The Trinity

[sojourner]

What? When you go to any given church, how many people do you actually see bowing down? Probably none. Now yeah, maybe someone can bow down to Jesus/God as an act of worship, but being worshipped is not limited to the act of bowing down.

Worship entails far, far more than simply an act of bowing down. Our word "worship" comes from two Anglo-Saxon roots. The "ship" root means "shape." The "wor" part comes from werden which means "to be" or, more specifically, "to become." So, worship is a shape of events carried out before God, in which we are transformed by God. Worship is deeply relational and deeply transformational. "Bowing down," as you say, as a single act, does not constitute "worship" in the Christian sense of that word.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Worship entails far, far more than simply an act of bowing down. Our word "worship" comes from two Anglo-Saxon roots. The "ship" root means "shape." The "wor" part comes from werden which means "to be" or, more specifically, "to become." So, worship is a shape of events carried out before God, in which we are transformed by God. Worship is deeply relational and deeply transformational. "Bowing down," as you say, as a single act, does not constitute "worship" in the Christian sense of that word.

My point exactly, and would you agree that only God is worthy of worship?

 

[Shermana]

My point exactly, and would you agree that only God is worthy of worship?

Well your point is based on the English language and not the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It would be fine and dandy if you actually read my link and didn't just brush it off and handwave it.

Here it is again. I'll quote from it this time:

The Trinity Delusion: Hebrews 1:10

See, you're presuming that the text must necessarily be speaking about him. It's not. Can you at least admit that it's possible in your view that it may be changing the subject or are you set on your forced interpretation as if it's the only way to read the verse.

Sherm, this verse is so self-explanatory that you will almost have to hire someone to make you NOT understand it.

Heb 1:10 is a DIRECT quotation from Ps 102:25-27. In that scripture it is DAVID speaking in reference to GOD. That is undeniable. In the Heb scripture, verse 10 states “He also says”….the “He” is the same person that is “God”, beginning in verse 5. So that pronoun carried over to verse 6,7,8, and 10. So if God is changing the subject in verse 10 as you think he does, why would he go from speaking about the Son, to changing the subject to quote a verse in the OT which was in reference to himself?

If God is speaking in verse 10 “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth.” Why would it say “you laid the foundations of the earth” when the person that laid the foundations of the earth is the one SPEAKING???? He wouldn’t have said “you”, he would have said “I”. And not only that, but why would he change the subject to speak about himself and then go right back to speaking about the Son in verse 13? Verses 10-12 doesn’t have anything to do with the subject matter of the entire chapter whatsoever if it isn’t speaking about the Son, just like the REST of the chapter does. Makes no sense. You have to try realll hard to shape and mold Heb 1 to fit your anti-Trinity agenda. REAL hard.

Hold on here, the person telling me about "possible" ways to interpret a verse is telling me that "Can" does not mean "Does"? Apparently God had no problem with David worshiping Saul, or Moses worshiping his Father in Law. Or Joshua and Moses and Abraham worshiping Angels. Either admit a contradiction in the text or a lack of understanding of how to interpret on your part. What the god is jealous of is worship of gods who aren't directly in the Divine chain of command, which would constitute "serving" another god. Anything less and you're dealing with contradictions.

That’s why I said SHOW ME BIBLICAL evidence where a man besides Jesus is being worshipped.

Did you not read the link I showed you? Bowing is worshiping in Hebrew and Greek, nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise, you're stuck with the same problem of how to interpret "worship" and 'Bowing" with your own references to Jesus. Why is it now "worshiping" Jesus and not just "bowing down" when it's referring to him? Because you want to read it however you want as it suits you regardless of objectivity? By all means, please prove that the word for "worship" doesn't mean just bow down to Jesus. Good luck.

So once again, basically you are telling me that people that go to church every Sunday aren’t worshipping God if they don’t bow. That is laughable, Sherm.

Read the Speaker confusion issue link and stop disregarding my links. It's an Angel bearing the message from the Father. I've been over this one hundreds of times on this forum and others. Did you even know it's an Angel speaking the message there? Most haven't even read Revelation 21-22 to know that.

So, Revelations 22:12 isn’t speaking of Jesus?? Wow.

