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]

By saying "Yes" you admit it wasnt Jesus - so whatever it is/ whatever we interpret it to be, it did not originate with Jesus (if did, it would be his(Jesus') glory) The originator thus remains superior to the he who is not the originator. And again you admit it wasnt Jesus so it could not have originate with him.

Admitting it wasn’t Jesus’ glory is not admitting it wasn’t the Son’s glory. You know trinitarians believe the Son pre-existed His incarnation as Jesus.

And Hebrews doesn’t address the question you want to stop our discussion at. It doesn’t say Jesus’ as the radiant glory did originate in something else or that it didn’t originate in something else. What it isn’t silent on is what you need to discuss. And there it equates Jesus with the glory that is equated to God in the exodus.

I'm not here to debate you feelings; if you have a valid counterargument present it : but "don’t think it is a good reason " isnt a counterargument its how you feel about the argument which is irrelevant.

First, I didn't say "I feel"; I said "I thought" but, either way, I'm not saying my thoughts as thoughts are relevant.

Second (and here I should have been clearer), I was saying I still don't see how you are getting from (1) Jesus would eventually die for mankind to (3) Jesus can forgive sins in his name and not his superior's name. What is step (2)?
[/quote]

But to the Jews these are “inferior” gods precisely because they are false ones. You are using “inferior” in a broader way than they did.

Prove that is the case.

I’m a bit taken aback that you think the people of Jehovah believed Baal, Asherah, Dagon, Marduk, Moloch, the Egyptian Gods, etc. were actual gods, just inferior ones to Jehovah. Some verses that seem to describe all other gods as false gods are Deut 28:36, 32:21, Jer 3:23, and Amos 2:4.

If your evidence is non-scripural, I reject it.

Everybody uses reasoning that isn’t just scripture. You can’t interpret a text without doing so. So, if you are consistent, you’ll reject your own evidence and reasonings as non-scriptural as well.

Okay, but that fact is irrelevant to analyzing a specific reasoning you used to support your claim about what Jesus saying that means.

How can Jesus explicit statement about having a God be irrelevant in a discussion about what he meant when he explained his identity within the context of his position in relation to The Father?

First, I said it is irrelevant to analyze the specific reasoning you were engaged in.

Second, while it isn’t irrelevant to the wider discussion, it isn’t helpful because both competing theories can rationally account for it. Other reasoning from scriptural evidence has to settle that question (which we’ve been doing and I thank you for that).

Now, back to the more specific reasoning I was analyzing that the above is irrelevant to seems to me to be that "...You said Rev 5:13 doesn’t say the exact phrase “they worshiped the Lamb,” so that means “they worshiped the Lamb” must be untrue."

But you claimed that isn’t what you said. Okay, then why are you saying they aren’t worshiping the Lamb in Rev 5:13?

[JehovahsWitness]

Admitting it wasn’t Jesus’ glory is not admitting it wasn’t the Son’s glory.

Is Jesus not the Son of God? Are Jesus and the Son different persons? Are "The Word" and this Jesus of Nazareth two different individuals?

JOHN 1:14

So the Word became flesh and resided among us

And Hebrews doesn’t address the question ...

Hebrews addresses the question as to whose glory Jesus had and it was not his own. All we have to do then is reason what having God's glory means. John explains that Jesus' glory was as the glory of a son "from a father" so scripture gives us enough information to conclude that the source of Jesus glory, was the FATHER.

...I'm not saying my thoughts as thoughts are relevant.

Good.

I’m a bit taken aback that you think {snip}

Again your being "taken aback" is irrelevant (I take that to mean you experienced feelings of surprise) ; Your feelings add nothing to the debate. And unless you have mind reading powers you don't know what I think only what I WROTE.

....Some verses that ... describe all other gods as false gods are Deut 28:36, 32:21, Jer 3:23, and Amos 2:4.

Are false Gods not also inferior to The True. Are "false" and "inferior" mutually exclusive?

PSALM 86:8

There is none like you among the gods, O Jehovah, There are no works like yours.

If your evidence is non-scripural, I reject it.

Everybody uses reasoning that isn’t just scripture. ...

Did I say "If your evidence uses reasoning that isn’t just scripture"? Or did I say "If your evidence is non-scripural"? If your evidence is scriptural as in if your evidence is based on scripture, present the scripture. If your evidence is non-scriptural (as incontradicts scripture) I will not accept it

isn’t irrelevant to the wider discussion ...

It wasnt being cited to address the "wider discussion" it was being citer to addresses a specific point and it was entirely relevant to the point being addressed.

[onewithhim]

I, for one, think that we can see clearly that Jesus is subordinate to Jehovah God, the Father. Jesus worships Him and indicates that everyone should do so.

That would all be a great point, if it weren't for the fact that we have Phil 2:5-9 which states that Jesus was in the form of God and thus temporary gave up his Godship,

That would be great except that even after his return to an elevated position in heaven as a mighty spirit Jesus is STILL shown to be subordinate to the Father.



