Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[nPeace]

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?​

​

secular proskuneo; spiritual proskuneo;
secular worship; spiritual worship;
Why?


Proskuneo - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version
Definition

1. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2. among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3. in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
   1. used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
      1. to the Jewish high priests
      2. to God
      3. to Christ
      4. to heavenly beings
      5. to demons

King James Word Usage - Total: 60
worship 60


Strongs's #4352: proskuneo - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools
Greek/Hebrew Definitions

Strong's #4352: proskuneo (pronounced pros-koo-neh'-o)

from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
proskuneō
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

3a1) to the Jewish high priests

3a2) to God

3a3) to Christ

3a4) to heavenly beings

3a5) to demons

Part of Speech: verb

Relation: from G4314 and a probable derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master' s hand)

Usage: This word is used 61 times:

 

[nPeace]

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.

I think we are following what you are saying, but I think you are getting a bit confused.
Okay. So your best friend wrote a book, and asked me to translate it in German.

Please pay close attention.
Your question :- 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?

My question :- What word is he using? Is he using a word that can only be translated one way, or can the word be translated more than one way? How do I determine what word to use?

Let's make it more realistic.
You receive a letter written in Greek which you must translate into english. You come across the word proskyneo. You look it up, and find that it means - go down on [one's] knees to, do obeisance to, worship, to do reverence to.
How do you decide which word or phrase to use?

Note. You say:- We must copy 'word for word', but this is not a case of copying. This is translating - going from one language to another.
So the NWT has not done what you are suggesting.
Do you understand where you seem to be getting confused?

 

[Thinking Homer]

Your question :- 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?

My question :- What word is he using? Is he using a word that can only be translated one way, or can the word be translated more than one way? How do I determine what word to use?

Okay I'll explain this one more time.
1. Translator looks at a word: 'proskyneo'
2. Looks it up in the dictionary: can mean 'worship' or 'obeisance'

Now there are two ways in which this scenario can work out:
Scenario 1:
3. Translator decides to pick 'worship' as the favoured translation for 'proskyneo'
4. Translator translates every 'proskyneo' he sees as 'worship'.
5. Here we have the KJV.

Scenario 2:
3. Translator looks at the original text in Greek
4. Translator decides to use 'worship' whenever proskyneo refers to Jehovah
5. Translator decides to use 'obeisance' whenever proskyneo refers to Jesus
6. Here we have the NWT

Scenario 1 is what I meant by 'word for word'. The translator does not interpret the context for us, but leaves that interpretation with the readers.

In scenario 2, the translators interpreted the context for us. Worship only Jehovah, Obeisance to Jesus.

 

[Oeste]

secular proskuneo; spiritual proskuneo;
secular worship; spiritual worship;
Why?

Why not?

Haven't you just explained to us that "obeisance is a secular (honorary/traditional) activity?

Haven't you just explained to us that "worship" is a spiritual activity?

Or do you now claim prokuneo is NONE of these things, like you allege here???

That seems a fair thing to suggest. All I ask is that you give us examples so I can understand it more fully.

For instance, perhaps you can cite biblical examples where prokuneo is neither secular or spiritual, and where the emoticon applies.

Next, let's go through some of your definitions:

Definition

1. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

Is this an example of spiritual reverence, secular reverence, or whether the notion of spiritual/secular does not apply? ( ) If the notion DOES NOT APPLY, please explain why.

1. among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon t(he knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

Same question as above.

1. in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
   1. used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
      1. to the Jewish high priests
      2. to God
      3. to Christ
      4. to heavenly beings
      5. to demons

Great! So is "homage" shown to men and being of superior rank" a secular type of homage, or a spiritual one, or are you claiming the concept of secular and spiritual homage does not apply?

If the concept of secular/spiritual homage does not apply, please list biblical examples that support your contention. For example, "worship" to God or "a God" where the idea of spirituality doesn't enter the picture.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Nope. Where did I say that? Maybe you imagine I said it because that's what you prefer.
I said: 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.

That is what I said. There is nowhere in those words that you can find anything near

translating proskyneo as 'worship' in all contexts supports the doctrine of Trinity

So you agree with yourself.