Mine is completely in light of the other scriptures. I'll bet you didn't even know it's an Angel carrying the Father's message.

That may be true but there is no reason to deny that the context is all JESUS.

What's this about "can" does not mean "Does" again? You're ignoring the issue of "of". "of" means "Among" in this case.

It doesn’t matter. If God came to earth right now he would be pre-eminent “among” creation. If he can be pre-eminent among creation without it being implied that he was created, then why can’t Jesus.

Are you denying that it CAN mean it or not?

Yes, in light of other scriptures.

Ah, your interpretation is "Common sense" because you say so, that totally proves mine wrong. Do I get to play that game?

Well lets scratch the “common sense” part and focus on what was said.

And how's that a problem?

Because I just can’t get myself to believe that Paul was saying Jesus was firstborn in terms of “first-created” and then say that Jesus created “all things” without inserting the word “other” in the mix. That is the distinction; Jesus was created (on your view), and then created all “other” things. But there is no need to insert “other” if Jesus WASN’T in fact created, now is there? Yet, “other” isn’t there. Hmmm.

As if you get to write the rules on how the Greek works?

Well enlighten me on how the insertion of the word “other” in that context would be incorrect from a Greek linguistic standpoint.

They do that for the sake of the reader. It's ironic that you're telling me about this presupposed stuff, when you have so many presuppositions going on your own case. Do you have any idea how many presupposed translations these Trinitarian antinomian translations use? Why what do we have here, you are using the exact same argument below for "over" as you're trying to use for the implication of "Other" as if that's necessitated in the Greek. Oh the irony! (And the blatant, immediate hypocrisy).

Not at all. My interpretations come from the moral argument that I’ve given. My argument is, I repeat, that only a being incapable of sin could be able to die for the sins of the world. No person other than God himself can live up to that standard, because no one is perfect but God. Now with that being said, Jesus died for the sins of the world. Therefore, Jesus is God. Now, this argument goes a long way and I feel as if I can back it up if need be. But that alone allows me to conclude that Jesus is God. So if my view is correct, I should be able to read the bible and find scriptures that corroborate my view, which I do.

OF all means among. It's that simple. No matter how you slice it. I won't accept anything less especially from someone trying to lecture me on pressupositions and how the word "Other" is necessitated just because the NWT uses it as such. Meanwhile, you're stuck with having to admit that it CAN mean Firstborn as in First Created.

First off I didn’t say “other” is necessitated just because the NWT uses it. I am saying that they recognized that if such a view is to be held, the word is better off in the scriptures than not. Now of course I don’t believe the word should be there AT ALL because I don’t hold the view that Jesus was created.

That has to be the worst, shoddiest attempts at getting around that one ever. I'm glad to hear you know exactly what God does and doesn't care about. Wow, that's utter desparation. Like UTTER desparation.

LMAO first of all, I find it funny that you say “Im glad to hear you know exactly what God does and doesn’t care about”. I gave the scripture where GOD TOLD us what he cares about, so how you could even begin to say that is beyond me.

Okay, so you were talking about presumptions and writing things into the text that aren't there or something? Dang, you just popped your own balloon. This isn't an even a debate anymore, this is just you insisting on your assertions as if you don't even need textual support, like your case with the "Blameless" issue.

What the heck are you talking about? My point was there would be NO POINT in Paul bragging about Christ being the “first-created” when “first created” doesn’t have any significance to God whatsoever. That was the point. Wow.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you're refusing to accept that worship and Bow mean the same thing, even after I showed you a Trinitarian Christian Hebrew language site that says the same thing, and Strong's concordance, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest, you have in no way bothered to demonstrate that the language indicates that Shawkaw and Proskuneo can indicate something different than the concept of "worship", and you probably wouldn't even be able to define "worship" in those languages in your own terms to begin with.

Lol so let me ask you this Sherm. President Barack Obama is the highest ranking man in the US, if I see him and “bow” to him, which means “worship” on your view, God, as he looks down from heaven, would be fine with me worshipping the President?? Yes or no.

So basically you won't even acknowledge simple Language concepts. This often happens when debating Trinitarians, they often refuse to acknowledge even what the links say from their own side.

