Peace to you, and thank you for trying to help.
PinSeeker wrote:
tam wrote:
[
Replying to post 44 by Wootah]
I don't know what else you want me to say?
Luke using the word in a certain way in one (or more) passages, does not mean that he has defined the word to always mean exactly that. The word for worship has a broad range of meanings, so this textual 'evidence' is not proof of anything.
If I did not know that the word has a broad range of meanings... and
if I did not have any other context that disproves the OP claim...
then I could accept that Luke
might be suggesting that Christ was God (to be worshiped as only God is worshiped).
I would need more information in order to draw a conclusion though. (And that additional information - including my Lord's teaching - does not support the author's conclusion in the OP).
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
I think what Wootah is saying, Tam -- and he may have already said this, but I haven't really been following this conversation closely -- is that whether or not the word used there by Luke for 'worship' has a broad range of meanings, the facts are thus:
- 1. Luke only uses the word twice, the first in quoting Jesus citing Deuteronomy in reference to God (the Father) being the only one worthy of worship, and the second another quote from this same Jesus in reference to Himself that He alone is worthy of the same form of worship.
Yes, I think I understand what Wootah is saying, but just because Luke used it one way here, does not mean he must have used it the exact same way in another place. Sometimes translating from one language to another (and another) causes the nuances of a word to be lost.
(Also, what same quote from Christ are you referring to where He claims Himself alone as worthy of that same form of worship?)
2. Even though it is Luke who is the author of his own gospel, God is the ultimate Author, as we understand 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
This is another conversation (and I don't think it would matter in this case), but... Luke is not part of the scripture being referenced in 2 Timothy. The book of Luke is not 'inspired'. Luke did not receive his writing 'in the spirit'. He investigated and interviewed witnesses that came before him in order to write an orderly account for a certain person. He states this himself. The prophets on the other hand state that they were in the spirit or that the Word of God came to them... which makes Revelation inspired because John was in the spirit and told to write down what he saw and heard while in the spirit.
Christ references scripture as Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. But Revelation is also scripture because it was given to John while he was 'in the spirit', and he was even told to write down what he saw and heard (except for the part he was told not to write down).
So really, it is God Himself Who pointedly uses the same term in reference to both Himself and Jesus.[/list]So the "broad range of meanings" argument holds no water.
But it does. Even if what you claimed was true (it is not), there is still the erring pen of the scribes who copy and translate (from one language to another language). Scribes make mistakes, sometimes in the copying and sometimes in the translation. That is a fact and that is also corroborated by the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 8:8, referencing the erring pen of the scribes)... and even Christ said 'woe to you scribes'.
You cannot create a doctrine solely around the use of this one word, long after the fact. You would need much more context.
I think we would all agree on the word as it is used in Deuteronomy. And the fact that Jesus uses the exact same word in reference to Himself
Again, where does He use the word in reference to Himself?
With that in mind, he's asking you to substantially refute that observation, that point. And in my opinion, at least -- which I realize has no value to you, at least on this subject -- that's an impossible task.
It seems to me that people have tried to do this with context, but Wootah only wants the use of the word use itself to be refuted (ignoring any other context that might reveal the author's incorrect connection). I can't see there is anything more to say on that except that the author's 'connection' is not evidence enough to prove anything.
Luke has plenty of opportunity to make it clear that Christ is God (YHWH)... but he does not. And Christ does not teach that either, not anywhere. You are inferring it (like men do with many other doctrines, including those I am sure you disagree with).
The Psalm (110:1) that Christ teaches is about Himself shows clearly that He (Jaheshua) is not the same being as God [YHWH].
[YHWH] says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
[YHWH] (one being) is speaking TO Christ (a second being).
Thank you for your wish of peace, and peace also to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
."
