Jesus Christ has a God that he worships

[onewithhim]

Jesus said that we all must love Jehovah our God and worship only Him. He stated clearly that his Father was the only true God (John 17:3); he didn't say that we are the only true God. In many places in the Scriptures he calls the Father "my God."

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3, KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her [Mary], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

"At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, KJV)

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall no more go out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

I think Jesus wants us to recognize that his Father, Jehovah, is God, and he is God's Son. (John 10:36) What do you make of this?

[The Tanager]

These sentences aren’t structured where (a) – the glory – is the result of (f) – having a higher position.

I didn't say they were.

Okay, then what do you mean that “Paul is referring to the glorified Christ” in Hebrews 1:1-4? Paul doesn’t say Jesus was glorified here; he says that Jesus is the radiant glory.

So you acknowledge Paul (a first century Christian) understood angels to be "elohim" (gods) certainly not the Supreme Almighty (YHWH) but powerful lesser "elohim". Thus invalidating any claim that the first century Christians , had no notion of lesser "gods" (elohim) that were not false or fictional.

Two things. First, Paul and the other early Christians didn’t understand elohim to mean ‘gods’. It is a wider term that means something like “spiritual beings,” which is why it was used for God, angels, and false gods. You are equivocating between elohim and gods. First century Christians had an idea of lesser elohim, but they also don’t call Jesus that.

Which leads to the second point. Let’s assume this isn’t an equivocation of different concepts and there is this category of elohim that includes lesser “gods”. Paul, Thomas, and other Christians don’t call Jesus an elohim. You are trying to say they use this category to call Jesus a lesser god. If they did, then they’d call him angelos, but they don’t; they call him theos. So, was Thomas calling Jesus God or a false god in John 20:28?

Could you please answer my latest question to you about Rev 5:13:

There you claim the scripture says they worshiped, but they don’t state who is worshiped. I don’t understand why you think that. It explicitly says “(a) to the one seated on the throne and (b) to the Lamb be (c) praise, (d) honor, (e) glory, and (f) ruling power (g) forever and ever.” Items (c) - (g) is the worship. Items (a) and (b) are the ones the worship is directed to. Why do you think (a) and (b) refer to, if not stating who is being worshiped?

No it does not.

It doesn’t say (a) and (b)? Or it doesn’t say worship is directed to (a) and (b)? Or something else?

If the first, then what phrasing is in the spots of (a) and (b)? If the second, then what is being directed to (a) and (b)? If the third, then what does your "No it does not" refer to?

[JehovahsWitness]

...what do you mean that “Paul is referring to the glorified Christ” in Hebrews 1:1-4?

That Paul was referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life.

... Paul and the other early Christians didn’t understand elohim to mean ‘gods’. It is a wider term that means something like “spiritual beings,” ... God, angels, and false gods.

Unless you are suggesting all the aforementioned were considered equal (or that same term (elohim) was not applied to all three "catagories") I cannot see the the relevance of this comment. Attempting to distinguish between elohim and god(s) and /or theos which is simply god(s) in Greek*, is not only semantics it's linguistically untenable semantics. "elohim" means gods in Hebrew. Scripture applies the same word to false gods (real or imagined), humans (physical) , angels (spiritual) as well as to the True God, the Supreme one : YHWH. To suggest that Jesus early disciples (who were all Jews) had no notion of this or considered them ALL equal is scripturally absurd.

* It's unlikely Thomas was speaking in Greek when he addressed Jesus in this way

... Thomas, [doesn't] call Jesus an elohim. ...

Thomas evidently did: that is a scriptural FACT. What he meant is the point under discussion (see above)

. It explicitly says “... (a) and (b) are the ones the worship is directed to.

No it does not.

What part of "No it does not." Are you having trouble understanding?

[Capbook]

God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place.

So, you are saying that Christ and God are not equal in authority (power)?

Jesus and God are equal in power...

Si in what sense is Jesus in " the second place"? What is the difference between "the first place" and "the second place"?

As what I understand Calvin's Commentary, Jesus holds the second place in His human nature, as it says apart from that, being in one essence with the Father, He is His equal.
"Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal."
(from Calvin's Commentaries.)

[The Tanager]

...what do you mean that “Paul is referring to the glorified Christ” in Hebrews 1:1-4?

That Paul was referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life.

As the reason he is called “the radiance of his glory”?

Unless you are suggesting all the aforementioned were considered equal (or that same term (elohim) was not applied to all three "catagories") I cannot see the the relevance of this comment. Attempting to distinguish between elohim and god(s) and /or theos which is simply god(s) in Greek*, is not only semantics it's linguistically untenable semantics. "elohim" means gods in Hebrew. Scripture applies the same word to false gods (real or imagined), humans (physical) , angels (spiritual) as well as to the True God, the Supreme one : YHWH. To suggest that Jesus early disciples (who were all Jews) had no notion of this or considered them ALL equal is scripturally absurd.