Links don’t mean anything because we both have our sources. You have sources that agree with you, and I have sources that agree with me. In the end, all we would be doing is trading links back and forth. But all of that doesn’t matter anyway because as I’ve said at least four times, my argument is not dependent upon translations. If my moral argument is true, then Jesus is God based on his sacrifice ALONE. Everything else just falls in place.

Are you even remotely interested in reading the links I provide? How am I supposed to prove to you what's what when you won't even read those?

Same answer as above.

How am I supposed to even argue with you when you won't even read links by Trinitarians themselves who do speak Hebrew and Greek, and you won't present a counterlink that you think dispels their view?

The moral argument…

Makes no sense because you want to interpret how you want to as if there's no other way to interpret it. I'm at least allowing the possibility of other interpretations and showing why they are wrong by the language or context itself.

With the moral argument, translations mean nothing. As long as we can all agree that Jesus was without sin, and only a perfect being can be without sin, and only God can be perfect, then it follows that Jesus is God. When this is considered, translations are meaningless.

I am saying that you refuse to acknowledge basic language concepts and want to read things into the text that aren't there and refuse to provide links to back your own claims and interpretations. You're basically up a creek. I got the links from people on YOUR OWN SIDE that agree with me, you have...nothing. This is pathetic. Is this a cheap attempt at covering up the fact that you can't find a single person or site or article to link to that backs up your own case? It's quite simple, you're making the claim that the "blamelessness" God is described of having is somehow different, even though it's the same word, as that Job has. You're the one making a Theological concept that is a...PRESUMPTION....without any actual support for it that involves reading into the text what's not there.

The moral argument.

If you spend some time googling, maybe you can actually present links that agree with you instead of insisting you're right and denying and handwaving my links.

The moral argument…

So basically, you repeat yourself and ignore the fact that Paul could have been talking about a less upright generation than that of "Blameless" Job. Regardless, how do we know they knew Jesus never sinned before they met him exactly?

Who else has interpreted it that way but you? So if Paul was only speaking of a “less upright generation”, how did he know there weren’t any “perfect” people walking around? I mean, cmon now. No one is perfect. We all sin. When does it stop?

 

[Shermana]

Sherm, this verse is so self-explanatory that you will almost have to hire someone to make you NOT understand it.

Heb 1:10 is a DIRECT quotation from Ps 102:25-27. In that scripture it is DAVID speaking in reference to GOD. That is undeniable. In the Heb scripture, verse 10 states “He also says”….the “He” is the same person that is “God”, beginning in verse 5. So that pronoun carried over to verse 6,7,8, and 10. So if God is changing the subject in verse 10 as you think he does, why would he go from speaking about the Son, to changing the subject to quote a verse in the OT which was in reference to himself?

What's so self-explanatory is that you handwaved and brushed aside my link and then refused to address that it's obviously referring to the same being in verse 13.

If God is speaking in verse 10 “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth.” Why would it say “you laid the foundations of the earth” when the person that laid the foundations of the earth is the one SPEAKING???? He wouldn’t have said “you”, he would have said “I”. And not only that, but why would he change the subject to speak about himself and then go right back to speaking about the Son in verse 13? Verses 10-12 doesn’t have anything to do with the subject matter of the entire chapter whatsoever if it isn’t speaking about the Son, just like the REST of the chapter does. Makes no sense. You have to try realll hard to shape and mold Heb 1 to fit your anti-Trinity agenda. REAL hard.

Because he was reading a quote and the quote ended, it's quite simple. Try actually reading my links.

That’s why I said SHOW ME BIBLICAL evidence where a man besides Jesus is being worshipped.

King David is worshiped in 1 Chronicles 29:20, likewise, Moses in Exodus 18:7 bows down ("Worships") Jethro.

If you'd like to debate the Biblical meaning of worship and how it somehow changes meaning depending on who its used for, feel free to contribute to this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/151337-biblical-meaning-worship.html

Until then, I simply won't tolerate anyone who refuses to listen to even Trinitarian sources on the meaning of worship, and who refuses to substantiate why in their own logic Jesus was somehow "worshiped" differently.

So once again, basically you are telling me that people that go to church every Sunday aren’t worshipping God if they don’t bow. That is laughable, Sherm.