TRINITY 2023: viewtopic.php?p=1112469#p1112469

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED , LORD & SAVIOUR and ... JESUS

Yes, Jesus is STILL subordinate to the Father. It is plain to see if one looks at I Corinthians 11:3 and also I Corinthians 15:24-28, to name just a couple of passages that show Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (I Corinthians 11:3, NASB)

"Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For he has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted [God the Father] who put all things in subjection to him [Jesus]. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all." (I Corinthians 15:24-28, NASB) Brackets mine.

[The Tanager]

Is Jesus not the Son of God? Are Jesus and the Son different persons? Are "The Word" and this Jesus of Nazareth two different individuals?

If you had asked the question with this understanding explicitly stated earlier, then I would have answered that it was Jesus’ glory. But you didn’t and I chose to be more chronologically precise.

Hebrews addresses the question as to whose glory Jesus had and it was not his own. All we have to do then is reason what having God's glory means. John explains that Jesus' glory was as the glory of a son "from a father" so scripture gives us enough information to conclude that the source of Jesus glory, was the FATHER.

No, Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is the glory (drawing on imagery from Exodus where the glory is God’s presence), not that Jesus has some other thing called glory.

Are false Gods not also inferior to The True. Are "false" and "inferior" mutually exclusive?

Yes, that is the reason they are called inferior, as I already said. That’s the point. All inferior gods were viewed by the Jewish people as false. You are saying this category allows for them to call Jesus inferior but not false. I’m saying you are creating a third category that they didn’t have.

Did I say "If your evidence uses reasoning that isn’t just scripture"? Or did I say "If your evidence is non-scripural"? If your evidence is scriptural as in if your evidence is based on scripture, present the scripture. If your evidence is non-scriptural (as incontradicts scripture) I will not accept it

Let’s reset the context here. We are talking about whether all names for God can be used to refer to other beings. You say yes and I say no (breaking it up into common roles and specific names). We have the same scriptural passages with none directly answering that question in either way, so no one’s evidence contradicts scripture. You claimed your evidence was the same as mine. It is in that sense, but not in the sense of the actual reasoning because I pointed to the differences in types.

It wasnt being cited to address the "wider discussion" it was being citer to addresses a specific point and it was entirely relevant to the point being addressed.

Let’s reset the context here as well. I was addressing your specific reasoning for Rev 5:13 not saying that the Lamb was worshiped. You then cited John 10. I said that was relevant to the wider discussion (is Jesus God), but not to whether the Lamb is worshiped in Rev 5:13. Are you saying that Jesus calling himself God’s Son is relevant to whether the Lamb is being worshiped in Rev 5:13? If so, how is it relevant? If not, then you did cite it to address the wider discussion instead of the more specific element regarding rev 5:13.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is Jesus not the Son of God? Are Jesus and the Son different persons? Are "The Word" and this Jesus of Nazareth two different individuals?

If you had asked the question with this understanding explicitly stated earlier, then I would have answered that it was Jesus’ glory. But you didn’t and I chose to be more chronologically precise.

I asked the question in relation to this statement....

Admitting it wasn’t Jesus’ glory is not admitting it wasn’t the Son’s glory.

Again I ask -->> Are Jesus and the Son different persons? Are "The Word" and this Jesus of Nazareth two different individuals?

, Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is the glory

It says "The Son is the radiance of God's glory" : whose glory ? The son' s glory or God's glory?

.... Are "false" and "inferior" mutually exclusive?

Yes ...

Scripturally No , you can be an "inferior" god but not false.

PSALM 138:1 King James Bible

A Psalm of David. I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee

PSALM 8:5 - Literal Standard Version

You make him a little lower than the gods [[or God]], | And surround him with glory and majesty (compare Hebrews 2:7)

..You claimed your evidence was the same as mine.

No I did not.

.Let’s reset the context here...

I know the context; I've been able to read internet threads for some time.

You then cited John 10. I said that was relevant to the wider discussion (is Jesus God), but not to whether the Lamb is worshiped in Rev 5:13.

At no point have I presented John 10 in an argument as to who was worshipped in Revelation 5:13

4. Why does Thomas call Jesus "my God" (John 20:28) and Jesus not correct him? What evidence do you have that the Jewish disciples, at this time, called honored, powerful people “god”?

John 10:34

8. Why does Jesus double down when accused of blasphemy (John 10:36)?

Jesus clarified making the explicit statement "I am God's son" The Pharisees falsely claimed that equalled equality with the Almighty.

[The Tanager]

Again I ask -->> Are Jesus and the Son different persons? Are "The Word" and this Jesus of Nazareth two different individuals?

They are the same Person. And in that sense (taking chronology out of it), the glory that guided the Israelites out of Egypt was Jesus’ glory.

It says "The Son is the radiance of God's glory" : whose glory ? The son' s glory or God's glory?

Both, since the Son is God. You’d have a bit better case if it said the Father’s glory (although still not a strong one since other verses talk of Son and Father sharing glory).

Scripturally No , you can be an "inferior" god but not false.

The word ‘elohim’ is used in Psalms 138 and 8, but that has different meanings in Hebrew, including” God, false gods, and angels. Nowhere, that I know of, do you call these angels “My God” like Thomas did with Jesus. Sure, they get called elohim, but not “My God”.

