The Trinity

[kjw47]

You need to seriously take a second look at what you are saying here and look at context. There are no verses in the original text, they are for us to look up only.

Rev 5:12 And they sang in a mighty chorus:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered—
to receive power and riches
and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and blessing.”
Rev 5:13 And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
belong to the one sitting on the throne
and to the Lamb forever and ever.”

kjw47,
everything is being directed at the Father and Son. Then in the next verse the 4 living creatures said "AMEN" to all of everything just said and sang and fell down and worshiped the Father and the Lamb. For you to say it doesnt mention the lamb is crazy for it plainly says it in all of my bibles... Do not Deny Jesus!

Remember that there will come a point when Jesus says, "He knows you or He doesnt know you", do not get caught in the devils snare of saying with your mouth Jesus is worthy of all glory and honor and then in your heart deny him at some level. God the Father gave us an Image of himself to Worship, Honor, and glorify.

Think about it: Who would want you to look to the Image of God, the one who expresses him exactly by his very being and to see him is to see the Father and you look to that image and say "NOT GOD" and "NOT MY WORSHIP"?

I dont know if you are a JW that follows the WTBS, but did you know the JW's of past use to worship Jesus then changed their belief? All while claiming Jesus returned in 1914 and was running their organization?

verse 13 mentions the lamb--verse 14 does not. Verse 13 mentions what the lamb receives alongside of his God and Father-- worship is not one of them.

 

[Shermana]

I have looked up the word and John uses it exactly the way I see it in many other parts of his writings. I understand you have a belief and this is how you back up your claim, but any way, i have no Problem saying the Father is the "head" of Jesus in the
Hierarchy of the God Head or in the way I view God Almighty as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

First off, there is no such thing as "The Godhead" in the nominative sense. It's a Qualitative noun. This English language idea of it being a "Thing" rather than a "State" is an obvious corruption of its original meaning. The original word means "Godhood" like how "Maidenhead" means "Maidenhood". Angels thus have "godhood" for they are "Elohim". This is an extremely common problem that is an example of how Trinitarian beliefs warp and distort language and grammar.

So The Father is still the Head of all Divine powers, but that just indicates he's a different person.

Jhn 1:50 Jesus asked him, “Do you believe this just because I told you I had seen you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this.”

Your example further proves my point. It's not "Greater" in authority in question here.

Jhn 4:12 And besides, do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his animals enjoyed?”

Same thing, it's not about authority, but in magnitude of ability and power that stems from character and a "Greater" nature itself, not the mere "Authority" and "position" aspect. Thank you for proving my case again.

Jhn 5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he is doing. In fact, the Father will show him how to do even greater works than healing this man. Then you will truly be astonished.

Surely you can see the pattern by now. Thanks yet again.

Jhn 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

Again, nothing to do with authority.

Just a few...

Indeed, your few examples prove exactly what I'm talking about, thanks for sharing.

This is why when we read phil 2:6 we read he was in the Form of God or as some bibles put it, In the very nature of God and then emptied himself.

It actually should read as "Form of a god", just like how it says "Form of a slave". What do you think "Form of God" even means? Why such a strange use of terms? If it says "Form of a god" it makes complete sense. Even a few more honest Trinitarian commentators have acknowledged this. I believe I've shown you the links and quotes on this one before, would you like to see them again?

This is where we have our disconnect between each other. The Eternal Word of God is also Jehovah.

No he is not, He is his representative.

He emptied himself to become like you and me, and died for our sins. He then is crowned with glory by the Father who tells us that Jesus is not just a creation, but rather is the Rock of the Jews. That Jesus is the one spoken about in Psalms 102:25-28.

If it is referring to the Logos in that passage, which I don't necessarily think it is, it's merely referring to Wisdom Personified acting as the Vehicle of God's work.

Who everyone knows to be the God of the Old Testament we are calling Jehovah today. Everything that God is, Jesus is also... You look to this great mystery of God becoming flesh as a weakness, when in fact its the very power of God and love shown to us.

The only weakness I see it as is heretical and based on distortions and incorrect context and grammar.

