus, but to pray to the Father "through" Jesus the appointed mediator.
It makes no sense to have Jesus as a mediator between God and men if he is actually God.....that would mean that we also need a mediator between us and Jesus.

I find Watchtower theology extremely confusing with this regard. So Jesus = archangel Michael = Spirit of Adam = Son of God? What in the world... please explain this to me. When and how did this happen?

The pre-human Jesus was the only-begotten son of his God and Father. Through the agency of the son, God created all other things, including the myriads of angels. As the "firstborn" of many "sons" Jesus is his Father's most trusted servant. Jesus is also Commander of all the angelic forces. But if you read in the scriptures about the "Archangel Michael" (there is only one Archangel) you will see the similarities that lead us to believe that he and Jesus are one and the same person. There is no one who ranks higher in heaven (apart from Jehovah) than Michael who is called "the great Prince" in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 12:1)

"Aside from Michael, no archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor do the Scriptures use the term “archangel” in the plural. The Bible describes Michael as the archangel, implying that he alone bears that designation. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other angels.

Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: “He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.”—1 Peter 3:22.

While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel. In his letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul prophesied: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) In this scripture Jesus is described as having assumed his power as God’s Messianic King. Yet, he speaks with “an archangel’s voice.” Note, too, that he has the power to raise the dead.

While on earth as a human, Jesus performed several resurrections. In doing so, he used his voice to utter commanding calls. For example, when resurrecting the dead son of a widow in the city of Nain, he said: “Young man, I say to you, Get up!” (Luke 7:14, 15) Later, just before resurrecting his friend Lazarus, Jesus “cried out with a loud voice: ‘Lazarus, come on out!’” (John 11:43) But on these occasions, Jesus’ voice was the voice of a perfect man.

After his own resurrection, Jesus was raised to a “superior position” in heaven as a spirit creature. (Philippians 2:9) No longer a human, he has the voice of an archangel. So when God’s trumpet sounded the call for “those who are dead in union with Christ” to be raised to heaven, Jesus issued “a commanding call,” this time “with an archangel’s voice.” It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.”"

Yes, there are other angelic creatures of high rank, such as seraphs and cherubs. (Genesis 3:24; Isaiah 6:2) Yet, the Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels—Michael the archangel.

Who Is Michael the Archangel? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Let me ask you this, what is the difference between sacrificing one sheep and one angel among thousands? Which is the bigger sacrifice, a 'portion' of God Himself, or just another created being?

This has been explained in some detail. If you are confused, please reread my previous post #252 and understand what the "ransom" was and how it works. God did not need to incarnate to pay the ransom.....nor would he ever do that. Sending his most cherished son to die an agonizing death at the hand of wicked humans was no easy thing for him, hence the illustrative scenario with Abraham and Isaac.

His role as "redeemer" or "repurchaser" also has to be understood. Under the Mosaic Law, if an Israelite, because of economic circumstances, had sold himself into slavery, the repurchaser could buy him back out of slavery. (Leviticus 25:47-54) Or, if he had sold his land inheritance, his repurchaser could buy back the property, and he could return to his possession. (Leviticus 25:25-27)

By the sacrifice of his only-begotten Son, Jehovah as Repurchaser provided for the recovery of mankind from sin and death and the power of the grave. This Son had to come to earth, becoming “like his ‘brothers’ in all respects,” partaking of blood and flesh, thereby being a near relative of mankind. (Hebrews 2:11-17) The apostle Paul writes to Christians: “By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one.” (Ephesians 1:7; compare Revelation 5:9; 14:3, 4)

 

[Deeje]

Why would you go beyond the interpretation that the original NT writers intended, and see spiritual beings as the same as humans? Human terms are merely used to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son, it is not to be taken in the literal sense. If you are going to take it in the literal sense, where is the Mother?

Paul contrasts the position of fleshly Jews with that of spiritual Jews, ( or Christians,) and then says: “The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Galatians 4:26, NW) Then he quotes part of a prophecy in Isaiah....
In Isaiah 54:5-6 it says...... “For your Grand Maker is as your husband, Jehovah of armies is his name, And the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser.
He will be called the God of the whole earth. 6 For Jehovah called you as if you were an abandoned wife and grief-stricken,
Like a wife married in youth and then rejected,” says your God."


In this way Paul identifies Jehovah’s "wife" as His invisible universal organization, the mother of Christ and of his joint heirs.
Isaiah 66:11 says "Before she went into labor, she gave birth. Before birth pangs came to her, she delivered a male child."

