Undisfellowshipped,
You are probably going to be offended, but I want to bring something to your attention, and I just don't know how to say it in a way that will soften the blow. I mean this sincerely, not in any way to be mean and hurtful. This becomes especially difficult since you've already concluded that I'm unloving and unchristian in my attitude.
Have you ever been on drugs? I ask because there seems to be something very illogical about some of your thinking. At times you do so well, but at other times I wonder what happened with your sense of reason and balance.
For example, regarding Revelation 5:8, 10 you stated "I understand that perfectly." And well you should, since the context and wording leave you with no choice. But with verse 9 you started going off on a tangent that ordinary thinking people would find a bit odd. For a moment, your mind switched from the context to bring into the picture something totally unrelated.
With verse 9 you veered away from the context and introduced Titus 2:14, as if it had anything to do with an explanation of the context. It really doesn't, and I was relieved when you wrote "I do agree that Revelation 5:9 is saying that He purchased them for the Father." But why did you feel it necessary to bring in something that would tend to confuse rather than clarify?
What is interesting here is that verse 9 says "for God" and you acknowledged that it means "for the Father," a clear admission that in the deep recesses of your mind it is the Father who is God, after all is said and done.
Then you make a statement that is guesswork at the least but a deliberate falsehood at the worst:
In the Scriptures, most of the time, whenever The Father and Jesus are mentioned in the same Verses, The Father is called God, and Jesus is distinguished because they are SEPARATE PERSONS.
"Most of the time" - How many times is that? There are 201 verses where "God" and "Jesus" are mentioned together. In not even one of those verses is there a hint that Jesus is God. There are 186 verses that contrast "God" and "Christ." In not one of them is Christ shown to be God. So, of a total of 387 instances, you say "most of the time," yet the facts reveal it is "none of the time." But in trinitarian fashion, you grasp at straws in a desperate yearning for something - anything - that will bolster your credulous faith that has no foundation.
Revelation 5:11 says many angels are "around the throne." The context shows clearly that God alone is sitting upon that throne. A normal Bible student is easily able to draw that conclusion from verses 1 and 13. But you felt a need to disprove what the context clearly states. You went outside the context to show that the Lamb is "in the midst of the throne." "In the midst" means "in front of," according to other translations. Revelation 4:6 mentions others who are also "in the midst of the throne." It doesn't matter to you that within the context the Lamb is said to be off the throne, as in verses 1, 6, and 7. Because you so desperately need to see the Trinity in the Scriptures, you falsified the picture, hoping I would see what you see - something that really isn't there at all. Then you wrote,
There are other Verses in Revelation that say that the Lamb sits with the Father on His Father's Throne.
Really? Can you show us where they are? Those few verses that speak of "the throne of God and of the Lamb" can be understood in the light of Revelation 9:17 where "color" is singular but really has a plural meaning. However, Jesus did say, "He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." (Revelation 3:21) That raises the question: Are the overcomers also part of the Godhead since they sit upon the same throne as Christ who sits on the same throne as his Father? Using your method of reasoning, one would be forced to conclude Yes! Regarding Revelation 5:12 you wrote:
Correction -- The Only One who could grant Jesus such things is THE FATHER.
Nevertheless, the context says "God" three times and doesn't use the term "Father" at all. You asked regarding Revelation 4:11:
So, using your reasoning, who "granted" those blessings to the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY?
The context gives an easy answer. Verse 10 says "the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne." Casting down their crowns is a relinquishing of their own power and authority as kings. They hand such over to God similar to what Christ will do: "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when he puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. ... then the Son himself will also be subject to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Note that it was "God the Father" who gave "the Son" rulership, authority and power. Note also that "the Son" returns these to "God the Father" so that "God [the Father]," not the Son "may be all in all." You wrote,
In Hebrews Chapter 1, the Father calls Jesus God, the Father commands all angels to worship Jesus, and the Father says Jesus created everything.
Please note that Hebrews 1:6 is a quotation from Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint: "Let all the angels of God worship him." The angels were to worship God at the time when he would cause the nations to be glad with his people. That time is related to the coming of Christ, as stated, when God "again brings the firstborn [Christ] into the world." So, is the writer of Hebrews telling the angels to worship Christ at that time? Not really. The angels in Hebrews 1 belong to God. The angels of God are instructed to worship "him," meaning God the Father. Please be careful how you read.
Note also that Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6. That is a psalm addressed to Israel's king. Fittingly, the writer of Hebrews applies it also to Israel's greatest king, the Messiah. But think: If the verse in Hebrews means that Christ is God, then the verse in the Psalms means that David and the other kings of Israel were also God! Think! And, in fact, the kings of Israel were "God" for all intents and purposes. They were ruling for him, speaking for him, and sitting upon his throne in Jerusalem. In similar fashion, all through the Old Testament, the angel of God is often called "Lord [Jehovah]" and "God."
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:9 tells the Son as well as Israel's kings: "God, your God, has anointed you." They could not actually be God if God was the One who anointed them!
Next you make a truly absurd observation:
Also, Revelation 5:13 shows that the Lamb is NOT a creature! (Either that, or the Lamb is talking to Himself)
The verse states: "And every creature ... I heard saying: 'Blessing and honor and glory and power be to him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." So, according to your logic (or lack of it), the following sentence means that a certain woman who did the speaking is not actually a woman: "The woman (creature) said all women (creatures) should be respected." Then, another absurd statement:
So, there is no way that you can claim that the Father is the only One receiving worship in Revelation 5:14.
That would be true if I ignored the context just as you generally do. The verse says plainly that they worshipped "him," not "them." If the choice is between "God" and "the Lamb," the obvious reference is to "God."
Here is a summary, then, of all your errors in just one of your posts - errors that are either plainly stated or are the only possible conclusions that can be drawn from your logic:
- Titus 2:14 that says "for himself" could have some bearing on Revelation 5:9 which says "for God."
- Most of the time where the Father and Jesus are mentioned together, the Father is called God because they are separate persons.
- In Revelation 5, the Lamb is sitting on God's throne.
- In Revelation 7:17 the expression "in the midst of the throne" means "on the throne."
- In Revelation, there are other verses that specifically say the Lamb sits on the Father's throne.
- The only one who could hand over to God glory, honor and power is God himself.
- When God addresses the Son and Israel's kings as "God," it means the Son and Israel's kings are Almighty God.
- God commands the angels to worship, not himself, but the Son.
- Revelation 5:13 proves that the Lamb is not a creature.
- There is no way that one can properly conclude that the Father is the only one receiving worship in Revelation 5:14.
I've shown clearly that each of the above assertions is completely wrong. Will you correct your thinking? I doubt it. You will continue to move on to other texts that you equally misunderstand and misinterpret. I feel this way, not because I am unchristian and unkind, but because this is what you have been doing. You are the perfect representation of nearly every ardent Trinitarian I've ever met, and I've met hundreds in my lifetime.
All things considered, Undisfellowshipped, you have your mind made up that the Trinity is true regardless of what the Scriptures actually say. As shown by the above examples, you don't hesitate to ignore the context and you try to find support for your theory outside of the context, even if what you find has nothing to do with that immediate context. If you would simply let the Bible speak to you just as it is, you would find no support whatever for your theory.
Herk