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.

Based on the above, this is false, and besides that, the NWT translates proskyneo as 'obeisance' in all places where it does not apply to worship. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

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.

l agree, and what is/are that same English word(s) please?

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

1)
It doesn't matter how one reasons on the use of "firstborn", the scriptures are clear on what they mean.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Jesus is the first brought forth, of all God's creation. True?
He is "the beginning of the creation by God" - Revelation 3:14. True?
All other things came into existence through the son. Colossians 1:16, 17. True?

If the above is true, which it is, then this is also true.
He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature.
Therefore, he is truthfully the only begotten son of Jehovah God.
Hebrews 1:5, 6

Monogenes
Monogenes - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard
Definition

1. single of its kind, only
   1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
   2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

NAS Word Usage - Total: 9
only 3, only begotten 6

Word Origin
from Monos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard
and Ginomai - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

If the firstborn son of God was not created, please explain how he was brought forth as the son of Jehovah God.

2)
Regarding the Alpha and Omega, please see here.

Got to run Later.

 

[Oeste]

A question for the obeisance/worship debate.

Admittedly I may have misunderstood @nPeace 's comments. From my perspective, however wrongly, it appeared that there was some suggestion that there is nothing secular about obeisance and nothing spiritual about worship and that the confused emoticon ( ) can be readily applied as soon as anyone suggests we attach or apply it to "proskuneo".

As such, I would like anyone who shares this opinion to elaborate or explain this position more fully

I could be wrong, but I have never seen or heard of a church that makes such a claim.

If your church does, I would be greatly interested if you could point or post your church's view on the matter.

But there is another option! Both obeisance and worship are secular, or both are spiritual. The first notion, that both are secular, I believe we can safely dismiss. God requires our spiritual devotion, and not simply for us to go through the formal address and motions we have in our society.
Are we agreed on this?

The second is that both are spiritual. But this means splitting our spiritual "proskuneo" into a minor, traditional, or cultural form that we can extend to each other, and a larger, more robust spiritual "proskuneo" that we give God.

Of course, I do not agree with "splitting" our proskuneo in this manner, but perhaps this is what @Deeje, @nPeace , @iam1me, and @Hockeycowboy had in mind? If so (and admittedly this is a big if), I think we should at least entertain the notion to see where it might lead us rather than dismiss the possibility out of hand.

One last thought for @nPeace or others as they compose their answer:

If the concept of secular or spiritual obeisance/worship does not attach to proskuneo or makes you confused, then what is the point of discussion? If it doesn't attach then we can give either without worry (obeisance to God; worship to our local magistrate) and all this commentary about proskuneo is simply an "intellectual exercise".

 

[nPeace]

Okay I'll explain this one more time.
1. Translator looks at a word: 'proskyneo'
2. Looks it up in the dictionary: can mean 'worship' or 'obeisance'

Now there are two ways in which this scenario can work out:
Scenario 1:
3. Translator decides to pick 'worship' as the favoured translation for 'proskyneo'
4. Translator translates every 'proskyneo' he sees as 'worship'.
5. Here we have the KJV.

Scenario 2:
3. Translator looks at the original text in Greek
4. Translator decides to use 'worship' whenever proskyneo refers to Jehovah
5. Translator decides to use 'obeisance' whenever proskyneo refers to Jesus
6. Here we have the NWT

Scenario 1 is what I meant by 'word for word'. The translator does not interpret the context for us, but leaves that interpretation with the readers.

In scenario 2, the translators interpreted the context for us. Worship only Jehovah, Obeisance to Jesus.

Scenario 2 is not NWT. Scenario 2 does not apply to any translation.
So perhaps we need a third scenario.
1. Translator looks at a word: 'proskyneo'
2. Looks it up in the dictionary: can mean 'worship' or 'do obeisance'

Scenario 3:
3. Translator decides to use 'worship' whenever proskyneo refers to worship of God, or a "deity" since that is what worship involves. Or in the cases where reference to the object of proskyneo is not stated.
4. Translator decides to use 'do obeisance' whenever proskyneo refers to anyone that is not a deity, nor considered one by the Jews.
5. Now we have the NWT

To repeat:
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 or to false gods and their idols, 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.

