My question is, if you examine only the context of Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, how would anyone ever come to the conclusion that Jesus was one of the angels? Which verses in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 would lead someone to believe that Jesus was one of the angels?
If you do not intend to read the entire thread, including my answers to the very same questions that you are now asking me, then the best that I intend to do in this discussion is to refer to back to my previous response since I want you to be able to draw the conclusion on your own that none of my responses heretofore given are likewise to change, even if the question you have directed to me should be rephrased. I posted a lengthy message to @peacedog that contains my response to this question that you should have read just as in your previous post seeking definitions you should not have asked me about how I might define words when you had already asked me these questions and you should have known that they had already been asked and answered.
So @Undisfellowshipped, in responding to this last post and future posts of yours, I may resort to either ignoring the question or to responding asked and answered. I do want to move this discussion forward since I have to believe that when you were sitting at those meetings at the Kingdom Hall for those 20 years that you were in attendance at them that you know that this doctrine of the Trinity was never proffered by Jesus at any time. That apostate Christians had been begun formulating teachings that departed from what Jesus and the apostles had been teaching during the first century AD is not news to those of us that have read the remarks made by the apostle Paul and the apostle John, which by 325 AD had matured into the Trinity doctrine that you are here defending.
@djeggnog wrote (to @peacedog):
Whatever reasons you might have for bashing the NWT as a suitable Bible translation aside, there doesn't seem to me to have been any discernible reason for your telling me that you didn't like the NWT, although I am well aware that many former Jehovah's Witnesses and non-Jehovah's Witnesses believe other Bible translations to be better and prefer to use those Bible translations over the NWT. I don't care [which] Bible you prefer to use, but of what benefit is it to me to know that you don't like the NWT?
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
I do agree with you djeggnog that this thread is probably not the correct thread for anyone to be bashing the New World Translation or arguing over how good or how bad of a translation it is. Whether you like the New World Translation or you don't like it, it is the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses, so that is why I am using it when I have discussions with Witnesses of Jehovah.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
How exactly did I change what either of these two verses say when I didn't even quote from Hebrews 1:5 or Hebrews 1:13?
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Well, I do think that your commentary on those verses changed the plain meaning of those verses. I would guess that 95% of people who read Hebrews chapter 1 (without looking at any other part of the Bible) would come to the conclusion that Jesus was not one of the angels, because that is what those verses say.
Well, let me tell you this: Unlike was the case with many Jehovah's Witnesses with whom I grew up that were repeating the opinions of others that were, like them, reading the Watchtower, but drawing the wrong conclusion that they were being urged by the WTS to not attend college in pursuit of a career of some sort, I was raised in a household where the value of obtaining an education about our world was understood, so that it just wasn't possible that I was not going to attend college and was not going to be raised to believe as true things that we knew the WTS had not written in our literature.
This is why it is so hard for folks to talk to the elders at their local congregation because many of them -- not all by any means! -- parrot the conclusions that others have drawn, and because they have not really learned how to think for themselves, those Witnesses that come to them with legitimate questions are often quickly labelled as potential troublemakers because (a) they have never learned how to listen, (b) they, like you, do not really know the truth, and (c) they simply are doing the best they can with a limited education they have about how the world works.
I believe a good elder is one that knows that some in the congregation are smarter than he about the world and doesn't let his frustration is not readily comprehending the questions he is being asked get the best of him and is humble enough to ask for help from those more educated than he. Many are learning how to be good, better elders.
Now we've got some seemingly spiritual-minded elders that are actually intimated when a sister demonstrates the ability to answer certain Bible-related questions better than they so that she doesn't get the praise that she deserves from them for making their role in the congregation easier (until they have learned from her fine example how they should be answering those questions), but she may also have attended college so that she can see things from a different perspective than those that have only obtained a high school diploma (which is commendable).
However, a high school diploma is required if one wishes to become a lawyer, or if one wishes to become a physician, etc., but such is not required if one should decide to pursue to the Christian ministry full time as many have done (which is also commendable). This is the advice WTS has published over the years that some of the folks have gotten wrong and which wrong conclusion many elders have advanced in which those lacking education have put their faith when their faith should have been in what things the Bible teaches and not by the traditions preached as doctrines by the local body of elders.
