If Jesus is not God

[Elijah John]

If Jesus is not God, as JWs and some other Christians suggest, how serious an idolatry is it to worship him as though he is?

Are ignorance and indoctrination valid excuses to worship Jesus?

Conversely, if Jesus is God, how sinful is it to consider him a "mere" human, prophet, rabbi etc.?

Does the Bible ever condemn anyone for not acknowledging someone other than the Father as "God"?

Before someone worships Jesus as "God" hadn't one be pretty darn sure that he is, indeed God?

In a variation of Pascal's wager, isn't it more safe and wise to worship the Father alone as "God", since there is really no Biblical downside to doing so?

If one embraces the Father alone as God, what does one have to lose?

[Athetotheist]

These righteous people knew the Scriptures, that the coming of the Messiah had been foretold in the book of Daniel---exactly when he would arrive. Daniel chapter 9 very specifically stated that the Messiah would be there 62 "weeks" after the issuing of the order to rebuild Jerusalem, after Israel's captivity in Babylon. According to Bible chronology that year would be the very year Jesus "would be cut off, causing sacrifice and gift offering to cease," and this happened in 33 A.D. (The "weeks" are known to be "weeks of years.)

Christian Bible mistranslations of Daniel 9 are addressed here:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... rpretation

The Jews that I referred to that were expecting the Messiah when he actually showed up , that is Simeon, Anna and the disciples of John (who went to Jesus), were certainly keeping in mind the prophecy of Daniel.

Here it is, taken from the JPS, Hebrew/English Tanakh:

"Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed for your people and your holy city until the measure of transgression is filled and that of sin complete, until iniquity is expiated, and eternal righteousness ushered in; and prophetic vision ratified, and the Holy of Holies anointed. You must know and understand: From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the anointed leader is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress. And after those sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will disappear and vanish. [Meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.] The army of a leader who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, but its end will come through a flood. Desolation is decreed until the end of war. During one week he will make a firm covenant with many. For half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering." (Dan.9:24-27)

To me, with what I know about Jewish history, and having studied the Bible for years, this version of Daniel harmonizes with what I've said about its significance. 70 weeks of years brings us to the few years after Jesus died (and was resurrected). Going back to the 62 weeks, that was when Jesus began his ministry and went first to the Jews to offer them the places beside him when he would rule, in the future, from heaven. Then in the midst of that last week, he died as a sacrifice once for all time, to cover the sins of the people. The last 3 1/2 weeks were opened to the Samaritans and the nations (Gentiles).

The 70 weeks started with the word of Cyrus, I believe, to the Jews in Babylon to go back to their land and restore the city and the temple. Following Bible chronology, this works out, knowing that a "week" is 7 years, bringing us to the very time of Jesus.

So-called "Christian" teaching in the fundamentalist, evangelical churches usually sets forth the idea that this prophecy will be fulfilled in the last days when "the Antichrist" appears on the world scene, which is sad, because the prophecy has already been fulfilled, and, actually, there is no such thing as an individual "Anti-christ." They've got that all screwed up.

So, anyway, the faithful Jews knew Daniel's prophecy and were looking for the Messiah at the time Jesus appeared.

I recommend that you go back to the link I posted and read the article again.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 31 by Athetotheist]

I ask you to comment on what I wrote in my post. Those are my own thoughts, without somebody else telling me what to think. I have carefully examined the Scripture of Daniel, and even quoted the Jewish version of Daniel 9 from their own Tanakh.

[Athetotheist]

'The Alpha and the Omega' of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God."

....but in verse 13, "the Alpha and the Omega" also claims to be "the first and the last", as Jesus does in 1:17. How does the author have separate speakers claim those titles separately and then have one speaker claim both of them without implying that they are the same?

[onewithhim]

'The Alpha and the Omega' of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God."

....but in verse 13, "the Alpha and the Omega" also claims to be "the first and the last", as Jesus does in 1:17. How does the author have separate speakers claim those titles separately and then have one speaker claim both of them without implying that they are the same?

Did you examine an Interlinear Bible? Will you do that? Then we can discuss verse 17 of Revelation 1 compared to the other verses that say "Alpha and Omega."

[tigger2]

....but in verse 13, "the Alpha and the Omega" also claims to be "the first and the last", as Jesus does in 1:17. How does the author have separate speakers claim those titles separately and then have one speaker claim both of them without implying that they are the same?

Rev. 22:13 - "The first and the last" isn't capitalized in a number of respected trinitarian Bibles (including ESV; NAB; NASB; NRSV; RSV; and even KJV) whereas "Alpha and Omega" is. This indicates that "Alpha and Omega" IS a title for God, whereas "the first and the last" appears to be a description which simply means "the only one" in some sense and can be used to describe more than one individual. We can see this where Jesus explains the use of the term in his case at Rev. 1:17, 18.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 ]

Elijah John: If Jesus is not God, as JWs and some other Christians suggest, how serious an idolatry is it to worship him as though he is?

William: How does one go about worshiping a God as if he is GOD?

Elijah John: Are ignorance and indoctrination valid excuses to worship Jesus?

William: Who say's it is something which requires excuse?

Elijah John: Conversely, if Jesus is God, how sinful is it to consider him a "mere" human, prophet, rabbi etc.?

William: Again, who is to say?

Elijah John: Does the Bible ever condemn anyone for not acknowledging someone other than the Father as "God"?

William: The gathered together stories which make up The Bible, show clearly that Humans who wrote them, condemned lots of things

Elijah John: Before someone worships Jesus as "God" hadn't one be pretty darn sure that he is, indeed God?

William: According to whom? What position are any of us in which allows for us the right to make any such judgments?

Elijah John: In a variation of Pascal's wager, isn't it more safe and wise to worship the Father alone as "God", since there is really no Biblical downside to doing so?

William: What does it mean "To worship The Father alone as God"?

Elijah John: If one embraces the Father alone as God, what does one have to lose?

William: What is to be gained from doing so when doing so is such an elusively understood concept.
Knowledge is Required to Resolve Uncertainty

[Athetotheist]

....but in verse 13, "the Alpha and the Omega" also claims to be "the first and the last", as Jesus does in 1:17. How does the author have separate speakers claim those titles separately and then have one speaker claim both of them without implying that they are the same?

Rev. 22:13 - "The first and the last" isn't capitalized in a number of respected trinitarian Bibles (including ESV; NAB; NASB; NRSV; RSV; and even KJV) whereas "Alpha and Omega" is. This indicates that "Alpha and Omega" IS a title for God, whereas "the first and the last" appears to be a description which simply means "the only one" in some sense and can be used to describe more than one individual. We can see this where Jesus explains the use of the term in his case at Rev. 1:17, 18.

If capitalization indicates a title of divinity, it must seem odd that in the JW's New World translation, "First" and "Last" *are* capitalized in Rev. 1:17 where they refer to Jesus.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 37 by Athetotheist]

How long have you considered the translation of the NWT to be superior to that of ESV; NAB; NASB; NRSV; RSV; and KJV? I'm impressed.

However, I see that the NWT does agree with those noted trinitarian Bibles at Rev. 22:13.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

You got it right on the first sentance. Its idolotry.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 37 by Athetotheist]

How long have you considered the translation of the NWT to be superior to that of ESV; NAB; NASB; NRSV; RSV; and KJV? I'm impressed.

However, I see that the NWT does agree with those noted trinitarian Bibles at Rev. 22:13.

I don't actually consider it superior; when debating with those of a particular sect, however, it's most effective to go to what they consider authoritative.