Are these not all good examples of proper use of context?

What is the difference between the translator, and the reader?
If the translator uses the context to translate the word accordingly, there is no need for the reader to have to do so.

Why would you prefer the translator to pick one word, and leave it to the reader to interpret the text and apply it according to his/her belief?
I don't get that. Are you saying you don't trust the translators, but the reader is okay - the translators will be biased, but the readers will not be? That makes no sense at all. I'm baffled.

 

[iam1me]

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.

The scriptural references are only obscure because the churches don't touch on them at all - you'll only learn about such passages via personal study and debates like this. That doesn't undermine their legitimacy - but rather the legitimacy of doctrines upheld by ignoring such scriptures.

At any rate, it is obvious from the context that Christ is not literally God Almighty in the New Testament as well. There are innumerable passages that clearly set out a distinction between Jesus and God (not just "Father") and subordinate Jesus to God. Trinitarians have been indoctrinated to explain away what the scriptures say - like that Jesus is the Son of God, Only Begotten, First of Creation, etc. - rather than to accept what the scriptures say. When you approach the scriptures objectively to see what they say, these things will pop out at you left and right.

 

[iam1me]

If the concept of secular or spiritual obeisance/worship does not attach to proskuneo or makes you confused, then what is the point of discussion? If it doesn't attach then we can give either without worry (obeisance to God; worship to our local magistrate) and all this commentary about proskuneo is simply an "intellectual exercise".

Personally - this is where I'm leaning on the issue. It sounds to me like our translators have pulled a fast one on everyone and invented an unnecessary distinction between worship and obeisance so as to maintain the guise that worship belongs to God alone (though scripture only says to serve God alone).

 

[nPeace]

@Oeste
I am more concerned with why you attached secular and spiritual to the terms.
I am just trying to understand. Is there a need to do that?
So, for example, say I worship God, a deity, an angel, an image... is that all spiritual, or do you see an area where secular worship applies?

 

[nPeace]

Personally - this is where I'm leaning on the issue. It sounds to me like our translators have pulled a fast one on everyone and invented an unnecessary distinction between worship and obeisance so as to maintain the guise that worship belongs to God alone (though scripture only says to serve God alone).

I think the problem lies in persons wanting to make application for doctrinal purposes.
Perhaps if we forget about doctrine, that might helps.
So say we blank our minds from the trinity for a moment, and we just focus on the Greek word proskyneo. How do we translate it?

We have a few choices according to the English rendering - go down on [one's] knees to, do obeisance to, worship, to do reverence to.

As I understand, if we choose worship, we do so, based on 1) what worship means, 2) the context of the passages, and we apply it appropriately.
As I see it, a problem will only arise if we insist that Jesus is God, and hence worship should be applied to him, in the same way it applies to God.
That's just the way I see it.

 

[nPeace]

Theres a lot to this, will answer later

I like your avatar. I think you should keep this one... if you like it.

 

[Thinking Homer]

What is the difference between the translator, and the reader?
If the translator uses the context to translate the word accordingly, there is no need for the reader to have to do so.

That is because you fully trust the Watchtower and the New World Translation that you see nothing wrong with them interpreting the context for you.

Scenario 3:
3. Translator decides to use 'worship' whenever proskyneo refers to worship of God, or a "deity" since that is what worship involves. Or in the cases where reference to the object of proskyneo is not stated.
4. Translator decides to use 'do obeisance' whenever proskyneo refers to anyone that is not a deity, nor considered one by the Jews.
5. Now we have the NWT

All you did was substitute the word 'Jehovah' with 'God', and 'Jesus' with 'anyone that is not a deity'. It's still the same as scenario 2.

 

[Thinking Homer]

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.

Of course a devout Jew would never worship a human being, that would be absurd. But what if they started doing miracles? What if they started raising the dead, healing the sick, controlling nature, driving out demons and forgiving people of their sin? You say Jesus never claimed to be God, but how many times did He say that He and the Father are one? That He is in the Father and the Father is in Him? Even if Jesus claimed equality with God, he wouldn't be guilty of blasphemy, because He is God.