(How on earth could so many have put their faith in the teachings of some elders that led to some incurring huge debts leading up to and during 1975, ignorantly reasoning that they wouldn't have to honor these debts because Armageddon was expected near when they were lacking in an education and could no better than declare bankruptcy (here in the US) to see their way out from under the mountain of debt they had? Because nothing at all was going on up there where all of the thinking they weren't doing was supposed to be taking place during all of those years that they were attending meetings thinking that they were "in the truth" when their thinking was materialistic in nature, worldly, demonic, even vile as they had schemed against their own spiritual interests! How does one concentrate in a meeting when losing one's home of 20, 30 years through foreclosure due to greed and materialism and denying Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 that they had heard, but not learned while they were thinking that they were "in the truth"? Excuse me, but this was just a parenthetical tangent I was on about here.)
I'd say that among Jehovah's Witnesses that if it should be true that 95% of the people that read Hebrews chapters 1 are unfamiliar with the English language (other languages, too) into which the Greek text of this chapter has been translated to know the rules that govern their own language, and who have not studied the rest of the Bible are very likely to draw conclusions that those of us that are familiar with the English language would not draw. Among Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd say 95% is a ridiculous number, but I wasn't asked that question.
@djeggnog wrote:
I'm just trying to have a friendly Bible-related discussion here with @Undisfellowshipped, with you, with others here. I'm not here to fight with you or with anyone so let's clear the air and start over. Let me know what you believe I've done wrong here so that, if possible, I can take steps to right that wrong, if it should be possible to do so, in order that you and me, and the rest of those that should join and participating in this thread with us, might have a good and robust discussion. Thanks in advance.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
I do want to thank you djeggnog for the level of kindness, courtesy, politeness, and friendliness you have shown so far in this thread, and the ability to calmly try to reason on the Scriptures (as opposed to certain other individuals who shall remain Bane-less... oh, I meant nameless. lol)
np
@djeggnog wrote:
I say let everyone have freeness of speech to say whatever they wish in whatever manner they wish to express their own points of view.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Awesome!
<smile>
@djeggnog wrote:
I only just told someone else in a thread I posted yesterday and I'm now telling you that "I do not require you or require anyone at all to post any of the articles that have appeared in any of the WTS publications. I have all of them...." If you wish to define a word, like "Godship," in order to ensure that I understand that by it you mean either "divine nature" or "divinity," that would be enough for me, but all of what you wrote wasn't at all necessary to make your point, @Undisfellowshipped. Had you just asked me the question, my answer as to whether I [knew] what the word "Godship" means would have been "yes."
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
I usually post the actual quotes in any debate for the benefit of those who are watching this debate from the "sidelines."
I don't care about the lurkers, about what those watching from the "sidelines" might not be able to comprehend without their being able to read "the actual quotes" from WTS publications. If you want to make this thread about the WTS publications and not about the Trinity doctrine, that's fine, @Undisfellowshipped, but in that case, I'm going to withdraw from it since we cannot move this discussion forward if you and other are going to keep it mired in some angst that you and others might have over something you may have read in one of our publications that Jehovah's Witnesses have since abandoned and no longer teach. The truth is progressive and if you want this thread to deteriorate into one that is all about the former teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, I won't get in the way of that, but I won't be a part of such a thread either since I only defend current truths in which we as an organization believe and teach others.
Jehovah's Witnesses simply do not defend today former teachings of the past that have since been abandoned. I have advanced the illustration earlier in this thread about how the world no longer defends its former belief in Pluto being a planet and has now abandoned this teaching. The world doesn't believe it needs to defend its former teaching about Pluto being a planet; neither do Jehovah's Witnesses feel any need to defend former teachings it has abandoned.
And why would you be here quoting old articles for the sake of those on the "sidelines" when they are not actively participating in this discussion? When you quote these old articles, @Undisfellowshipped, you are quoting what others have written on a particular topic and those folks are not here to defend what it was they meant, and if I, or someone else here, should ask you to post the article(s) that prove something that you might assert here, only then would it be appropriate to be posting old articles.