I am telling you that you are consistently refusing to acknowledge that there's a big difference between the English word and Biblical word for "worship", and that the word "Worship" as we use it is not the same thing, even by Trinitarian grammarians on the matter. What's laughable is when Trinitarians adamantly refuse to accept this.

So, Revelations 22:12 isn’t speaking of Jesus?? Wow.

That's correct. And most people who attempt to go by this reveal that they haven't actually read the full text of Revelation when they are shocked to discover that it's an Angel delivering a message in that verse. If you bothered reading my Speaker Confusion Link, you'd get this. But as we've seen, you have brushed off every single link as if they don't matter.

That may be true but there is no reason to deny that the context is all JESUS.

There's plenty reason to deny it, since the NT is always careful to distinguish between God and Jesus.

It doesn’t matter. If God came to earth right now he would be pre-eminent “among” creation. If he can be pre-eminent among creation without it being implied that he was created, then why can’t Jesus.

So you're basically just throwing the whole grammatical issue out the window and doubling down.

Yes, in light of other scriptures.

Well then you obviously aren't interpreting the other scriptures correctly if you deny the very possibility of it.

Well lets scratch the “common sense” part and focus on what was said.

Yeah, let's scratch trying to avoid the actual issues.

Because I just can’t get myself to believe that Paul was saying Jesus was firstborn in terms of “first-created” and then say that Jesus created “all things” without inserting the word “other” in the mix. That is the distinction; Jesus was created (on your view), and then created all “other” things. But there is no need to insert “other” if Jesus WASN’T in fact created, now is there? Yet, “other” isn’t there. Hmmm.

It's not my problem if you can't get yourself to believe what the text says just because it doesn't use the word "Other" as if the Greek necessitates it for that distinction.

Well enlighten me on how the insertion of the word “other” in that context would be incorrect from a Greek linguistic standpoint.

Simply put, you don't need the word "other" in there anymore so than you would need "other" to distinguish between other men. Jesus was regarded as "A divine being", and the word "Angel" in the Greek meant "Divine being", as did even Theos in many places.

Not at all. My interpretations come from the moral argument that I’ve given. My argument is, I repeat, that only a being incapable of sin could be able to die for the sins of the world. No person other than God himself can live up to that standard, because no one is perfect but God. Now with that being said, Jesus died for the sins of the world. Therefore, Jesus is God. Now, this argument goes a long way and I feel as if I can back it up if need be. But that alone allows me to conclude that Jesus is God. So if my view is correct, I should be able to read the bible and find scriptures that corroborate my view, which I do.

Okay well your argument is based totally on personal interpretation which ignores the point I made about "blamelessness".

First off I didn’t say “other” is necessitated just because the NWT uses it. I am saying that they recognized that if such a view is to be held, the word is better off in the scriptures than not. Now of course I don’t believe the word should be there AT ALL because I don’t hold the view that Jesus was created.

Okay, well we at least agree that the word "Other' does not belong there in a literal reading. For a version like the NLT that imposes words at will to define context, it would fit fine.

LMAO first of all, I find it funny that you say “Im glad to hear you know exactly what God does and doesn’t care about”. I gave the scripture where GOD TOLD us what he cares about, so how you could even begin to say that is beyond me.

I must have missed where you showed a quote that decisively proves God doesn't care about Jesus being the Firstborn or that being the Firstborn has no significance.

I wonder what your explanation is for why the literal Firstborn are to be sanctified in Israel.

What the heck are you talking about? My point was there would be NO POINT in Paul bragging about Christ being the “first-created” when “first created” doesn’t have any significance to God whatsoever. That was the point. Wow.

As we can see, the Firstborn sons of Israel are very significant to God, so obviously you're embellishing whatever you claim to be quoting to mean something it does not. Being Firstborn may very well apply to God's own Creation just as it does to literal Firstborn Israelites.

 

[Shermana]

Lol so let me ask you this Sherm. President Barack Obama is the highest ranking man in the US, if I see him and “bow” to him, which means “worship” on your view, God, as he looks down from heaven, would be fine with me worshipping the President?? Yes or no.