As a human Jesus would have most certainly rejected any worship for himself.

Show me one place where Jesus rejects worship for himself.

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

Why don't you show me one verse where Jesus says I am not God? You seem very hung up on the word "Almighty". Jesus has been referred to as God many times, but you just choose to ignore it:

'looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, ' Titus 2:13

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ' John 1:1

'Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." ' John 20:28-29

'" behold , the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son , and they shall call his name immanuel ," which translated means, " God with us ." ' Matthew 1:23

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

I've explained this enough times to nPeace, you can read my reply to him

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

Does it make sense that a Son would talk to His Father? Yeah, in fact it does. Actually there's a passage in John that addresses this very issue:
'So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me." ' John 11:41-42

As it stands, Jesus did not need to pray out loud, but he obeyed his Father's will in everything that he did, and set us an example of how Christians should relate to God through Himself.

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.

The only reason we needed a mediator was because God was out of our reach. But the 'Logos' who was God, came in the flesh as a human being and acted as our mediator between Himself and the Father.

'All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. ' Matthew 11:27

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.”"

Be careful not to fall into circular reasoning. "Because Jesus is an archangel, it is only reasonable to conclude that an archangel would call with an archangel's voice." You assumed the premise to be true, and make a conclusion around that. You need to first prove the premise.

'But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. ' Daniel 10:13

Although Michael was the only archangel mentioned in our Bible, this verse raises the possibility that there may be more.

'For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ' 1 Thessalonians 4:16

Why do you have to merge the 'shout' with the 'voice of the archangel'? Can't we interpret 3 separate sounds occurring at the rapture? A shout, a voice, and a trumpet? To me, it just seems like Jesus is coming down with 'the archangel', and with another blowing the trumpet.

And how can an angel be God's Son? Whatever you create will be inferior in nature to you. No matter how skillful I may be, I can never call my creation my 'Son'. I think the verse in Hebrews is quite clear.

'For to which of the angels did He ever say, " you are my son , today I have begotten you "? And again, "I will be a father to Him and he shall be a son to me "? ' Hebrews 1:5

You can spin the words however you want, but an archangel is still an angel.

I find it interesting how skeptical you are of my arguments despite the numerous verses I provide, and yet such a vague verse as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (which makes no mention of the name 'Michael') is sufficient proof for you that Jesus is indeed Michael. You asked me where Jesus is referred to as God. I provided the verses for you. Now show me a couple of verses where Jesus is referred to as Michael.

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.

You are avoiding the question. I asked you which would be the greater sacrifice: God sacrificing a part of Himself, or sacrificing another created being among thousands?

 

[nPeace]

That is because you fully trust the Watchtower and the New World Translation that you see nothing wrong with them interpreting the context for you.



All you did was substitute the word 'Jehovah' with 'God', and 'Jesus' with 'anyone that is not a deity'. It's still the same as scenario 2.

This is not true.
You have access to NWT. Not every place where worship occurs, does it apply to Jehovah, and not every place where do obeisance occurs, does it apply to Jesus.
However, you are correct that I trust the GB of JWs, because I don't believe they try to support an unscriptural doctrine, by twisting words or texts to support such doctrines.

So far, I don't see any reason why I should think they are deceptive.
If you can give me one good reason, I would surely consider it with you.

There are so many scriptures that the teaching of the trinity contradict, it seems clear to me that supporters of it, are the ones that are twisting the texts.
For example...
Every translation says the same here.
1 Corinthians 15:25-28 English Standard Version (ESV)
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

It seem clear from this text, that Christ was subject to - not equal to - God, and will continue to be, for eternity.
So when one says that Jesus is equal to the father, is that not a lie - false?

 

[Deeje]

That is because you fully trust the Watchtower and the New World Translation that you see nothing wrong with them interpreting the context for you.

As Bible students, we are encouraged to do our own research and in every instance where "proskyneo" is translated as "obeisance" we find that it is warranted. We do not have a trinity doctrine to support. Christ was never worshipped.