@djeggnog wrote:
However, I notice your inclusion here of "the quality of being a god" in your summation of how the Insight book defined "Godship," which may be how you read Insight's definition of "Godship," but this isn't how the word is actually defined in the Insight book as you are suggesting here. I'm going to ask that you please not do this, for, in a decision like this one, I'm paying strict attention to sleights of hand just like this one.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Merriam-Webster defines "sleight of hand" as: "a cleverly executed trick or deception." Wow, I'm not sure what I wrote that can get me accused of that. Let us examine that full Insight Book statement once again, to see if there was any "sleight of hand" going on....
.
.
.
Can you explain to me why you thought I was being deceptive by quoting the Insight Book, which is your own Organization's Bible Commentary/Dictionary/Encyclopedia? ... I suggest you re-read over that Insight Book statement again, and see if you can explain more fully why you believe that I am being deceptive.
Let's not. My interest is in moving this discussion along. I have no interest in discussing dictionaries, lexicons or something you believe you both read and understood in one of our publications. None.
Djeggnog, how do you define "divine nature" and how do you define "divinity"?
Asked and answered.
@djeggnog wrote:
Just to be clear, Jesus is the "only-begotten" son of God, because Jehovah God is Jesus' Father, or "Begetter," in the sense that a human father begets a son or a daughter.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
That is not the definition that the Insight Book gave....
Ok.
You said that Jehovah begets Jesus in the sense that a human father begets a son or daughter. What exactly do you mean? Surely you are not saying that God the Father has sexual relations with some kind of heavenly female, and then she becomes pregnant and she then gave birth to Jesus, are you?
No.
@djeggnog wrote:
That Jehovah and Jesus are two separate individuals is clear from what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 2:5 about Jesus being the "one mediator between God and men.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
1 Timothy 2:5 does not mention the name "Jehovah" anywhere in it, so we can throw out your statement. Now, if you want to re-phrase your statement like this, "That God and Jesus are two separate individuals is clear from what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 2:5 about Jesus being the "one mediator between God and men," then we can continue on...
Jehovah is the name of my God and I know how He feels about His name and it being called upon by us, so there's no change that I'm going to throw out my statement. If you want to ignore my statement or discard it, you are free to do so, but my statement stands as written. Whenever it is that I should include the word "God" in my posts, if I should do so without qualifiers, then just know that I am referring to Jehovah. You have my permission to read into my posts this understanding in particular and no other. If we have reached an impasse here so that we cannot continue, that's ok, too.
I am not sure why you are trying to prove to me that God the Father and Jesus are "two separate individuals" -- I already believe that they are two different Persons. Each has their own mind, will, thoughts, and personality. The Trinity Doctrine includes this belief. It is "Modalism" which teaches that The Father and Jesus are the same person. The Trinity Doctrine says that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are Three DIFFERENT Persons who share the same Divine Nature.
This is how I see thing: You are the one that is going to proving to me that God is a Trinity using the NWT. I believe the Bible to be clear on the fact that God is not a Trinity, but I've been patiently waiting for you to provide such proof, which you have yet to do.
But 1 Timothy 2:5 doesn't tell us anything about whether or not The Father and Jesus share the same Divine Nature though.
Well, Ezra 3:4 doesn't tell us anything as to "whether or not The Father and Jesus share the same Divine Nature" either. I chose this verse at random, since most any random verse would do to make this point: When did I ever say that 1 Timothy 2:5, or any other verse in the Bible for that matter, speak to "whether or not The Father and Jesus share the same Divine Nature"?
@djeggnog wrote:
For you to quote only the two words, "most high" from Psalm 89:27 is to reach for straws since the rest of this stanza reads, "[The most high] of the kings of the earth." This portion of the stanza from which you quoted only the first two words is a reference by David to his seed, who would be given more kingly authority than anyone in the dynasty of Davidic kings. I am saying this just to make it clear that while, as you say, this is one of the phrases that you intend to use during this discussion, any attempt on your part to use this phrase improperly, to misuse it so as to make the reference to Jehovah as the "Most High" at Psalm 7:17, 47:2, 83:18 or 97:9 as being equal to this prophetic reference to Jesus Christ at Psalm 89:27, will lead to my withdrawal from this thread.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
First of all, up above you said this: "Moreover, in a Bible commentary, I can use whatever language I wish in order to convey to others whatever it is I think will convey my point of view," and you also said "I say let everyone have freeness of speech to say whatever they wish in whatever manner they wish to express their own points of view." But now, you are threatening to withdraw from this debate if I choose to define a certain word differently than you do? Wow, what caused the sudden change in your attitude toward this thread?