So much so that Gods word says he doesnt want us to be ignorant that it was Jesus leading the Jews by cloud and by the parting of the sea, he is the Rock. (1 Cor 10:1-4)

Even Trinitarian commentators acknowledge that this "Rock" in 1 Cor 10:1-4 is
not what you think it is. I've been over this with you more than once.

1 Corinthians 10:4 Commentaries: and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

and that the devil is blinding people to not see this.

The Devil has blinded Trinitarians and Modalists in this respect.

For we preach Jesus as LORD Jehovah.

And you preach incorrectly, and you negate what it means to actually be Messiah in this sense.

For God who shines out of darkness is found in the Face of Jesus who is the Image of God. (2 Cor 4:1-6)

Image of God does not equate to "Being God". Image = representation. Not Manifestation.

You see these things as a crutch to Jesus, when i see them as the very power of God.

Jesus sees your beliefs about him as a crutch to critical thinking.

The name of the book is the "Revelation of JESUS"

And Rev 1:1 says he Received the Revelation from God. "Revelation OF" means "what he received". The Book has several names. Stick with the actual text, not the appropriated titles the churches gave it, thanks.

and he is revealed as the Alpha and the Omega,

Jesus never calls himself the Alpha and Omega except in spurious additions to verse 1:11 seen in the KJV and other overly Trinitarian versions.

beginning and End, First and Last.

First and Last is not a unique concept, unlike Alpha and Omega which is a direct title based on the similar idea. Jesus is the Firstborn from the Dead and the Firstborn of Creation, and the Last Adam.

Another person here is telling me that in the middle of Giving Jesus all Honor and Glory and Power that when the Worshiping begins that they totally shut Jesus out of the worship at this point..

.

GIVING Jesus the honor and glory means SOMEONE ELSE Gave it to him and that He did NOT have the same honor and glory, even in his ressurected "Glorious "form where he no longer had "Emptied himself". Also, do note that other beings are worshiped, like King David, King Saul, Moses's Step-Dad, etc. In fact, it even says the Saints will be "worshiped" by their enemies.

That is why i warn those that look to The image of God and say, NOT GOD and NOT my Worship.

How about instead of warning me, we go by a challenge to see which of us is right and which of us blasphemes with lies and false assertions that distort the true nature and concept. We ask God to arbitrate. You up for it?

How do you rationalize it in your head that some how you are honoring them the same... John 5:23

"Just as" (Kathos) does not mean "exactly the same" as in this sense.

Strong's Greek: 2531. ????? (kathos) -- just as, as

We are told to be merciful "Just as" God is merciful. Was Jesus asking what is impossible? By your logic, of course so.

That Even if someone where to say directly to Jesus, "The Lord of me and the God of me", would they see something else?

I've been over John 20:28 with you several times, it is Thomas shouting a "Statement of exclamation". Besides the fact that the ending of John clashes with the endings of Matthew and Luke of course.

 

[icebuddy]

The JW,s only had erred trinity translations to go by--that is why they thought worship to Jesus was right, but after years of careful studies of old writings, Gods word and languages and history--and Jesus' teachings they saw it was error to worship Jesus.

Do you believe that in 1914 that Jesus returned invisible and started running the WTBS? Not sure of the involvement of Jesus and the WTBS at 1914, but maybe you can help me.

Jesus was foretold as the coming messiah--appointed king--not God coming to earth

Mat 1:23 “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.”

This is not a name we call him, but who Jesus is. If you read the OT now looking back the Redeemer is also called "Jehovah". The Father and Paul use OT passages of Jehovah and apply them directly to Jesus.

We do obeisance to our king, as well as learn his teachings and apply his teachings.

So you deny Jesus of worship? You are not lifting him up to the highest and you are not honoring him the same as you honor the Father. (john 5:23)

The Holy Spirit brought me to this so that I can show you. (pay attention)

John who knew and walked with Jesus, knew everything about Jesus. john knew that Jesus created the angels and everything around him. Did John worship Jesus or Not is the question? Lets say John knew better and didnt worship Jesus, like JW's today. If that where true, then we would never see John trying to worship an angel in Revelation 22:8. What this shows us, is that John did Worship Jesus. otherwise, he would have never tried to worship Jesus's created angel. (That Jesus Sent)

Worship the Image of God!