I know the context; I've been able to read internet threads for some time.

It wasn’t meant as an insult; I was simply trying to keep the contexts clear (as I saw it) because our discussion has gone in many directions and it’s easy to misunderstand each other. Let’s start fresh.

At no point have I presented John 10 in an argument as to who was worshipped in Revelation 5:13

Okay, I’m sorry for my misunderstandings. What is your reasoning for why the Lamb isn’t being worshiped in Rev 5:13?

[JehovahsWitness]

Again I ask -->> Are Jesus and the Son different persons? Are "The Word" and this Jesus of Nazareth two different individuals?

They are the same Person.

If they are the same person, please explain what the following sentence means ...

Admitting it wasn’t Jesus’ glory is not admitting it wasn’t the Son’s glory.

It says "The Son is the radiance of God's glory" : whose glory ? The son' s glory or God's glory?

Both

Unfortunately for you , the scripture doesn't say "both".

The word ‘elohim’ is used in Psalms 138 and 8, but that has different meanings in Hebrew, including” God, false gods, and angels.

Which is why we turn to Paul who quoted the exact same scriture to tell us who the "elohim" of Psalms 8 verse 5 referred to. Can you tell me what word Paul used for the elohim of Psalm 8:5?

What is your reasoning for why the Lamb isn’t being worshiped in Rev 5:13?

It doesn't say that they worshipped the lamb.

[Capbook]

I, for one, think that we can see clearly that Jesus is subordinate to Jehovah God, the Father. Jesus worships Him and indicates that everyone should do so.

That would all be a great point, if it weren't for the fact that we have Phil 2:5-9 which states that Jesus was in the form of God and thus temporary gave up his Godship,

That would be great except that even after his return to an elevated position in heaven as a mighty spirit Jesus is STILL shown to be subordinate to the Father.



TRINITY 2023: viewtopic.php?p=1112469#p1112469

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED , LORD & SAVIOUR and ... JESUS

Yes, Jesus is STILL subordinate to the Father. It is plain to see if one looks at I Corinthians 11:3 and also I Corinthians 15:24-28, to name just a couple of passages that show Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (I Corinthians 11:3, NASB)

"Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For he has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted [God the Father] who put all things in subjection to him [Jesus]. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all." (I Corinthians 15:24-28, NASB) Brackets mine.

Adam Clark differs from your understanding of 1Cor 11:3.
As Jesus took the nature of man He is subject to God. But in His Divine nature He is equal with God,
See Barne's Notes of Phil 2:6;

1 Corinthians 11:3
He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: 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.)

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[Who, being in the form of God] There is scarcely any passage in the New Testament which has given rise to more discussion than this. The importance of the passage on the question of the divinity of the Saviour will be perceived at once, and no small part of the point of the appeal by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God.
(from Barnes' Notes.)

[JehovahsWitness]

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)?

[The Tanager]

If they are the same person, please explain what the following sentence means …

Admitting it wasn’t Jesus’ glory is not admitting it wasn’t the Son’s glory.

Historically, when the Exodus happened, the Son had not yet incarnated as Jesus. It’s a historical, chronological point. Technically, when the Son was that glory, He wasn't Jesus yet.

Unfortunately for you , the scripture doesn't say "both".

It would be unfortunate if the scripture was addressing that question, but it isn’t.

Which is why we turn to Paul who quoted the exact same scriture to tell us who the "elohim" of Psalms 8 verse 5 referred to. Can you tell me what word Paul used for the elohim of Psalm 8:5?

Since 1 Cor 15:27 and Eph 1:22 quote Psalm 8:6, I’m guessing you mean Hebrews 2:7. If so, then he uses ἀγγέλους (angelous), i.e., how we get our word "angels".

Let's read what the author does with it as well. The author compares the word spoken through angels and that spoken by the Lord (Jesus) (v. 2-3). He says that the world to come was not put in subjection to these angels (v. 5). Then he quotes Psalm 8:4-6. The world to come was put under humans, who are lower than the angels/elohim. The author then says this hasn’t been fulfilled yet (v. 8).

Then he goes in to how it started being fulfilled. Jesus, who for a little, was made lower than the angels tasted death for all (v. 9). Jesus is bringing many humans to glory (v. 10), sanctifies them, is one with them (v. 11). Jesus destroyed the devil who had power over death (v. 14), released those in bondage (v. 15) who were men, not angels (v. 16). Jesus had to become human to do this (v. 17) and can help those who are tempted (v. 18).

So, consider this Jesus (3:1) who is counted worthy of more glory than Moses (3:3) because he, Jesus, built the house. He then says that he who builds this house is God (3:4). He just said Jesus built the house. Therefore, he's directly saying Jesus is God.

What is your reasoning for why the Lamb isn’t being worshiped in Rev 5:13?

It doesn't say that they worshipped the lamb.

Okay, but what do you mean by that? I interpreted it as you saying it doesn’t have an exact phrase that says something like “they worshiped the Lamb”, but you said that isn’t what you mean. So what do you mean? Are you saying it says they worshiped someone else? Are you saying it says they didn’t worship anyone? Something else?