Are you telling me that you were you not threatening to withdraw when you made the following statement (quoted above, but I'm requoting it here):
1 Timothy 2:5 does not mention the name "Jehovah" anywhere in it, so we can throw out your statement. Now, if you want to re-phrase your statement like this, "That God and Jesus are two separate individuals is clear from what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 2:5 about Jesus being the "one mediator between God and men," then we can continue on...
? I am now promising you that I will withdraw from this discussion if you do not move this discussion forward by providing proof, using the NWT, that the Trinity doctrine is scriptural. Please provide this proof or accept the fact that you were unable to prove what it was you had alleged that you would be able to prove using the NWT.
@djeggnog wrote:
I do not accept this designation of God as being "The One True God by Nature." You can use it, of course, as you wish, but I reject the addition of the words "by Nature" as being meaningless and making "The One True God" obscure.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Were Paul's words "by nature" meaningless in Galatians 4:8? What did Paul mean when he said "those who by nature are not gods"? Can you explain what this passage means?
Asked and answered.
@djeggnog wrote:
You specifically mention "The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," but this lexicon oftentimes leaves one in the proverbial lurch when searching for the meaning of words like the English word "spirit," for example, that is used at Luke 24:37, 39, which word really means "demon," even though many Bible translations, like the NWT, use the literal word "spirit." (I'm really [not sure] how many Jehovah's Witnesses are competent to explain its use in these two verses, for many would wrongly assume that Jesus is referring to his spirit (divine) nature.)
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
How did you arrive at the "correct" definition of "demon" for that Greek word? The Insight Book does not agree with your definition:
The "Insight" volumes were published back in 1988 and much of the information it contains that
appeared in the "Aid to Bible Understanding" book, which was finally completed about 17 years earlier (in 1971), is still in accord with the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, this is 2010 and I don't care to even try to defend what Jehovah's Witnesses may have believed back in 1988, or in 1971, or in 1925 or in 1902!
To answer your question though, by reading Luke 11:24, one is helped to ascertain the meaning of the word "spirit" used at Luke 24:37, which is the same meaning that can be applied to Luke 24:39 as well. An unclean spirit is a "demon," and so the point that Jesus is making to his disciples in this passage at Luke 24:36-43 isn't what you read in that Insight book you consulted at all, but was to remind them that (after the global deluge of Noah's day) the demons -- unclean spirits -- do not have the ability to materialize bodies of flesh and bone, so if they could clearly see him, then it isn't possible that they could actually be beholding a demon in their midst, could they?
Jesus knew that his disciples knew that Abraham had provided hospitality to angels that had materialized in bodies of flesh and bone, but that since Noah's day, no demon had done so, but always in teaching mode, Jesus was just reasoning with them to calm their fears, especially since his body in which he appeared didn't look the same as the one of the Lord that they had remembered. Then, when at verse 41, Jesus went on to ask them, "Do you have something there to eat?" and they watched him eat the fish that they had handed to him, they knew that this wasn't any demon, but was Jesus, who one might glean from reading this, may have had a reputation among them for having a ravenous appetite and, with Jesus being Jesus, also may have served to calm their fears as well since they would have recognized his mannerisms when he was eating the broiled fish as having been characteristically Jesus'.
I'm pretty sure that there are many Jehovah's Witnesses today that if asked what Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 that will not give the 2010 answer, but will give a different answer, maybe the 1973 answer or the 1995 answer, who knows what answer? The only thing that Jesus ever asked of those that desired to follow him is that they be humble, teachable.
@djeggnog wrote:
What are you talking about here? Are you referring to the angel that led the Israelites at Exodus 23:20, 21, who I believe to be Michael, because Exodus 23:21 says about this angel that 'God's name was within him'? This angel [was] not Jehovah, and so I cannot agree with this definition.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
I am saving the discussion about THE Angel of the Lord for a later post. I was just defining it ahead of time.
Why?