It strikes me as odd that at the basis of this whole debate over the word "worship" is how it is performed.....so how were the Israelites taught to worship? Since their God was never represented in any form, was there ever anyone to bow down to kiss their hand? Where do we find the Israelites prostrating themselves to God? The only instances I can find are when Israel fell to worshipping false gods represented by idols. (2 Kings 17:16-18; Hosea 2:13) Do you see Jews prostrating themselves? I see Muslims doing so, but on what basis? Who would Christ's first disciples have been emulating? They were all Jewish originally.

Of course a devout Jew would never worship a human being, that would be absurd. But what if they started doing miracles? What if they started raising the dead, healing the sick, controlling nature, driving out demons and forgiving people of their sin? You say Jesus never claimed to be God, but how many times did He say that He and the Father are one? That He is in the Father and the Father is in Him? Even if Jesus claimed equality with God, he wouldn't be guilty of blasphemy, because He is God.

Why would that automatically make a human being into God? Moses was given power to do miracles....was he worshipped? He parted the Red Sea....did that make him God? He turned his staff into a snake before Pharaoh's eyes....but then so did the Egyptian priests.

You ignore so much of what is offered to you. No Jew would have worshipped a man....ANY man. Jesus would not have stumbled the devout Jews who knew the Law. Just as he did not stumble them after his resurrection by appearing to them as a spirit. He materialized human form because the law forbade contact with spirits.

The devil can perform tricks too, as it is clearly stated by Jesus in his final judgment on false Christians.....

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" (Matthew 7:21-23)

Calling Jesus your "Lord" and performing "miracles" is clearly not from the power of the true God here. Jesus condemnation is strong and his rejection, absolute. Who wants to be on the receiving end of that rebuke?

Jesus said that he was "the son of God" and he demonstrated that he could empower others with gifts of the spirit. Did those gifts make his disciples into "gods"?

Show me one place where Jesus rejects worship for himself.

There is no place where Jesus rejects worship because it was never offered. Jews would never have done that.

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

How is one equal part of God greater than the other?

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

How does Christ have a "head" if he is God?

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

John 1:1 is undone by John 1:18.

How plainly does Paul state that they as Christ's disciples, have only "one God".....and it isn't Jesus. He mentions Jesus as their "Lord" but not as their "God". Do you understand that until the Catholic Church made it into a doctrine, the trinity did not exist in the minds of Christ's disciples? The Christian scriptures were not written to promote a trinity....the translators have to infer it or translate scripture to accommodate it.

Never in the Bible does the Father refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.” There is no threesome. It is "one God, the Father" as the apostle Paul plainly states. Why do you ignore all this?

Why don't you show me one verse where Jesus says I am not God? You seem very hung up on the word "Almighty". Jesus has been referred to as God many times, but you just choose to ignore it:

You do understand that "Almighty" means that there is no one who is more powerful than Jehovah. The term "Almighty" is NEVER applied to Jesus.

As it stands, Jesus did not need to pray out loud, but he obeyed his Father's will in everything that he did, and set us an example of how Christians should relate to God through Himself.

Oh please.....if Jesus was God, he did not need to pray at all. Who was he praying to? And if he was God why did he need angels to minister to him? How could Jesus' will be subject to his Father's will if there was equality in someone whom the churches state was "fully God and fully man"? Unless a person is fully indoctrinated, blind Freddy can see the glaring flaws in this doctrine.

The only reason we needed a mediator was because God was out of our reach. But the 'Logos' who was God, came in the flesh as a human being and acted as our mediator between Himself and the Father.

I'm sorry, but that is just lame. It is sin that divides man from God.....what divides us from Christ if he is also God? Think about it.

'All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. ' Matthew 11:27

Read the words again..."All things have been handed over to Me by My Father"...If Jesus is God then why does he need one part of himself to "hand over" anything to the other? What could Jesus receive that was not already his?

Be careful not to fall into circular reasoning.

Now that is just plain funny. The circular reasoning just never stops...

Because Jesus is an archangel, it is only reasonable to conclude that an archangel would call with an archangel's voice." You assumed the premise to be true, and make a conclusion around that. You need to first prove the premise.