That is correct. You simply misunderstand what "worship and serve other gods" means. He had no problem with people bowing down to King David or Saul or his angels (The ones in his chain of command, not the fallen ones).

Links don’t mean anything because we both have our sources. You have sources that agree with you, and I have sources that agree with me. In the end, all we would be doing is trading links back and forth. But all of that doesn’t matter anyway because as I’ve said at least four times, my argument is not dependent upon translations. If my moral argument is true, then Jesus is God based on his sacrifice ALONE. Everything else just falls in place.

Okay, so you flat out admit that you don't have any sources that agree with you, and that you won't even look at sources that disagree with your personal interpretation. Okay, well in that case we should just agree to disagree because it's basically your word and personal interpretation we're dealing with. I guess I can just go ahead and claim that my interpretation is true and let that be the end of it.

Same answer as above.




The moral argument…



With the moral argument, translations mean nothing. As long as we can all agree that Jesus was without sin, and only a perfect being can be without sin, and only God can be perfect, then it follows that Jesus is God. When this is considered, translations are meaningless.

The moral argument.



The moral argument…

So therefore, your "Moral argument" is all you feel you need to make a point even if its demonstrated that it's based on a total embellished reading into the text that's not there, based on Theological presumptions that include concepts not necessarily indicated in the text. We've established this.

Who else has interpreted it that way but you? So if Paul was only speaking of a “less upright generation”, how did he know there weren’t any “perfect” people walking around? I mean, cmon now. No one is perfect. We all sin. When does it stop?

When you can prove that "Blameless" means something different in the text for Job and Elizabeth than it does for when describing God, even if we agree that God is Theologically on a higher level of such blamelessness, and you can prove that it still implies they sinned textually, let me know. Until then, you're basically just nuh uhing and insisting on your assertions.

 

[sojourner]

My point exactly, and would you agree that only God is worthy of worship?

God (however God is defined and described) is that transformational energy into which we enter when we worship.

 

[sojourner]

What the heck are you talking about? My point was there would be NO POINT in Paul bragging about Christ being the “first-created” when “first created” doesn’t have any significance to God whatsoever. That was the point.

The problem here with an argument from Paul is that, in my experience in this forum, some folks tend to dismiss Paul as being "inauthentic" and "non-authoritative" when it suits them, but somehow find him consummately authoritative when it suits their argument to do so. That way, bases are covered, so that when you argue from Paul, they can say, "Paul doesn't count." Until he does for their argument.

 

[cataway]

you's do know the bowing is in reality an act of obeisance.
An obeisance is a gesture not only of respect but also of submission.
In countries with recognized social classes, bowing to nobility and royalty is customary. Standing bows of obeisance all involve bending forward from the waist with the eyes downcast, though variations in the placement of the arms and feet are seen. In western European cultures, women do not bow, they "curtsey" a movement in which one foot is moved back and the entire body lowered to a crouch while the head is bowed.

 

[sojourner]

you's do know the bowing is in reality an act of obeisance.
An obeisance is a gesture not only of respect but also of submission.
In countries with recognized social classes, bowing to nobility and royalty is customary. Standing bows of obeisance all involve bending forward from the waist with the eyes downcast, though variations in the placement of the arms and feet are seen. In western European cultures, women do not bow, they "curtsey" a movement in which one foot is moved back and the entire body lowered to a crouch while the head is bowed.

That's why we've acknowledged that bowing is one act of worship, but does not constitute the whole of worship.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What's so self-explanatory is that you handwaved and brushed aside my link and then refused to address that it's obviously referring to the same being in verse 13.

Still babbling about links, huh?

Because he was reading a quote and the quote ended, it's quite simple. Try actually reading my links.

He was speaking about the Son the whole dang Chapter so we are expected to believe that for that one little verse he all of a sudden changed the subject by quoting a OT verse that was about himself at which would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject matter of the rest of the chapter??? Man, you are worse than the JW’s, and that is saying A LOT.

King David is worshiped in 1 Chronicles 29:20, likewise, Moses in Exodus 18:7 bows down ("Worships") Jethro.