@djeggnog wrote:
I cannot agree with this definition [that you gave for "angel"] either, for the 144,000 are going to be angels, but with a higher station than they, for, unlike the angels, these king-priests are destined to "become sharers in divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), meaning that they will becomes gods just as Jesus became a god after his resurrection to [immortal life as spirit beings]. However, these angels not having the divine nature does in no way make them any less "gods" or "godlike ones" (Psalm 8:5), which psalm the apostle Paul quotes at Hebrews 2:7, substituting the word "angels" for "godlike ones."
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Wow again. Where does the Bible ever say that the 144,000 will become "angels" and especially where does it ever say that the 144,000 will become gods?
After his resurrection, we read how Jesus, who is now an immortal God having an indestructible life, is referred to, at Revelation 12:7, as "Michael," which is the very name that Jesus was called before he came to earth and became the man "Jesus," where, at Jude 9, Michael is identified as being "Michael the archangel." We also read about Jesus being described at Revelation 20:1 as being an "angel," do we not? If Jesus is now an angelic God having immortality (other angels are mortal and so are not possessed of the divine nature), then those who are a part of the first resurrection and become united with Jesus "in the likeness of his resurrection (Romans 6:5), then these 144,000 "children of God" will be just like Jesus (1 John 3:2) IOW, the 144,000 will all of them be angelic Gods having immortality as well, a "created God" being a new creation, having a higher station than the angels, but angels nonetheless.
The Awake! of November 22nd 1999, Page 6 disagrees with you about the 144,000 becoming angels: "Let us begin by clearing up two widespread misconceptions about angels. Contrary to popular belief, angels did not begin their lives as humans."
I believe you've taken this statement completely out of context, and I'm not going to be discussing what problems you might have with comprehending what things you read in one of our publications, especially the old ones published back in 1999. I've said not a thing here about angels having first living their lives on earth as humans before becoming angels. Before the very foundations of the earth had even been laid, it is clear from reading Job 38:4-7 that angelic sons of God had preexisted the creation of mankind. Why are you erecting strawmen here anyway? Has it not occurred to you yet that I am not the one that is likely to fall victim to foolish arguments like this one?
So, let me get this straight, you are saying that the angels (without divine nature) are just as much "gods" as Jesus, who does have the divine nature?
Yes, but those angels in possession of the divine nature are immortal, whereas those angels without the divine nature are mortal. Haven't you heard that Satan, who is an angelic son of God, is also a "god," but that he will be destroyed at some point after the 1,000-year Judgment Day has ended, which would not be possible if Satan possessed the divine nature (meaning, in the event you're having difficulty following what it is I'm saying to you here, that Satan is mortal and can die).
First of all, what do you mean by the word "god" when you apply it to Jesus and when you apply it to the angels?
Asked and answered.
Secondly, what do you mean when you say "divine nature"?
Asked and answered.
What was Paul's point about "nature" at Galatians 4:8?
Asked and answered (in my previous post where you asked me the same question).
@djeggnog wrote:
Where in the passage you cite -- 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 -- does the apostle Paul say that there is only "One True God" and only "One True Lord"? Please don't make stuff up. Remember, I'm paying attention to everything you say here, and it seems to me that you could convince the unwary that this passage said exactly what you said it does. However, both you and I know that it really doesn't say this, does it?
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Merriam-Webster defines "True" as "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs," and the Apostle Paul said "to us there is actually one God ... and one Lord." My point was that Paul is teaching that to Christians, there is in the actual state of affairs, ONE God, and ONE Lord. In other words, to Christians, there is one who is truly God and one who is truly Lord. If that is not what Paul was teaching, then please explain what he was actually saying.
I'm ignoring this question of yours as being both fruitless and unprofitable. Don't you think that your throwing into your argument some definition that Merriam-Webster provides to have been a stupid thing for you to be doing when your goal is supposed to be to prove the Trinity doctrine to be supported in the NWT? It does seem to me that you have lost your way here. Am I mistaken?
I find it interesting that you have accused me of being a deceiver and someone who twists Paul's words. I thought this was supposed to be a "friendly debate"?
