by ajie 221 Replies latest watchtower bible
HR:
Aye. Is God classed as "God" because He's the creator or because He's the worshipped one?
Methinks there's greater kudos in being a creator than being some spirit being that demands people bow down all the time...
Merry:
It was worth a shot
Ross,
About proskuneô again:
I'm asking if the Father and the Son are treated the same way, in connection with this word, regardless of what connotations the word imples.
The problem is that the symbolical meaning of the act of proskuneô differs according to the nature of the object (bowing before a god or bowing before a man) -- so there is a bit of circular reasoning involved here.
Proskuneô to/before "God" or a god is, unambiguously, an act of worship (which, again, doesn't imply that the word proskuneô means "worship"). So in Matthew 4:9f; Luke 4:7f (God or the devil); John 4:20ff; 12:20; Acts 7:43 (gods); 8:27; 24:11; 1 Corinthians 14:25.
In the Gospels, which picture the earthly Jesus as a man (even if this "man" is actually "God in form of man" -- I choose a docetic wording deliberately here), the act is of necessity ambiguous: at the first level of reading all it means is that people bow before an important man; at a "deeper" level, to the believing reader, more is implied; only if the reader already believes that "Jesus is God" will s/he understand "worship". This ambiguity is essential to the narrative in most places. For instance in Matthew 2:2 (the Magi), 8 (Herod!), 11 (the Magi again); 8:2 (the leper, before his healing); 9:18 (the ruler, before the healing of his daughter); 15:25 (the Canaanite woman, before the healing of her daughter); 20:20 (the mother of Zebedee's sons); Mark 5:1 (a demon-possessed man); 15:19 (the soldiers!).
Only when the proskunèsis occurs as a result of revelation can an act of worship be implied, e.g. Matthew 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38. But only the reader who assumes that Jesus is actually God will understand that Jesus is treated as God.
That a purely human meaning is possible is clear from Matthew 18:26 (a slave proskunei before his master: if you understand an act of worship the parable ceases to be a parable).
Also, the angel in Revelation refusing John's proskunèsis is explicitly based on the relationship between angels and believers (they are "fellow slaves"); it does not imply that proskunèsis to an angel is always impossible, cf. 3:9: "I will make them come and bow down (proskunèsousin) before your (the angel of the church in Philadelphia's) feet."
In sum, the evidence from proskuneô is pretty inconclusive imo. The texts can be read from an Arian standpoint, putting Jesus somewhere in between "angels" and "God" (cf. Hebrews 1:6) and from a Nicene standpoint (implying Jesus = God).
I was also thinking of the affirmations at Rev.5 verses 8 and 13, which include pipto and doxa, respectively.
Joseph,
Your comment that John 1:1 does not refer to the same beginning is not exegetical. The Greek Septuagint uses the EXACT wording for "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 that John uses for "In the beginning."
Since you cannot possibly arrive at your conclusion that he "meant [some other beginning]" from the original language, you must have come up with it the same way JWs comes up with their beliefs. I understand wanting your beliefs to be right so badly that you are willing to leap to conclusions that are unsupported. But in this case, I am sorry to report that is what you have done.
AuldSoul
Nark,
But only the reader who assumes that Jesus is actually God will understand that Jesus is treated as God.
How true! My old argument I've always used is to have 20 people read the NT who have never even seen a bible nor been influenced by it, and ask them when they finish if they think Jesus is god... or he is gods son, and if they are two distinct beings. How many would come to a trinitarian veiw? If they would not, then why do most christians believe a trinitarian way? I admit that... when it is analyized, there are many seeds in the scriptures with the two being one.
LT,
Does God only love the lost tribes of Israel??
Course not ya big silly. It was who he was to preach to as he said. ( he cheated at the well with the samaritan woman but she was close kin so he sacraficed a tad)
Yes, he died for all ...but left it up to his buddies to make sure everyone knew about it because he said his death only applied to "those who would put faith in him" would benifit. Then he let the poor buddies get martered so they couldn't tell everyone and put the whole damn burden on a lone tentmaker. He was a slavedriver I tell ya that ol' Jesus
Gumby
Gumby
How true! My old argument I've always used is to have 20 people read the NT who have never even seen a bible nor been influenced by it, and ask them when they finish if they think Jesus is god... or he is gods son, and if they are two distinct beings. How many would come to a trinitarian veiw? If they would not, then why do most christians believe a trinitarian way? I admit that... when it is analyized, there are many seeds in the scriptures with the two being one.
Most of the early Church fathers, and they were mostly the only ones educated enough to read at the time.
D Dog
Gumby:I'm afraid that I came to that POV even though my beliefs were diametrically opposed to the idea.
DD,
"Church Fathers" conveniently leaves out all the equally educated "heretics" from the 2nd to the 4th century...
Nark
No it doesn't! I said "most" not all.
D Dog
LT
I'm afraid that I came to that POV even though my beliefs were diametrically opposed to the idea.
From one Calvinist to another. I Love it!
Dog