 

[icebuddy]

verse 13 mentions the lamb--verse 14 does not. Verse 13 mentions what the lamb receives alongside of his God and Father-- worship is not one of them.

Someone is Blinded by the devil, either you or me... Look at it and pray

The whole passage is in a book called "The Revelation of Jesus" yet when you get to a part that says, "Worthy is the lamb(JESUS) to receive honor, glory, and praise. Then when it come time for them to praise and honor you say they shut the lamb out of their praising and honoring because of the word "Worship"? Thats crazy talk...

The passage even says, "To him on the thrown and to the Lamb". All of this and you then say that Jesus wasnt included because they worshiped? Rev 5:12-14

I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Amen

 

[kjw47]

Someone is Blinded by the devil, either you or me... Look at it and pray

The whole passage is in a book called "The Revelation of Jesus" yet when you get to a part that says, "Worthy is the lamb(JESUS) to receive honor, glory, and praise. Then when it come time for them to praise and honor you say they shut the lamb out of their praising and honoring because of the word "Worship"? Thats crazy talk...

The passage even says, "To him on the thrown and to the Lamb". All of this and you then say that Jesus wasnt included because they worshiped? Rev 5:12-14

I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Amen

They worshiped the one on the throne, not the lamb. The one on the throne--taught Jesus everything, gave Jesus everything--If Jesus were God he would not have to be taught or given anything--a millennial kingship was given to Jesus by the one on the throne( ancient of days) as well( Daniel 7:13-14) --- rev 5: 13 teaches what goes to the lamb--worship is not one of the things mentioned.

but why would Jesus have to be in subjection if he were God? 1 cor 15:24-28

the 5 major teachings of Jesus I have been showing in different spots proves--Jesus pointed his followers to his God and Father , not to himself. That is why Gods word clearly teaches--The Father is looking for such like ones to worship him in spirit and truth.

I agree one of us is wrong. Jesus' truths say its you.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Someone is Blinded by the devil, either you or me...

I'll vouch for KJW.

 

[Shermana]

Someone is Blinded by the devil, either you or me... Look at it and pray

The whole passage is in a book called "The Revelation of Jesus" yet when you get to a part that says, "Worthy is the lamb(JESUS) to receive honor, glory, and praise. Then when it come time for them to praise and honor you say they shut the lamb out of their praising and honoring because of the word "Worship"? Thats crazy talk...

The passage even says, "To him on the thrown and to the Lamb". All of this and you then say that Jesus wasnt included because they worshiped? Rev 5:12-14

I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Amen

I told you, it doesn't matter if the Book was titled later "The Revelation of Jesus", because Rev 1:1 clearly says it's the Revelation God GAVE to Jesus. Surely you're honest enough or educated enough in basic English to understand that "Revelation of" can in fact mean "That which was given to".

Also, worship applies to more than just God, it applies to Kings, Angels, and even the Saints themselves! The saints are told the gentiles will worship them. What now?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have no problem being in the .0001% if need be. 99.9999% of Christians are going to be rejected as doers of lawlessness and idolators, so I have no problem being in the minority, my case stands just fine. There are many scholars who are in the .1% with me.

So once again, If John the Baptist was greater than Jesus, then he could have died on the cross for our sins instead of Jesus. Or better yet, when John was beheaded by King Herod, that would have been sufficient enough for our sins and therefore Jesus' death and Resurrection would have been unnecessary. Is that what this has come too?

What kind of work was such healing exactly? The whole point of Jesus saying that it was permissible for them to perform circumcisions and let their cattle out to eat and dig donkeys out of their ditches was his point. His "work" that the Father "works' was not the kind of "Work" that was prohibited. He called them hypocrites for a reason. Not because they were interpreting the law correctly.