There is the "mother".

 

[Deeje]

This is the linguistic argument which I have been talking about. "Jesus is God, but he's not Almighty God", "Jesus is Mighty God, not Almighty God", "Jesus is Son of God, but not God." You have literally included no context in the argument.

These are your problems, not ours because we understand them perfectly without the conflicting notion of a trinity. The three gods who are all squeezed into one "head" so that there can be no claim of polytheism.....he is your dilemma.

Jesus is "a god" which in Greek denotes "a mighty one" or "a divine one", not necessarily the one God of the Jews.

Jesus is referred to as "theos" (a god) but not "ho theos" (THE GOD) which has already been explained to you in some detail. He is "mighty" because he is powerful, but there is only one Almighty....the most powerful one in existence....Jehovah.

Jesus is never once referred to as Jehovah. Jesus called himself the "son of God" but nowhere is he ever called "God the Son". No context? or have you just chosen to ignore all the scriptural explanations?

I will address more tomorrow.....but seriously, its like taking with an echo.

 

[Thinking Homer]

@Thinking Homer

I have to go now, so I will just go ahead.
I believe the problem you may be having is with a preference you have because of maybe a belief you may be trying to hold on to.

Why I say this comes down to why I think (I can only assume since you haven't told me) you prefer to have the word worship in all places, because it allows one to have the liberty of applying worship to the son of God.

In other words, if proskyneo is translated worship only, then a trinitarians would think it is to their advantage to argue that the text says worship - although that would still be a weak argument and to a trinitarians disadvantage still, because they then have to explain what the difference is between worship of Moses and worship of Jesus.
Oh, and very importantly, you can't interpret worship to mean anything more or less than what it means. It doesn't mean do obeisance.

However, this is not how it is.
Proskyneo does not only mean worship, so any translator that uses the word worship, wherever proskyneo is found, is probably not a very good scholar.

The NWT, is not translated from another Bible translation, but from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
So as good Bible students, they translated the word proskyneo 'worship', where is is appropriately applicable, and 'do obeisance' likewise.

This is in no way being biased, but if one insists that the word proskyneo be translated worship where it clearly present a contradiction, this would evidently be a biased leaning toward a particular doctrine - in this case the trinity doctrine.

By the way, did you see my post here. All the trinitarians seem to have avoided any debate on it. I figured because it was undeniable.
What would be your response to it?

Let's first look at this bias that you are accusing me of. You say that translating proskyneo as 'worship' in all contexts supports the doctrine of Trinity. I agree with that.

But does translating proskyneo as 'obeisance' when it refers to Jesus support the Watchtower doctrine that Jesus is inferior to Jehovah? Absolutely. It works both ways.

Thus I mentioned that translators should not be influenced by doctrines, but translate as faithfully as possible from the original Greek. If the word 'proskyneo' is used in different contexts, their job is to stay consistent with the same English words, so that we have a clear picture of what the original NT writers were intending to say.

I read the OP which you mentioned, so here's my response:
I agree with Isaiah 44:6 completely, there was no God formed before or after Yahweh.
Therefore the obvious conclusion that JWs make is that since Jesus was 'begotten' or 'firstborn', he was a created being and therefore cannot be God.

First let's look at the word 'begotten'. While it only appears in the English text 6 times, the original Greek (monogenes) appears 9 times, and it always refers to an 'only child'.

Luke 7:12: "behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and"
Luke 8:42: "For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age,"
Luke 9:38: "for he is mine only child."
John 1:14: "glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace"
John 1:18: "God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the"
John 3:16: "that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth"
John 3:18: "the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Hebrews 11:17: "the promises offered up his only begotten"
1 John 4:9: "that God sent his only begotten Son into the world,"

The NT writers were using the word ‘monogenes’ to denote Jesus’ uniqueness as the only Son of God, not his creation. It would be illogical to think that a reference to someone’s only child is to be interpreted as their creation.

Also note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership. We see this clearly with Isaac having authority over Ishmael.

The word 'firstborn' also has a Messianic reference to it:
'"I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.' Psalms 89:27

With regards to the Alpha and Omega, Jesus said the same thing about Himself:
'"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

Jesus is also referred to as 'God our Savior' in these two passages:
'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. ' Titus 2:11-14

'But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. ' Titus 3:4-7