Well actually, because this is a belief and not a doctrine, we are happy to wait and see. It matters little in the big scheme of things. The clear truth to us is that Jesus is NOT God and shares no equality with him at all.
If God has to speak with an Archangel's voice then what is that telling you?

And how can an angel be God's Son? Whatever you create will be inferior in nature to you. No matter how skillful I may be, I can never call my creation my 'Son'. I think the verse in Hebrews is quite clear.

First of all, the pre-human Jesus is anything but just an angel. He is the only direct creation of his Father. He existed before all things, probably for eons of time before God created anything else.

"All things", including the angels were created "through" the son. (Colossians 1:15-17) His position in heaven is second only to his Father.

The title "LOGOS" means "Word"...another way of saying that he spoke God's words...acted as his representative and spokesman from the beginning.

In the Bible angels are called God's "sons" and even Adam is called a "son of God" because they are all direct creations, the result of the exercise of God's power. (his holy spirit) The same spirit that empowered Christ at his baptism.

Humans are called "son of man" and Jesus was referred to by this designation as well.

You are avoiding the question. I asked you which would be the greater sacrifice: God sacrificing a part of Himself, or sacrificing another created being among thousands?

You ignored everything I said. The ransom has been paid by one who was the exact equivalent of Adam. You clearly do not understand the reason why Jesus had to be born as a human and offer his life. God paying the price would have been 'overkill' to the max. A billion cans of insect spray for one mosquito! Seriously....your doctrine has blinded you to an obvious truth.

God would never incarnate himself any more than a human would choose to incarnate as an amoeba.

I am not going to continue this revolving conversation because I believe it has all been said. Make of it what you will...believe whatever you wish because you will anyway.....but you will never be able to say that no one told you otherwise....will you?

 

[Oeste]

I am more concerned with why you attached secular and spiritual to the terms.

I think you could have answered my question and then asked me this in response, as opposed to avoiding the question and leaving this as your response.

[QUOTE="nPeace, post: 5755462, member: 64320"][USER=58562]
I am just trying to understand. Is there a need to do that? [/quote]

The need appeared once you split proskuneo into "obeisance" and "worship".

[QUOTE="nPeace, post: 5755462, member: 64320"][USER=58562]
So, for example, say I worship God, a deity, an angel, an image... is that all spiritual, or do you see an area where secular worship applies?[/QUOTE]

You explained this already. Let’s do a recap. I’m going back to your post #230 where you posted [B]terms and defintions:[/B]


[INDENT][B]worship[/B]
[I]verb[/I]
Love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol
(religion) [B]show devotion to (a deity[/B])

[B]obeisance[/B]
[I]noun[/I]
Bending the head or body or knee as a sign of reverence or submission or shame or greeting
The act of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior [B]with[/B] [B]respect[/B] [B]to another person[/B]
deferential respect - a gesture expressing deferential respect, such as a bow or curtsy[/INDENT]


Do you see the difference Npeace? It comes from your definitions, the one you gave. Obeisance is behavior [B]with respect to[/B] [B][U]another person[/U][/B]. It is [B]NOT[/B] behavior with respect to another deity.

That’s what makes this proskuneo [B]secular.[/B] “Worldly” is the term I think Jehovah Witnesses like to use. It is of this planet, born of culture and tradition and not of heaven.

Now, take a look at your preferred definition of worship. Here we see it shows devotions to a [B]deity[/B]. Yes, that deity can be an object or another person but that person MUST BE DEITY, or perceived to be DEITY, in order for worship to take place. Otherwise any veneration, any reverence taking place is simply an engagement in obeisance.

That’s what makes this [B]worship[/B] (proskuneo) [B][I]spiritual[/I][/B]. Spiritual is not worldly but of God. It is something that matters to God or deity.

In short, I am not arguing your definition of obeisance or worship. [B]I am accepting the definition that you posted. [/B]I want to work with these definitions so we can have common ground as we take our walk together. We can then attentively listen and discuss your rationale. I just don’t understand how a JW can be confused and question attaching “secular” or “spiritual” to proskuneo, yet have no problem attaching terms like “true” or “false” to worship. Perhaps you can explain how that one works for me.

Obeisance is given the person, worship is given the deity. We are working with your definitions…refer to them with any questions.