In case you missed it, I granted this point, Sherm

By "Moral sense" it is "earned merit" or "greatness" in terms of morality and character, whereas in Phil 2:5-9 it is more along the lines of "Equality of authority". However, it does not exactly mean what you think either. Read the link I provided for a breakdown of the Greek. With that said, the word "Greater" used there can only be of the "greatness of morality and character" meaning.

My point is and always will be why did Jesus had to take the form of something that he always was? That is my question. If he was created by God and was created to obey God and do the will of God, why would he have to take the form of such if he was already one? It would only make sense if he wasn't one at first, but BECAME one, as the scripture seems to indicate.

Right. They just didn't comprehend correctly that it wasn't necessarily wrong to be considered "a god".

Ok we agree on that point but I would think that Jesus would have been more explicit in telling them that he wasn't God if that was the accusation.

Define "nature".

The essence of your being. In terms of God, that would be his ominisience, omnipotence, ominibenevolence, omnipresence.

If you read my link you'll see it's not hard at all.

How about you paste on here where exactly within the link is the defeater of Phil 2:5-9.

I explained, Peter was saying that Jesus knew all things in the sense that he had immediate understanding. Otherwise you have a blatant contradiction.

No it isn’t a contradiction if there are plausible explanations, which there are. And besides, I have an immediate understanding of a lot of things, but it would be quite a stretch to say I “know all things” because I have an immediate understanding of just a few things. Just sayin.

Besides, guess what, John 21 is considered a later-added "Epilogue" by most scholars. And you may want to take this position so you don't have such a blatant contradiction in your own interpretation. Unless you don't mind blatant contradictions of course.

Yeah that is the consensus but so what? It was even added to finish what John started, or it was added to deliberately deceive readers, now which is it? The scripture says what it says and if it happened, it happened, regardless of who wrote it.

You're comparing a Revelation from God to a person praying?

No what I am saying is it is possible for someone to give you information that you already know, and praying to God is an example of this.

When you read Phil 2:5-9 correctly, you'll see it doesn't quite say what you think it does.

I guess this is another plain and simple scripture that I need someone to interpret for me. It is as clear as day to me. Jesus is God by nature, so instead of saying “I am to high and mighty to come on earth as a lowly human”, he humbled himself, and did the opposite, giving up his high and mighty position in heaven to come on earth and die for the sins of mankind. That is what I get when I read it. I can’t speak for others with presuppositions.

And seriously, you may want to consider the scholarly position of John 21:17 so you don't have such a blatant contradiction.

I just answered this Sherm.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I agree with Call of the Wild on these posts. However i would like to add that the Sabbath was written for mans benefit not Gods. And Rev 1:1 we read "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", now is this the title of the book or what? Because when we read, it says Which God gave Him to show his servants? Who is God and who is the him, because when we keep reading we see that "God"(he) gave it to his angel to give to John. I simply read this as follows:

The Revelation of Jesus, Which God gave to his angel to pass on to John.

BTW - Call of The Wild, nice calming spirit you have!

Thank you very kindly. You know, Sherm is one of my favorite punching bags on here. He just keeps coming back for more

 

[Shermana]

[

QUOTE=Call_of_the_Wild;3520126]

So once again, If John the Baptist was greater than Jesus, then he could have died on the cross for our sins instead of Jesus. Or better yet, when John was beheaded by King Herod, that would have been sufficient enough for our sins and therefore Jesus' death and Resurrection would have been unnecessary. Is that what this has come too?

You're now changing the subject regarding what was intended by the meaning of "Greater". Besides, this may actually give credence to certain "heretical" theologies regarding Jesus's birth if you don't think Jesus was including himself.

In case you missed it, I granted this point, Sherm

Okay then.

My point is and always will be why did Jesus had to take the form of something that he always was? That is my question. If he was created by God and was created to obey God and do the will of God, why would he have to take the form of such if he was already one? It would only make sense if he wasn't one at first, but BECAME one, as the scripture seems to indicate.

You could reverse the question back to yourself, why would Jesus have the "Form of God". Read the Link I provided. Here's an example of the issue at stake:

The highly regarded (and trinitarian) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:

"Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28)." - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.]