No King David isn’t worshipped, are you crazy??? He told them to praise God, and “they bowed low and feel prostrate before the Lord and the king”. How does that imply David being worshipped? He told them to praise GOD and that’s what they did. He didn’t tell them to “praise us”. Yup, worse than the JW’s.

If you'd like to debate the Biblical meaning of worship and how it somehow changes meaning depending on who its used for, feel free to contribute to this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/151337-biblical-meaning-worship.html

Ask any person with a Jewish background is it ever ok to worship someone other than God.

Until then, I simply won't tolerate anyone who refuses to listen to even Trinitarian sources on the meaning of worship, and who refuses to substantiate why in their own logic Jesus was somehow "worshiped" differently.

I am telling you that you are consistently refusing to acknowledge that there's a big difference between the English word and Biblical word for "worship", and that the word "Worship" as we use it is not the same thing, even by Trinitarian grammarians on the matter. What's laughable is when Trinitarians adamantly refuse to accept this.

Instead of feeding in to who interprets what, I will just go by what Jesus said when he told Satan “For it is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” Jesus is correlating “worship”, with “serving”, and he is quoting from Deut 6:13 where God tells his people to only serve him. And notice that in the Deut 6:13 scripture, God is associating “serve” with false “gods”, telling the people not to serve false “gods”.

And once again, why would God speak of his jealousy throughout the bible in reference to a false god being worshipped, but cool, calm, and collective when a mere human is worshipped. If that is the case, shouldn’t humans be jealous too?? Your view is just completely wrong, and just when I thought I’ve heard everything, this one comes from the left field.

That's correct. And most people who attempt to go by this reveal that they haven't actually read the full text of Revelation when they are shocked to discover that it's an Angel delivering a message in that verse. If you bothered reading my Speaker Confusion Link, you'd get this. But as we've seen, you have brushed off every single link as if they don't matter.

You are completely wrong here. Completely. Jesus’ spoke of himself “coming” many different times in the Gospels, and even gave parables of such. And not only in the Gospels, but rest of the NT as well, including Rev 1:7.

So in Rev 22:12, we are expected to not conclude that this is Jesus as the one identified as “coming”.

But just to show you how wrong you actually are…consider the following verses…

Matt 16:27, “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.”

Now this is CLEARLY Jesus speaking…now compare that to…

Revelations 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon!! My reward is with me, and I will GIVE TO EVERYONE ACCORDING TO WHAT HE HAS DONE”

Those two scriptures are practically MIRROR images. If you deny that Jesus is the one being referred to in the Revelations verse, you are only doing so because he calls himself the Alpha/Omega, First/Last, Beginning/End…and you presuppose that those titles DON’T apply to him so you deny that he is the one speaking. But guess what, too bad. Just because you don’t like the idea doesn’t make it untrue. This is clearly Jesus speaking (or referred too in the Rev verse). There is no genuine denying it and there is no translations that can get you out of it.

There's plenty reason to deny it, since the NT is always careful to distinguish between God and Jesus.

It distinguishes the Father and the Son, yes.

So you're basically just throwing the whole grammatical issue out the window and doubling down.

It is a legitimate question, which you did the same thing when speaking about how David was also “worshiped” without being God in 1 Chronicles.

It's not my problem if you can't get yourself to believe what the text says just because it doesn't use the word "Other" as if the Greek necessitates it for that distinction.

Moral argument.

Simply put, you don't need the word "other" in there anymore so than you would need "other" to distinguish between other men. Jesus was regarded as "A divine being", and the word "Angel" in the Greek meant "Divine being", as did even Theos in many places.

If Angel just simply means “Divine being”, then the Father himself is also an angel because he is also a “Divine Being”. See how you logic just don’t work?

Okay well your argument is based totally on personal interpretation which ignores the point I made about "blamelessness".

And my point is “blameless” doesn’t mean morally perfect. Suppose Job was once a sinner but changed his life around??? So in that sense he is blameless now but “unblameless” back then, but either way there is no moral perfection implied.

I must have missed where you showed a quote that decisively proves God doesn't care about Jesus being the Firstborn or that being the Firstborn has no significance.