* It's unlikely Thomas was speaking in Greek when he addressed Jesus in this way

Elohim does not mean “gods” in Hebrew, it is a wider term (“spiritual beings” or something like that) that can include those four different concepts underneath it. That’s why the Jews were okay with calling angels and other humans “elohim” and weren’t concerned about breaking the first commandment in doing so.

This is not the case with Greek. The earliest disciples would probably not have spoken to Jesus in Greek, at least not primarily, but when their words passed down were translated into Greek, those Christians had more than one term to note some of the different nuances. Are you saying John got it wrong and should have written that Thomas said ho angelos mou? Or should we trust John to know what Thomas was saying and that he rightly chose “ho theos mou”?

What part of "No it does not." Are you having trouble understanding?

The part you kept to yourself. No it does not…what? “No it does not”...say “to the Lamb”? “No it does not”...say worship is directed to the Lamb? “No it does not”...something else?

[JehovahsWitness]

...what do you mean that “Paul is referring to the glorified Christ” in Hebrews 1:1-4?

That Paul was referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life.

As the reason he is called “the radiance of his glory”?

I don't understand this question. Paul is referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life as part of his overall argument in to the Hebrews of the superiority of the Christian arrangement over the Hebrew system. I am pointing this out as a response to your claim that something about the chronology of Christ's authority negates the fact that his "radiance"/ glory is spoken of as (not his own) but "God's"

Elohim does not mean “gods” in Hebrew,

source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

אֱלֹהִים ʼĕlôhîym, el-o-heem'; plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.

source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

. No it does not…what?

See post #106 viewtopic.php?p=1149786#p1149786

[Capbook]

...what do you mean that “Paul is referring to the glorified Christ” in Hebrews 1:1-4?

That Paul was referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life.

As the reason he is called “the radiance of his glory”?

I don't understand this question. Paul is referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life as part of his overall argument in to the Hebrews of the superiority of the Christian arrangement over the Hebrew system. I am pointing this out as a response to your claim that something about the chronology of Christ's authority negates the fact that his "radiance"/ glory is spoken of as (not his own) but "God's"

Elohim does not mean “gods” in Hebrew,

source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

אֱלֹהִים ʼĕlôhîym, el-o-heem'; plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.

source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

. No it does not…what?

See post #106 viewtopic.php?p=1149786#p1149786

I believe that Jesus is equal of the Father as Barne's undertand, you may see his Notes below;

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

[Who being the brightness of his glory] This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly understood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, in what manner does it refer to the Redeemer? To his divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his divine dignity before he became incarnate, and proceed to argue on that supposition on the mode of the divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate "Son of God." It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine-thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of God. That this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh; and this leads the writer to dwell on his divine, character, and to argue from that; Heb 1:8,10-12. I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his divine nature, but it is the divine nature as it appears in human flesh.
(from Barnes' Notes)

[The Tanager]

I don't understand this question. Paul is referring to the post resurrected Christ restored to heavenly life as part of his overall argument in to the Hebrews of the superiority of the Christian arrangement over the Hebrew system. I am pointing this out as a response to your claim that something about the chronology of Christ's authority negates the fact that his "radiance"/ glory is spoken of as (not his own) but "God's"

I did not claim that something about the chronology of Christ’s authority negates your view that Jesus’ glory was given to him (as a lesser, completely distinct ‘god’) by God. You’ve conflated two different issues in your misunderstanding here.

My claim about chronology was only that the Exodus Glory came chronologically prior to the Son’s incarnation as Jesus (if the Trinity is true) and so, in one sense, it could be misleading to call the Exodus Glory Jesus’ Glory instead of the Son’s Glory (since the Son wasn't "Jesus" yet). But, taking that chronological issue out of the equation, it’s perfectly fine to say the Exodus Glory was Jesus' glory. This technical point has nothing to do with what I’m saying Hebrews means.

I’m saying your view that Jesus’ glory was given to him (as a lesser, completely distinct ‘god’) by God is negated by Paul applying the Exodus Glory as a description of who Jesus is. We are talking about why Paul calls Jesus the radiance of his glory. He doesn’t say Jesus received this radiant glory for reason X. He calls Jesus the radiance itself from the outset before saying anything about what Jesus did or receive because of what he did. Paul opens the letter to the Hebrews by saying God spoke to us in Jesus, who is (1) his son, (2) heir of all things (3) creator of the world, (4) the Exodus glory, (5) wax seal impression of the substance/essence of God…and then Paul goes on to make claims about Jesus’ resurrection, exaltation, etc. and all that that meant for him and us.

source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

I'm not saying scholars don't claim this. Scholarly sources disagree on this matter. We can't just quote the ones that agree with our view. The reason I side with the scholars who say it should be translated more like "spiritual beings" is because of the wider context of the ancient Jews. They obviously believed angels were different from God in key ways. They are the same in that they are spiritual beings instead of physical ones, but there is still a huge Creator/creature chasm between what type of beings they are. It's not analogical to a human king and a human member of the court, where they are the same being just with different levels of authority. God is completely unique in the type of being He is. Our English "gods" doesn't take note of that nuance, since we typically view gods as one kind of being, angels as another kind of being, humans as another kind of being.