Ok we agree on that point but I would think that Jesus would have been more explicit in telling them that he wasn't God if that was the accusation.

He didn't need to be since that wasn't what he was being accused of.

The essence of your being. In terms of God, that would be his ominisience, omnipotence, ominibenevolence, omnipresence.

But he clearly wasn't the exact same as God in those categories. God was the one who gave him everything he had. Including revelation, which means God had knowledge Jesus didn't have. And if Jesus was given his powers, that means God had the power to give him that which he lacked.

How about you paste on here where exactly within the link is the defeater of Phil 2:5-9.

Sure, morphe only really refers to outward appearance:

However, as even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:


"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.


Thayer agrees that morphe is


"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young's Analytical Concordance (also compare the closely-related morphosis) and Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.]

No it isn’t a contradiction if there are plausible explanations, which there are. And besides, I have an immediate understanding of a lot of things, but it would be quite a stretch to say I “know all things” because I have an immediate understanding of just a few things. Just sayin.

If Jesus has to receive revelation, he doesn't know all things. So either it's what I'm saying, or John 21 really is an entirely interpolated Chapter.

Yeah that is the consensus but so what? It was even added to finish what John started, or it was added to deliberately deceive readers, now which is it? The scripture says what it says and if it happened, it happened, regardless of who wrote it.

I'm guessing to deliberately deceive readers, like many other things like 1 John 5:7. Saying that whatever scripture says happened as if there's no room for debate on it only works for fundamentalists who think Bible scholarship is of the devil. You're best arguing with only those who believe as you do in this case.

No what I am saying is it is possible for someone to give you information that you already know, and praying to God is an example of this.

So therefore, Jesus didn't know all things, since he received Revelation. Pretty simple.

I guess this is another plain and simple scripture that I need someone to interpret for me. It is as clear as day to me. Jesus is God by nature, so instead of saying “I am to high and mighty to come on earth as a lowly human”, he humbled himself, and did the opposite, giving up his high and mighty position in heaven to come on earth and die for the sins of mankind. That is what I get when I read it. I can’t speak for others with presuppositions.

It's as clear as day to me too. So one of us is reading it wrong. How do we resolve this if it's as clear as day?

 

[icebuddy]

I've been over John 20:28 with you several times.

Im not going to respond to the last post because it is clear you believe yourself to be right and all others wrong. (Probably how i think too)

Anyways, keep praying

 

[Shermana]

Im not going to respond to the last post because it is clear you believe yourself to be right and all others wrong. (Probably how i think too)

Anyways, keep praying

Well at least you admit its how you think too, so why are you not going to respond to me? I at least am willing to back up my position with arguments and scholarly reasons and explaining why the other positions are incorrect. What does it matter what I believe? Do you not believe the same thing that you are right and that I am wrong? The difference is that people on your side tend to just believe that their own interpretations are sancrosanct and that all Bible scholarship is of the Devil and that they have the Spirit and therefore there's no use in explaining otherwise.

A nice attempt at diving away from the holes poked in your beliefs and the fact that there are other explanations, but all it is is just a cheap display of projection and evasiveness.

Perhaps we can ask God to settle it between us which of us is right and which of us is blasphemously distorting what He wants conveyed if you don't want to actually address my points. Shall we ask Him to make it clear to the one who is wrong that they are wrong somehow?

Seriously, if no one responded to anyone who believes they're right and others are wrong, there would be no point of a debate site. Very few people debate unless they want to prove their own idea and disprove others, even those who claim to be "seeking", they still have their confirmation biases. Debate is all about proving one confirmation bias and disproving another, and showing that certain biases cannot be adequately defended while others can be.

 

[icebuddy]

They worshiped the one on the throne, not the lamb.

if you where a JW of the past you would have agreed with me that Jesus was worshiped here. but because many Christians pointing out that worship only goes to God have the WTBS changed their view and no longer worship Jesus. (Although Jesus was running the WTBS this whole time since 1914) One would think Jesus would know.