I coulda swore I gave you the scripture 1 Samuel 16:6-7. If it was firstborn God cared about, why did he anoint David, who was not only NOT the firstborn, but the youngest? Or Joseph, who also wasn’t the firstborn? I am not saying this is a knockdown argument, but don’t think Paul is harping over Jesus’ being the firstborn as in first-created, when it doesn’t matter what order of creation he was.

I wonder what your explanation is for why the literal Firstborn are to be sanctified in Israel.
As we can see, the Firstborn sons of Israel are very significant to God, so obviously you're embellishing whatever you claim to be quoting to mean something it does not. Being Firstborn may very well apply to God's own Creation just as it does to literal Firstborn Israelites.

That was only for head of the household stuff, inheritance stuff. That is small time. We are talking big time…such as kingdoms and creating “all other things” and such

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is correct. You simply misunderstand what "worship and serve other gods" means. He had no problem with people bowing down to King David or Saul or his angels (The ones in his chain of command, not the fallen ones).

So as I said before, so why is he jealous then? Makes no sense. That would mean that King David or Saul should have also been jealous if someone worshiped other gods.

Okay, so you flat out admit that you don't have any sources that agree with you, and that you won't even look at sources that disagree with your personal interpretation. Okay, well in that case we should just agree to disagree because it's basically your word and personal interpretation we're dealing with. I guess I can just go ahead and claim that my interpretation is true and let that be the end of it.

My interpretation fits Christian theology, yours don’t. You honestly believe that man can be morally perfect, just like God. That kind of thinking has no place in Christian theology.

So therefore, your "Moral argument" is all you feel you need to make a point even if its demonstrated that it's based on a total embellished reading into the text that's not there, based on Theological presumptions that include concepts not necessarily indicated in the text. We've established this.

Sure, a man can live a sinless life. Keep thinking that.

When you can prove that "Blameless" means something different in the text for Job and Elizabeth than it does for when describing God, even if we agree that God is Theologically on a higher level of such blamelessness, and you can prove that it still implies they sinned textually, let me know. Until then, you're basically just nuh uhing and insisting on your assertions.

Well, I didn’t see “blameless” as describing God. I saw “perfect”. But hey.

 

[Shermana]

Ask any person with a Jewish background is it ever ok to worship someone other than God.

As I've asked others who have pulled this same thing, go to the Judaism DIR and ask them yourself what the concept of "worship" means, they usually refuse to do so each time.

You are completely wrong here. Completely. Jesus’ spoke of himself “coming” many different times in the Gospels, and even gave parables of such. And not only in the Gospels, but rest of the NT as well, including Rev 1:7.

Another example where you refuse to read any link provided, accuse me of being wrong as if you can just write off what I said, and refuse to address the text itself. The consensus I believe is unanimous that Jesus does not start talking until 1:11 and it's the Father himself who is being addressed in 1:8. Jesus is never called "The Lord God". 1:7 ends with an Amen. This is another example of where you don't understand how the Greek works with ending a subject and addressing a new one.

8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Since you absolutely refuse to read any link I provide which explains this and just assert you are right and I am wrong, it is futile arguing with you any longer.

If Angel just simply means “Divine being”, then the Father himself is also an angel because he is also a “Divine Being”. See how you logic just don’t work?

If you're not going to listen to how the word "Elohim" is translated as "Divine Being", then you're not going to listen, it's that simple. God would indeed be an "Angel" as the Greek uses the term, and the Greek use of "Angel" is not necessarily the same as the Hebrew use of the word for 'Messenger". The author of Hebrews himself translates "Elohim" as "Angel". Numerous translations use "Divine beings" for "Elohim". Refusing to acknowledge basic things like this is the basis of your argument.

My interpretation fits Christian theology, yours don’t

This is basically the kind of argument you are limited to.

Still babbling about links, huh?

With this statement, you have shown that you're not interested whatsoever in having an argument based on rational use of links and sources, so with that said, I think any further addressing of your replies will be a waste of time, as you are simply basically doubling down on what has already been addressed and dealt with.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Another example where you refuse to read any link provided, accuse me of being wrong as if you can just write off what I said, and refuse to address the text itself. The consensus I believe is unanimous that Jesus does not start talking until 1:11 and it's the Father himself who is being addressed in 1:8.