In this "debate," I don't recall ever agreeing to not call a spade a spade, and I'm really good over the years in calling a spade a spade, too. If you should posit anything dishonest, you should not expect me to give you a pass or respect you for making the attempt to palm off something that you knew to be dishonest. Or maybe, if I were a clerk at Starbucks, I should be make nice to the thief that attempts to steal from me as I make change from the $5 bill he has handed me for his coffee purchase by claiming to have given me a $20 bill when (a) the $5 bill he gave me is still on the tray in front of me and (b) there are no $20 bills in my drawer. Do you see where I'm going with this or do you need me to describe of what "friendly debate" consists?
@djeggnog wrote:
The Bible speaks of those that are "Jews by nature" (Galatians 2:15) as well as those among the uncircumcised that are "such by nature" (Romans 2:27), and when I do a comparison, as you suggest here, of the thought expressed at Romans 1:20, first, I see that unlike what it means to be a Jew or to be a Gentile, what Paul is talking about at Romans 1:20 are the intrinsic qualities of God, and not a thing about God's "nature."
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
So, you say that you do not believe Romans 1:20 says one thing at all about God's "nature," and yet, as I showed you before, the Insight Book says that the Greek word for "Godship" which is used in Romans 1:20 means "divine NATURE."
That's right. If you and I are discussing the price we pay for coffee, it's not likely that I would confuse that discussion with one about why I don't just drink tea, or why it is we just don't refer to coffee as "tea" if what we are really seeking is the "fix" we derive from ingesting caffeine.
@djeggnog wrote:
No, the fact that these Moses, the angels, etc., may have been God's representatives, this has nothing to do with whether they were in possession of the divine nature. After Jesus' resurrection, he was in possession of the divine nature, too, was he not? And yet Jesus wasn't the "One True God," was he? In fact, Jesus described himself at John 10:36 as being "God's Son," did he not?
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
I will address those questions in later posts. I'm trying to go in some sort of logical sequence in my posts. lol.
My question here is a rhetorical one, so no answer to it is required, and unless you should insist on answering it, which is your right, let's move on to your proof, which you have as yet not given me of your assertion that the NWT supports the Trinity doctrine.
@djeggnog wrote:
You have made an incredible leap in logic, for what you are saying here is not logical. It's pretty dumb actually since I happen to be one of those people that take away from reading Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 that Paul is saying that to us, that is to say, to Christians, there is but one God the Father. I do not think it at all logical, and I'd doubt that you could find many other people unless they be trinitarians like yourself, to conclude that ... Paul was saying that to us [Christians] ... there is one Lord, Jesus Christ and that Jesus could not also be called "Lord." Paul's point is that Christians render worship to the same God the Father ("out of whom all things are") through the Lord Jesus Christ ("through whom all things are"), who is also the very same "one God the Father" that the Lord Jesus Christ renders worship. Paul says not a thing at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 about any "True Lord." I'm sure you have your reasons for adding this "True Lord" concept to this passage, and I don't mind waiting until you get around to telling me those reasons.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
[The] Trinitarians ... argument really is:
1:) 1 Cor. 8:4-6 says that there is only One Lord for Christians.
2:) It says Jesus is the one Lord for Christians.
3:) Therefore, the Father cannot be the Lord of Christians.
So, we can see from this example that if you try to make either one of these arguments, they just do not harmonize with the rest of the Scriptures.
No, what I see is a demonstration of the illogic of a believer in the Trinity doctrine, which isn't proof although proof is what you asserted you would be providing here, and so far you haven't done so.
@djeggnog wrote:
No, he doesn't. You are the one here lumping "gods" with "lords," saying that "he equates" the two with each other, not Paul. You are here introducing the concept of two "classes" -- "gods" and "lords" -- being equal to one another, a concept that has no scriptural support whatsoever, and unless you are prepared to say to me with a straight face that Sarah, at Genesis 18:12, who refers to her husband, Abraham, as "my lord," could just as well have addressed him as "my god," you should really stop while you are ahead.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Why couldn't Sarah have called Abraham "my god"? After all, "god" can mean that you are a representative or spokesman for God, correct?
Well, Sarah didn't and it seems that you decided not to stop while you were ahead on the scorecards. (Well, you weren't exactly ahead, but with this last remark, you should probably expect a deduction.) Please, @Undisfellowshipped, you're floundering in silliness here. Let's move on.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
In the same way, the True God is not a higher class of being or nature than the True Lord. Both the True God and the True Lord are SEPARATE from those who are merely called "gods."