The one on the throne--taught Jesus everything, gave Jesus everything--If Jesus were God he would not have to be taught or given anything--a millennial kingship was given to Jesus by the one on the throne( ancient of days) as well( Daniel 7:13-14) --- rev 5: 13 teaches what goes to the lamb--worship is not one of the things mentioned.

You are only looking at Jesus as the offspring of David. You have focused upon a Jesus that "Emptied Himself". For example, the bible says Jesus is a Man to this very day, do you believe this? If not, what do you believe he is today, and why? (Give scripture)

but why would Jesus have to be in subjection if he were God? 1 cor 15:24-28

Why is a mans Wife subject to him and are they still equal in nature (being a man/human) Jesus emptied himself of the form of God to become a man. Jesus willingly did this and the Father wants us to honor Jesus with the same honor(worship is honor) as the Father himself because of this. You have put God in a box and defined God before you read the bible.

the 5 major teachings of Jesus I have been showing in different spots proves--Jesus pointed his followers to his God and Father , not to himself.

And the Father points to Jesus as Jehovah. They are in a love fest you cannot stop. Jesus says honor the Father, the Father says Honor the Son. Jesus says the Father is God, the Father says Jesus is God. The circle is endless. You see 1/2 of whats going on. Read what the Father says of the son at Hebrews 1:10-12. Why Did the Father quote passages of Jehovah God and apply them directly to Jesus? Psalms 102:25-27

The NWT translators (who ever they are), saw a glimpse of this but didnt understand it when they inserted Jehovah into the New Testament in places like Romans 10:13
For we should all know that the name we are to call upon is Jesus NOT Jehovah. If you keep reading what name did they preach day and night? Was it Jesus or was it Jehovah? The Disciples preached Jesus! Read Acts 5:42 and 2 Cor 4:5.

if you Read 2 Cor 4:5 and look at Rom 10:13 could not one read "We preach not our self, but Jesus Christ as Jehovah"? What name did the disciples feet bring to the people? Was it Jesus of Jehovah? please provide scripture

That is why Gods word clearly teaches--The Father is looking for such like ones to worship him in spirit and truth.

And you cannot worship him without Jesus who completes our salvation. Clearly Jer 23:5-6 says we can call Jesus Jehovah. (however you look at it)
Also clearly Is 44:6-8 says the Redeemer(Jesus) is Jehovah of Armies(Hosts) and speaks as God speaks.

I agree one of us is wrong. Jesus' truths say its you.

all i can say to you is that when we both die and stand before Jesus, I will bow in worship and say to him My Lord and My God. I just hope you are in line behind me and not before telling him he is Not God and not worthy of your worship... (something you cannot say in the Greek)

 

[icebuddy]

I told you, it doesn't matter if the Book was titled later "The Revelation of Jesus", because Rev 1:1 clearly says it's the Revelation God GAVE to Jesus.

You are assuming here. The Revelation of Jesus is the Title of the scroll lets say like a book title. The only person we see being given this book is an angel. If you reverse it and see that Jesus is the one who gave it to his angel to show john then could it not be read as follows

The Revelation of Jesus, which Jesus gave to his angel to show John?
Or
The Revelation of Jesus, which God gave to his angel to show John?

What you are seeing and the text doesnt say is "The revelation of Jesus, which the Father God gave to Jesus who then gave it to an angel who then gave it to John... (You are assuming this)

Since we see clearly that Jesus is the one giving it to his angel, can we then assume that Jesus is the God who gave it to the Him(Angel)... What if it read, The Word of God, which God gave to him to show his servant John...?

Surely you're honest enough or educated enough in basic English to understand that "Revelation of" can in fact mean "That which was given to".

Getting all smart on me now? Will you leave the switch on when you read Rev 5:12-14 or Rev 22:12-16... Or even John 20:28? I would never look to the Image of God and say, NOT GOD...

Also, worship applies to more than just God, it applies to Kings, Angels, and even the Saints themselves! The saints are told the gentiles will worship them. What now?

