JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[onewithhim]

Jesus prayed to YHWH, the Father, not to himself. (E.g., Matthew 26:39,42; John 11:41,42; John 17:1-26.) Would he have been praying to himself?

He continually referred to himself as "God's SON," not YHWH Himself. (John 5:19; John 8:28,29; John 10:36; John 17:1.) Even the Jews who hated him recognized that fact (John 19:7). Can he be his own Son?

He applied Isaiah 61:1,2 to himself, at Luke 4:17-21, showing that he was the one anointed BY YHWH, and sent BY YHWH. There are incontrovertibly two Persons mentioned in the passage, and YHWH is the One calling the shots. The anointed one does what YHWH wants. How could they be the same Person?

Psalm 110 is also applied to Jesus at Acts 2:34,35. He is the "Lord," or Messiah, that YHWH speaks to. Was YHWH talking to Himself?


I think that just these few points would show plainly that Jesus is not YHWH. Can anyone explain how THESE REFERENCES, ABOVE, can possibly agree with the premise that Jesus is YHWH? I'm not asking for other Scriptures to be brought in without commenting ON the verses I am asking about. Please give me your reasoning concerning these particular Scriptures. Thank you.

[JehovahsWitness]

From https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/worship-jesus.php

Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jesus until 1954, after which they were told such worship was idolatrous. This made them a polytheistic religion for most of their history. The core to religion is God, and to change the God you worship is to change the very essence and basis of the religion.

So originally JWs worshiped two gods.

QUESTIONS: Did Jehovah's Witnesses worship Jesus prior to 1954?

No, Jehovah's Witneeses have never believed Jesus to be Almighty God and have, and continue to render worship to Jehovah alone as the Creator. That said, their publications in the past have , by failing to properly rendering the Greek word pros·ky·ne′o in relation to Jesus as "obeisance/hommage", rather than "worship" did not accurately communicate their historic position in this regard.

PROSKYNEO

Prior to January 1st 1954 Jehovah's Witness did not fully understand that the word Greek word “pros·ky·ne′o" is properly rendered - according to the context (“do obeisance� pay homage, bow down). As a result, it was systematically rendered "worship" in the society's publications regardless of whether it was applied to Jesus or Jehovah. A fuller understanding lead to a revision in rendition, clarifying their historic position that worship belonged exclusively to Jehovah and "obeisance" to Jesus (see (John 9: 38; Philipians 2: 10).

PROSKYNEO π�οσκυνέω -
"To express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully" - Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. Bauer, Walter BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

Further reading
http://jehovah.to/xlation/wo.html
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/proskyneo_worship.htm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... nhsis.html



Here is a related post I wrote earlier: Did Jesus accept worship from his followers?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 405#842405

[Faber]

Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority.

That supreme worship is properly ascribed to the Father and to the Lord Jesus demonstrates that the Lord Jesus is God. In fact, just one prayer (He properly receives many) to the Lord Jesus demonstrates that He is omniscient (God).

Then, using your logic, a husband is God also.

"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 the Christ." (I Corinthians 11:3, NASB)

If you can use that verse to prove that Christ is God because both are "heads" , then you will have to admit that a husband is God as well.


[/b]

Your assertion is invalid because I am not using this verse to prove that Christ is God. You were the one who first used it to insist that He isn't God.

But the text doesn't teach that.

[Faber]

From https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/worship-jesus.php

Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jesus until 1954, after which they were told such worship was idolatrous. This made them a polytheistic religion for most of their history. The core to religion is God, and to change the God you worship is to change the very essence and basis of the religion.

So originally JWs worshiped two gods.

QUESTIONS: Did Jehovah's Witnesses worship Jesus prior to 1954?

No, Jehovah's Witneeses have never believed Jesus to be Almighty God and have, and continue to render worship to Jehovah alone as the Creator. That said, their publications in the past have , by failing to properly rendering the Greek word pros·ky·ne′o in relation to Jesus as "obeisance/hommage", rather than "worship" did not accurately communicate their historic position in this regard.

PROSKYNEO

Prior to January 1st 1954 Jehovah's Witness did not fully understand that the word Greek word “pros·ky·ne′o" is properly rendered - according to the context (“do obeisance� pay homage, bow down). As a result, it was systematically rendered "worship" in the society's publications regardless of whether it was applied to Jesus or Jehovah. A fuller understanding lead to a revision in rendition, clarifying their historic position that worship belonged exclusively to Jehovah and "obeisance" to Jesus (see (John 9: 38; Philipians 2: 10).

PROSKYNEO π�οσκυνέω -
"To express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully" - Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. Bauer, Walter BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

Further reading
http://jehovah.to/xlation/wo.html
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/proskyneo_worship.htm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... nhsis.html



Here is a related post I wrote earlier: Did Jesus accept worship from his followers?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 405#842405

They have cited other passages besides ones that contained proskyneo to affirm that the Lord Jesus was properly worshiped.

[onewithhim]

According to Gnostic scriptures, at least SOME Gnostic scriptures, there was a being above "God," called the demiurge, perhaps this is the being to whom Jesus prayed, and the meaning has become blurred.

I reject Gnostic scriptures, for many reasons.