See post #106 viewtopic.php?p=1149786#p1149786

What does it say then? Does it talk about the Lamb? Does it talk about worship? What does it say is “to” the Lamb?

[JehovahsWitness]

.... He calls Jesus the radiance itself from the outset ....

Yes He does: the radiance of whose glory? His own?

... English "gods" doesn't take note of that nuance, since we typically view gods as one kind of being, angels as another kind of being, humans as another kind of being...

So, if I understand you correctly: your point is that the Hebrews had a word (elohim) that covered various types of beings (physical and spiritual, real or fictional ) with various level of authority , the highest being the Supreme Almighty, that stood apart and above all others as unique. And that this concept is translated with difficulty into English

If so, then you are obviously not also arguing that Thomas (a Jew) - who did not speak English - had no concept of a greater and beings (physical or spiritual, real or fictional ) with various level of authority all going by the same Hebrew term : elohim. If Thomas called Jesus his Elohim, then obviously it cannot be argued MUST have meant the Supreme Almighty One (since you admit the Hebrews used the same term more widely and were, in turn, familiar with the concept of physical human elohims and spiritual heavenly elohims of lesser authority than the Supreme unique elohim.

Regardless of how we translate it , it seems to me you are making my point for me: namely when Thomas said "My Elohim" , his use of the word does not mean its a foregone conclusion that he meant My Supreme Almighty Elohim as he was familiar with the concept of lesser elohim (see above)

... What does it say is “to” the Lamb?

I dont understand this question, perhaps if you use a proper noun instead of "it"

[The Tanager]

Yes He does: the radiance of whose glory? His own?

This is going in a circle. You think this shows God as the source and the ‘radiance’ as something distinct from the glory itself. I think this allusion to the Exodus shows that the radiance is the glory.

So, if I understand you correctly: your point is that the Hebrews had a word (elohim) that covered various types of beings (physical and spiritual, real or fictional ) with various level of authority , the highest being the Supreme Almighty, that stood apart and above all others as unique.

No, I think the word was metaphorically applied to humans in Psalm 82 because of their role in ruling. Definitionally, I think it only covers spiritual beings (both real and fictional).

If so, then you are obviously not also arguing that Thomas (a Jew) - who did not speak English - had no concept of a greater and beings (physical or spiritual, real or fictional ) with various level of authority all going by the same Hebrew term : elohim. If Thomas called Jesus his Elohim, then obviously it cannot be argued MUST have meant the Supreme Almighty One (since you admit the Hebrews used the same term more widely and were, in turn, familiar with the concept of physical human elohims and spiritual heavenly elohims of lesser authority than the Supreme unique elohim.

Regardless of how we translate it , it seems to me you are making my point for me: namely when Thomas said "My Elohim" , his use of the word does not mean its a foregone conclusion that he meant My Supreme Almighty Elohim as he was familiar with the concept of lesser elohim (see above)

No, I’m arguing that John in Greek, while relaying Thomas’ probably Hebrew statement about Jesus, translated my elohim as my theos, which Christians used to speak to two of the senses of elohim (God and false gods). Are you saying John got it wrong?

I dont understand this question, perhaps if you use a proper noun instead of "it"

What does Rev 5:13 say is to the Lamb?

[JehovahsWitness]

.. I think this allusion to the Exodus shows that the radiance is the glory.

Firstly it is by no means a given that Paul is here alluding to anything in Exodus . Further, YHWH Jehovah being the creator of all things, is scripturally the source of all glory in whatever way it is manifest (compare Rev 4:11).

Further, in Hebrews 1:3, Paul uses two different words "radiance" [Gk. apaugasma] and "glory" [doxa] (he does not say Jesus is "the glory of his glory" but the radiance/the brightness of the glory). Granted this expression is somewhat ambiguous, in that the word apaugasma is unique in scripture, but logically all brightness has a source.

To illustrate : Just as the brightness of a lamp is sourced or comes from ...the lamp itself (or the glow of coals is comes from but is not the coal ) that which eminates from the source is not the source (compare Psalm 36 :9)

I’m arguing that John in Greek, while relaying Thomas’ probably Hebrew statement about Jesus, translated my elohim as my theos ...

You may be doing that in this post* but your original point was that first century Jewish Christians had no concept of greater and lesser elohim and therefore Thomas could not have had anyone in mind but the Almighty when he addressed Jesus as "my elohim". That point is demonstrably false.

* I see no point in switching to translational issues , the potential limitations of which you yourself have already highlighted.

What does Rev 5:13 say is to the Lamb?

REVELATION 5:13 NWT

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.”