All i can tell you is that when you bow to worship God your creator and you think of only the Father and Not Jesus, you just honored them differently. You keep throwing junk balls when the Fathers word directly says to Honor the son the same as you honor the Father. You then deny Jesus of worship because of a passage that says worship God alone. Rev 5 even show us that the lamb is worthy of worship and some how you dont see it... But God knew you wouldnt see it and wrote this passage just for this very reason:

1Cr 10:1 ¶Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Whos the Rock? Who is it? Now ask yourself who the Rock of the OT was? Now read Hebrews 1:10-12 with ps 102:25-27

Ask yourself how does the god of this age blind someone of seeing God in the Face of Jesus? 2 Cor 4:4-6

I call Jesus God and Jehovah because the Father told me so and I worship Jesus as well. Not by himself, but i worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

 

[icebuddy]

Well at least you admit its how you think too, so why are you not going to respond to me? I at least am willing to back up my position with arguments and scholarly reasons and explaining why the other positions are incorrect.

i did not see that to be the case. i saw you explaining things away in your own reasoning. Take some of the passage I see as plain and simple yet you twist them in my eyes and Im sure you think Im twisting your verses in your eyes...

I still see the Father telling us to worship Jesus and that he is Jehovah our Rock and savior with him of the Old Testament...

Like I said in the earlier post: How do you think the god of this world blinds to not see God in the face of Jesus (2 Cor 4:4-6)

Explain to me how you think one is blinded here. And if the one who is blinded ever finds out, how would he feel ?

 

[Shermana]

Icebuddy, you're simply repeating yourself and not even attempting to address my counter-arguments and links that I've provided and shown you each time, not even Trinitarian commentators agree with this misrepresentation of what Paul meant by "The Rock" in Cor 10:4, if anything that verse demonstrates Philo's Logos Theology by indicating that Jesus was the vehicle doing God's work, and the title of the Book of Revelation was given much later, it actually has several different titles, and you're blatantly ignoring what verse 1:1 specifically says.

And Revelation 22:13 is not Jesus talking!! Each of these issues I've been over with you, rather than trying to argue against them, you simply repeat your initial assertions each time!

I also said that "Just as" does not mean "Exactly in the same manner", otherwise you are expected to be merciful "just as" God is.

I am not denying Jesus worship, I am saying that other beings are worshiped too. To honor Jesus "just as" God is worshiped does not mean that they are the same being. The Father wants the Logos to be respected as His vehicle and to be regarded as His heir and primary being. The Logos is the highest of all Creation, so he is on a very high level of regard, "just as" God is.

If you are so concerned about how we are going to be judged in the final days, how about you accept a simple challenge. We ask God to arbitrate with a result in the very near future, which of us is speaking the Truth and which of us is pushing lies. If you're so concerned about me saying the right thing at the day of judgment, think about how this could greatly help me see the light if I am wrong! Aren't you interested in saving my soul?

Basically, if you don't want to actually address what I said, how about we just settle it that way?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're now changing the subject regarding what was intended by the meaning of "Greater". Besides, this may actually give credence to certain "heretical" theologies regarding Jesus's birth if you don't think Jesus was including himself.

Well, the subject of who is "greater" lead directly to the bigger subject of whether or not Jesus was alone in being the only person capable of dying for the sins of the world, and I would argue yes.

You could reverse the question back to yourself, why would Jesus have the "Form of God". Read the Link I provided. Here's an example of the issue at stake:

Not all translations have "form of God". And not only that, but if the author is trying to make the distinction between the form of "God" and the form of a man (v. 8) as the context seems to indicate, then one can see why the verse is rendered the way that it is.

He didn't need to be since that wasn't what he was being accused of.

But they were about to put him to death so obviously he was accused of something that was death worthy.

But he clearly wasn't the exact same as God in those categories. God was the one who gave him everything he had. Including revelation, which means God had knowledge Jesus didn't have. And if Jesus was given his powers, that means God had the power to give him that which he lacked.

Rev 19:12 states that the name written on on Jesus, no one knows but him himself. Now am I right to assume that God doesn't know it by taking it literally, or am I to understand that obviously God is the exception?

If Jesus has to receive revelation, he doesn't know all things. So either it's what I'm saying, or John 21 really is an entirely interpolated Chapter.