We are now the long way back to my original questions. I’ve made some slight alterations in the hope of making them easier to answer:


[INDENT]1. We know the Magi came to worship Jesus. Did they come to render the same [I]secular proskuneo[/I] (obeisance) we might give an earthly magistrate, or did they come to give the [I]spiritual proskuneo[/I] (worship) that one gives Deity?

2. If the Magi came to give obeisance, what activity did Jesus engage in to earn this secular or worldly honor? Was he born to it in the manner of a king or prince? Was it conferred on him by the Jews, Romans or Jehovah?

3. How does your answer tie into Hockey Cowboy's statement that Christ had to be [B]given [/B]his kingship? Were the Magi "jumping the gun" by giving him "obeisance"? Were the gifts an early mistake?

One [I]bonus[/I] question, if it can be answered:

4. You allege the angels “proskuneo” Jesus ([URL='https://www.religiousforums.com/bible/hebrews/1:6/']Hebrews 1:6[/URL]) in the form of "obeisance", correct? It's the same deference and honor we give the President or judge who enters the court room. But we also know that in heaven, God is the King and God is the judge, so why would the angels follow earthly traditions and render secular, worldly obeisance to Jesus?[/INDENT][/user][/user]

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Oeste , you said,

1. We know the Magi came to worship Jesus.


Where do you get this? You don't "know" that. You think the "star over Bethlehem" was from God?

That God would use those who practice astrology, something His word condemns, to pay him "homage"? [[The YLT @Matthew 2:2: "saying, 'Where is he who was born king of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and we came to bow to him.' "]] (Oeste, why does God condemn astrology?) Where does that power really come from? So who would've really used them? Interesting that as they followed the "star", it took them first to Herod (who really wanted to kill the child, Jesus), then to the location in Bethlehem ...a house, not a manger, btw...a lie. Yes, the nativity scene displayed on Church grounds is a lie. (But you knew that, didn't you?) Again, who would be promoting a lie? The Devil, maybe?

It's amazing how no one ever gets this, but attributes this "star" to God...buttressed by church dogma. So who is believed to be the source of the star is a lie, too!

(Oops, I went off on a tangent; sorry.)

Notice, the astrologers called the one they were looking for, "king of the Jews".... not God.

Paying 'homage' is proper; not worship, in the sense we use it.​

 

[Ingledsva]

If you notice there's not much difference between, What the Tanakh is saying and what the Christian bible is saying.

Tanakh Genesis 3:15--"And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed, He shall crush your head, and you will bite his heel"

Christian bible Genesis 3:15--"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed,
It shall brusie your head and you shalt brusie his heel"

Now here's what you said ( Here we have the story of God's sons, and the fallen sons, right from the beginning, Cain one of God's sons falls)
...

There is no where whether it be the Tanakh or the Christian bible that will say, Cain as being the son of God, But that Cain is the son of the Serpent the Devil. As God foretold the Serpent, hatred between his seed and the woman's seed.
So it was, Cains hatred caused him to kill his brother Able.

Now I have a question, Whether it be in the Tanakh or the Christian bible, what is Cains children called, by what name ?

Have you any idea or clue by what name Cains children are called by.

Here is the wiki for you on Canaan.

Canaan (son of Ham) - Wikipedia

As to the rest, you are not understanding what I have been saying. First - this is a story to explain good and evil.

Think about the story they are telling us in that light.

YHVH creates man and woman in his image = special. They have two sons both special. One does what he is expected to do, and the other gets angry and chooses evil.

It tells us Cain/fallen one went off to form pagan cities.

Seth replaces Abel as the good line.

Then after the flood (destroying evil) we get Ham doing wrong, and his son Canaan gives us the Canaanites.

The old stories say Ham's wife was a descendent of Cain, - and that is how the fallen line continued through the flood to become the pagan tribes and Canaanites - whom we are told are the Nephilim fallen ones, mighty warriors.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You keep saying, they
Can you explain what you mean by that?

Hello again.

As shown, the word being translated as God, is only translated as God when meaning the ONE God YHVH.

It's other translations - such as Judge, etc., are used when meaning humans.

*