[onewithhim]

From https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/worship-jesus.php

Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jesus until 1954, after which they were told such worship was idolatrous. This made them a polytheistic religion for most of their history. The core to religion is God, and to change the God you worship is to change the very essence and basis of the religion.

So originally JWs worshiped two gods.

Not true. It has been explained ad nauseum that the word for "worship" in the Scriptures has, if you will, several levels. There is the worship that civil authorities demand, and which citizens are to honor (Romans 13:7). That "worship" is simply the respect accorded to a public servant. That is NOT THE SAME as the worship given to God Almighty. We worship Him as the Most High, the Almighty powerful One who deserves recognition of the fact that He is above everyone and everything else. (Jesus is "worshipped" as someone who deserves respect and who is the beloved Son of the Most High God.)

The raggety information you are passing on is tainted and misleading, to say the least.


.

[onewithhim]

Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority.

That supreme worship is properly ascribed to the Father and to the Lord Jesus demonstrates that the Lord Jesus is God. In fact, just one prayer (He properly receives many) to the Lord Jesus demonstrates that He is omniscient (God).

Then, using your logic, a husband is God also.

"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 the Christ." (I Corinthians 11:3, NASB)

If you can use that verse to prove that Christ is God because both are "heads" , then you will have to admit that a husband is God as well.


[/b]

Your assertion is invalid because I am not using this verse to prove that Christ is God. You were the one who first used it to insist that He isn't God.

But the text doesn't teach that.

No, my assertion is quite valid. It was you who said that I Corinth.11:3 shows that Jesus is God, because "functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority." I thereafter brought out the point that if your argument includes God and Jesus, then it must ALSO include a man---the woman's husband--- because he is also a "head."

So, if Jesus is God because he is a "head," then a woman's husband is also God because he is a "head" as well.

[tigger2]

"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 the Christ." (I Corinthians 11:3, NASB)

There are two significant aspects here. 1. In each of the three clauses one is superior in authority to the other. 2. Each subject is a different entity from the other.

That is, Christ is superior in authority to every man, and Christ (being a heavenly spirit person) is not a man. And (at that time) man was superior in authority to a woman/wife, and man is not a woman. And God is superior in authority to Christ, and Christ is not God.

If Paul had believed Christ were equally God, he surely would have worded it differently.

He might have said 'God the Father is the head of God the Son.'

But even if Paul had written something similar, doesn't the traditional trinity doctrine tell us that none of the 3 persons in the 'Godhead' is before another? That they are all equally God? "The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will."

[Donray]

Not true. It has been explained ad nauseum that the word for "worship" in the Scriptures has, if you will, several levels. There is the worship that civil authorities demand, and which citizens are to honor (Romans 13:7). That "worship" is simply the respect accorded to a public servant. That is NOT THE SAME as the worship given to God Almighty. We worship Him as the Most High, the Almighty powerful One who deserves recognition of the fact that He is above everyone and everything else. (Jesus is "worshipped" as someone who deserves respect and who is the beloved Son of the Most High God.)

The raggety information you are passing on is tainted and misleading, to say the least.


.

Will you point our in Romans 13:7 where worship is used?

You and other religious people like to make up things like what the word "worship" means.

Please note that in 1953 worship in English and the JWs meant to worship a god. Please supply the English definition of worship that the JW leaders used from 1914 to 1954.

The founders of the JWs understood only English and could have less about Greek.

[onewithhim]

Not true. It has been explained ad nauseum that the word for "worship" in the Scriptures has, if you will, several levels. There is the worship that civil authorities demand, and which citizens are to honor (Romans 13:7). That "worship" is simply the respect accorded to a public servant. That is NOT THE SAME as the worship given to God Almighty. We worship Him as the Most High, the Almighty powerful One who deserves recognition of the fact that He is above everyone and everything else. (Jesus is "worshipped" as someone who deserves respect and who is the beloved Son of the Most High God.)

The raggety information you are passing on is tainted and misleading, to say the least.


.

Will you point our in Romans 13:7 where worship is used?

You and other religious people like to make up things like what the word "worship" means.

Please note that in 1953 worship in English and the JWs meant to worship a god. Please supply the English definition of worship that the JW leaders used from 1914 to 1954.

The founders of the JWs understood only English and could have less about Greek.

I don't know what you are trying to say here with your unwillingness to accept the more-than-one meaning of "worship." I explained it and that is how JWs see it now.

Why don't you go ask some other religion's member questions to try and show THEM that their leaders said something different a few decades (or centuries) ago, such as perhaps asking a Catholic why the pope wasn't infallible until about 200 years ago, or why St. Christopher is no longer a saint when he used to be on everybody's dash-boards.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 29 by onewithhim]

Donray: "Please note that in 1953 worship in English and the JWs meant to worship a god. Please supply the English definition of worship that the JW leaders used from 1914 to 1954."

For the first half of the 20th century JW scholars (like most NT scholars) used, among others, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and the American Standard Version.

Thayer defines the NT Greek word for 'worship' (proskuneo): "a. of homage shown to men of superior rank .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings"

The American Standard Version (1901) notes in a number of footnotes concerning 'worship'': "“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, ... , or to the Creator.