And if no one knows the name written on Jesus but Jesus, then the Father doesn't know all things, right?

I'm guessing to deliberately deceive readers, like many other things like 1 John 5:7. Saying that whatever scripture says happened as if there's no room for debate on it only works for fundamentalists who think Bible scholarship is of the devil. You're best arguing with only those who believe as you do in this case.

I certainly don't mind the debate.

So therefore, Jesus didn't know all things, since he received Revelation. Pretty simple.

So neither did the Father in the verse mentioned above.

It's as clear as day to me too. So one of us is reading it wrong. How do we resolve this if it's as clear as day?

All of Jesus' the questions asked regarding the limtations of Jesus is clearly answered in Phil 2:5-9.

 

[kjw47]

if you where a JW of the past you would have agreed with me that Jesus was worshiped here. but because many Christians pointing out that worship only goes to God have the WTBS changed their view and no longer worship Jesus. (Although Jesus was running the WTBS this whole time since 1914) One would think Jesus would know.

You are only looking at Jesus as the offspring of David. You have focused upon a Jesus that "Emptied Himself". For example, the bible says Jesus is a Man to this very day, do you believe this? If not, what do you believe he is today, and why? (Give scripture)

Why is a mans Wife subject to him and are they still equal in nature (being a man/human) Jesus emptied himself of the form of God to become a man. Jesus willingly did this and the Father wants us to honor Jesus with the same honor(worship is honor) as the Father himself because of this. You have put God in a box and defined God before you read the bible.

And the Father points to Jesus as Jehovah. They are in a love fest you cannot stop. Jesus says honor the Father, the Father says Honor the Son. Jesus says the Father is God, the Father says Jesus is God. The circle is endless. You see 1/2 of whats going on. Read what the Father says of the son at Hebrews 1:10-12. Why Did the Father quote passages of Jehovah God and apply them directly to Jesus? Psalms 102:25-27

The NWT translators (who ever they are), saw a glimpse of this but didnt understand it when they inserted Jehovah into the New Testament in places like Romans 10:13
For we should all know that the name we are to call upon is Jesus NOT Jehovah. If you keep reading what name did they preach day and night? Was it Jesus or was it Jehovah? The Disciples preached Jesus! Read Acts 5:42 and 2 Cor 4:5.

if you Read 2 Cor 4:5 and look at Rom 10:13 could not one read "We preach not our self, but Jesus Christ as Jehovah"? What name did the disciples feet bring to the people? Was it Jesus of Jehovah? please provide scripture

And you cannot worship him without Jesus who completes our salvation. Clearly Jer 23:5-6 says we can call Jesus Jehovah. (however you look at it)
Also clearly Is 44:6-8 says the Redeemer(Jesus) is Jehovah of Armies(Hosts) and speaks as God speaks.

all i can say to you is that when we both die and stand before Jesus, I will bow in worship and say to him My Lord and My God. I just hope you are in line behind me and not before telling him he is Not God and not worthy of your worship... (something you cannot say in the Greek)

The Israelite teachers were looking for the messiah to be their king--not God. The greek word proskenau had 4 meanings from greek to English--1) worship to God, 2) obeisance to a king, plus 2 others-- so in usage for the messiah--obeisance is the correct usage. The trinity translators erred to fit Catholicism council false teachings--many errors occurred in their translations. carried into every trinity based religion on this earth.

 

[Muffled]

I'll vouch for KJW.

On what basis?

I do believe however that people are capable of being irrational without the devils help.

 

[Muffled]

[

You're now changing the subject regarding what was intended by the meaning of "Greater". Besides, this may actually give credence to certain "heretical" theologies regarding Jesus's birth if you don't think Jesus was including himself.

I don't know why some people consider this heretical. The Biblical record implies that God worked the conception ie that it wasn't a natural conception. This gives rise to whether born of a woman means the same thing as being born. I believe it is reasonable to consider "born of a woman" to mean the whole process of fertilization, getation and birth.

Jesus went on to say the least in the Kingdom was greater than John and Jesus is a mainstay of the Kingdom.