@djeggnog wrote:
While it is true that Jehovah, who you are calling "the True God," and Jesus, who you are calling "the True Lord," are separate from those who are called, not just "gods," but "lords," too, the fact that you say that "the True God and the True Lord are" and not "the True God and the True Lord is" suggests to me that you are doing your best to make your explanation work, but the "are" is Freudian, isn't it?
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
I am glad that we agree at least that The Father and Jesus are separate from the called gods, but out of curiosity, are you aware that the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is one of the called gods mentioned by Paul?
I believe you evaded my question. Or, for some reason you didn't answer it. Was the "are" Freudian? Yes or no?
@djeggnog wrote:
Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing to me the scriptural citation -- just one would be sufficient -- upon which your statement that God commands "all people" to worship Jesus is based. I'd like to read it.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
These are the verses that I based my statement on:
Revelation 5:13-14
.
.
.
Daniel 7:14
.
.
.
And at Hebrews 1:6, God commands all of His angels to "do obeisance" (or "worship" in older versions of the New World Translation) to Jesus. Should we not imitate the fine example of faithful angels who take the lead in worship?
So IOW you cannot provide even a single scriptural citation on which your statement that God commands "all people" to worship Jesus is based. That's fine. Unless you insist on doing this, you can just stop searching for one; it doesn't exist. I don't know if the "fine example of the faithful angels" is worship. I think it is service and obedience to God are the "fine examples of the faithful angels" that we humans ought to emulate.
@djeggnog wrote:
Bending the knee to give honor to our king, Jesus Christ, isn't the same as worshipping Jesus, for Christians give honor to Jesus to the glory of God and worship God through Jesus. In fact, Christians honor the Father when they honor the Son. (John 5:22, 23) Similarly, belief in Jesus is in reality putting one's faith in God, the One that sent Jesus, and it is through Jesus and not to Jesus that Christians make their approach to God. (John 12:44; Hebrews 7:25) Also, it is through Jesus that "the 'Amen' [is said] to God for glory." (2 Corinthians 1:20)
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
How do you know the "bending the knee" to Jesus is not the same as worship? Based on what? The same Greek word (proskyneo) is sometimes rendered "obeisance" and sometimes rendered "worship" based on the context.
Because I go to court often several times a week in my line of work where those of us in the courtroom all "bend the knee" (Greek, _proskyneo_) when we all rise upon the judge's entering the courtroom, but while we are showing respect for the judge's role with regard to jurisprudence (even though in my experience judges have no respect for the law and would rather legislate from the bench instead of following the law!) in keeping with court decorum, no one that stands up when the court enters the courtroom does so as an act of worship of that judge.
I've found that most of these judges do not follow the law and could care less about doing justice in their courtrooms, and so, for these reasons alone, I'd doubt there is anyone but the plaintiffs, who these judges seem to favor against the defendants, that would likely respect the judges or the unjust decisions that they typically had down.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
So, from this we can determine that either Jesus is NOT a creature, but instead is the Divine Creator who deserves our worship and obeisance, OR the Bible contradicts itself and should not be trusted.
@djeggnog wrote:
No, you can't, for the citations you provided here do not do that, they do not indicate that Jesus is "the Divine Creator who deserves our worship," and for you to be suggesting here that these citations prove Jesus to be "the Divine Creator" when the Bible teaches that (a) Jehovah is the Creator and that (b) Jesus is responsible for laying "the foundations of the earth" as well as the heavens, who was (c) begotten by God, thus becoming (d) God's firstborn, (e) a coworker with God, and, although being (f) a creature, the beginning of the creation of God, Jesus is now, just as Thomas stated after his resurrection, (g) a God in his own right, in view of the fact that (h) he alone was the first to be made a God, so that he became (i) the first to whom God gave immortality as well as (j) first in all things. (Isaiah 45:18; Hebrews 1:1, 2, 10; Psalm 102:25-27; John 1:14, 18; 20:28; Colossians 1:15, 18; Proverbs 8:30; Revelation 3:14; 1 Timothy 6:16)
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Where does the Bible say that God created Jesus?
Revelation 3:14