Jesus is the one always identified as the one that is "coming". It states he is "coming with the clouds" by John, and the one who is "coming in the "clouds" states "...who is, and who was, and who is to COME" in verse 8.

Jesus is never called "The Lord God". 1:7 ends with an Amen. This is another example of where you don't understand how the Greek works with ending a subject and addressing a new one.

Oh I forgot you are the great Greek scholar of the forum, Sherm. I guess you can enlighten me on the "Greek transition rule" as we read paragraph to paragraph. Verse 7 to verse 8 doesn't look like a good transition to me.

Since you absolutely refuse to read any link I provide which explains this and just assert you are right and I am wrong, it is futile arguing with you any longer.

Well judging how you think a mere can can live a perfect life and carry the same moral standard as God himself, the feeling is mutual.

If you're not going to listen to how the word "Elohim" is translated as "Divine Being", then you're not going to listen, it's that simple. God would indeed be an "Angel" as the Greek uses the term, and the Greek use of "Angel" is not necessarily the same as the Hebrew use of the word for 'Messenger". The author of Hebrews himself translates "Elohim" as "Angel". Numerous translations use "Divine beings" for "Elohim". Refusing to acknowledge basic things like this is the basis of your argument.

Is God an angel or is God not an angel?

With this statement, you have shown that you're not interested whatsoever in having an argument based on rational use of links and sources, so with that said, I think any further addressing of your replies will be a waste of time, as you are simply basically doubling down on what has already been addressed and dealt with.

I refuse to play "link tag".

 

[Muffled]

Like blind men describing the elephant, each is correct, but none of them have the whole picture. Since the Trinity is not part of the Jewish religion, where did it come from? If the early Roman church developed it, then where is the credibility in that? They developed a lot of "doctrines" that Protestants don't accept. So, again, for several hundreds of years of Christianity, the explanations of truth were wrong. Were the first protestants any better? Guys like Luther and Calvin? Are doctrines they developed and held considered as being right today? Maybe to some but not all. Christianity is redefining itself as time goes by. The trinity was never the only explanation that Christians believed in, because at best, it's only implied.

However that may be there are those who would say the elephant has a long neck like a giraffe, probably because they were looking when the trunk was up in the air and mistook it for a neck. So I beleive it is with the Trinity that mistaken concepts have accrued by those examining the scripture.

I believe it is in the Bible and theolgians seek to organize it into a doctrine.

I beleive the early church did not develop it but it was certainly discussed and written about by Biblical Scholars.

I find this a less than useful criteria since I believe protestant scholars are capable of as much error as ancient scholars.

I believe none of this matters. Every scholar has to defend his position with scripture.

 

[Muffled]

this may come as a bit of a surprise to you ,a GOD can not have a GOD . how ever a god can have a GOD. thats because any thing or any one can be a god. if Jesus was in fact God ,then the fact of it would have to be stated. all the scriptures do say is that he,Jesus ,is the son of God.which you know but ignore.

I believe it is a great surprise that you think you can make up rules for God to follow.

I believe He has stated it many times in many ways.

I believe this is not all of the scriptures.

I believe I know the Bible well and ignore nothing.

 

[Muffled]

It could also be my pet greyhound.

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

So... when somebody says, "Joe is a good football player," I can safely assume that anyone I know named "Joe" who plays football is a good player?

I am amused at the concept of your pet greyhound looking like an elephant. Somehow I have a different image of greyhounds. Maybe it is because it is the real image?

I am not a scholar so I had to look up the introduction to Hebrews in my Bible. I enjoyed Origen's statement that probably only God knows who wrote Hebrews. So now you know; Paul wrote Hebrews.

I believe your logic is insufficient. If someone predicted that a "Joe" would throw a Hail Mary Pass in the last minute of a game against Miami then the number of "Joe's" who qulified would be quite few and there might only be one who ever qualified. (or maybe his name would be "Doug".)

 

[sojourner]

So now you know; Paul wrote Hebrews.

Incorrect.

 

[Dunemeister]

Incorrect.

To be more precise, scholars currently hold that the writer of Hebrews is unknown. The Church herself has always maintained that Paul wrote it. Since the Church authored the bible, perhaps we should take her word for it, the misgivings of modern scholars notwithstanding.