How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

And if Modern English is pronounced differently than even Elizabethan English, etc. for French and Old French, and so on, is there any reason not to believe that we don't know how the Hebrew of the various books of the Bible were pronounced by the authors themselves? It could have been quite a bit different.While traveling years ago I spent an afternoon talking to a couple from Liverpool, England. I don't think I understood half of what they said to me and I was struggling the entire time. They were speaking English and so was I.lfen

"the plural of anecdote is not data" (sorry, i had to)but you think that's bad, try scotland or ireland. or reading beowulf. still english... yes, it could. but we can be pretty certain at how it was SPELLED at times. we get lots of hints from cognates in other semitic languages that DO have vowels.

Dear Arachnophilia;

quote:

---

when english people speak the name of the lord, they say "yahweh" . . . . we get the "JAH" sound because some of the first translators were german. they rendered the "YAH" with a j, becuase that's how you say j sound. english people read it wrong.

---

It sounds like you are quibbling about the foundation of our noble tongue cobbled together with what we could borrow and steal from half a dozen and more other languages. Our spelling is pure madness, but it is the only language I know or I would probably defect to one that at least had the common sense to be spelled phonically. As crazy as the Y to J thing is, it is the way they do things, if you want to be understood you have to follow the conventions. You might as well propose that we spell everything as it sounds, I would vote for that one, but you would not succeed. From a technical standpoint I would have to agree with you on some points, if for the first time we were transliterating the divine name into English, Yahweh may have been the way to go. But that isn't the decision that was made and trying to change it now only confuses people. Look at the Catholic use of the name Yahweh, the common Catholic would stand a better chance of recognising Jehovah as the name of God, so little have they made use of Yahweh, it is a non event, whereas Jehovah is widely known. Plus when names are transliterated into English, 'Y's become 'J's as we see in so many biblical names. Plus from the transliteration of other names which contain the divine name the evidence indicates that the Name had an "O" sound in it, which Jehovah does and Yahweh does not, plus it appears the Name was 3 syllables long instead of 2, which Jehovah also has in it's favor. So for a transliteration in to English, Jehovah has better support for than does Yahweh.

quote:

---

(It appeared four times in the old KJV) eh, not exactly. the times it appears are still exactly the same name: yhwh. the translators just chose not to render it "LORD" because the verses got too repeatitive. (two of them would then read "and the Lord LORD" which just sounds silly.) so they chose to try to pronounce it instead.

---

-- King James
Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Psalms 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength:My point was that they chose the transliteration of "Jehovah" for the divine name which was already in common usage by then, and by doing so established it even more firmly as the name of God in English. When I read old classic books, the name Jehovah is sometimes mentioned and even in movies it is the name you hear for God. (Like in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," the famous line, "In Latin 'Jehovah' begins with an "I"!)Also, so many languages are spoken today and the divine name has a different sound and spelling in most of them. Obviously reproducing the exact unknown sound of the Name in ancient Hebrew is not the most important thing, what is, is that people know who you are speaking about. (Curious to think that we could be having this same discussion, over how to pronounce the Name verses the way it is pronounced, in any one of those languages!) As you pointed out some of the Hebrew sounds are not even used in other languages, which highlights one of the reasons why names are transliterated, they need to fit the language in which they are to be used. Jehovah and Jesus fit well and are well known, their modern Hebrew equivalents are very largely unknown by English speakers and have an odd unfamiliar sound to them.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

moved to a new thread: http://EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy..... -->EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy.....This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-18-2004 07:31 PM

moved to a new thread: http://EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy..... -->EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy.....This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-18-2004 07:30 PM

Hi BabeThe Trinity is logical nonsense.Actually, God, His Son, and the mysterious Person of the Holy Spirit are ONE in unity.N.T. landscapes never dealt with the Trinity nonsense. They believed God was in Christ - period - nothing else.BTW, what are you wearing ?Lex

Lex, that is inappropriate, and I suggest that Angel deserves an apology.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is worshiped by men, angels and demons (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33, Jos 5:13-15, Mar 5:6). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is true that the word 'proskyneo' can simply mean homage or obeisance. However, it can also have the stronger meaning of 'worship' and, generally, implies a change in posture, mainly bowing at the knees. The word is encountered throughout the Bible and is used in relation to God in, at least, the following passages: (Matt. 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:20, Rev. 11:16 ). If the translation you are using is consistent then I would expect these passages too, to have been translated as 'obeisance' to God, rather than 'worship' God. Is that the case? If not, then I see no reason to change the meaning of the word when referring to Jesus!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is called God, by God (Heb. 1:8) ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The translation error is on your side:To begin with, saying "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, " God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else!Yes, Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around!Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is also best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He can do the things God, the Father can ? (John 5:19). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the contrary, Jesus, in explaining his relationship with God, shows his Oneness with the Father. He makes clear that :* The Son does nothing independently (he is not a separate being); He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice, not by coercion (v20: "For the Father loves the Son")
*. The Son has the same power as the Father - even to raise the dead (v21)
* The Son even has the right of judgment - a prerogative of God only (v22)
* All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father; if they don't honour the Son then they don't honour the father (v24)Also, going back to v19. how could a 'lesser' God ( as you imply ) do all the things he sees the Father can?All of the above are a strong indication that the Son and the Father are one.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is prayed to (Acts 7:59). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus taught this same basic prayer on another occasion (Matthew 6:9-13). The fact that he repeats it here shows how important it is; the fact that he does not repeat it the exact same way as in Matthew shows that it was not to be used as a word-by-word ritual. It's HOW to pray that Jesus is teaching here, not the exact words.Let's not forget that the Father says "come to Jesus" (John 6:45). He also draws us to Jesus ( John 6:44) . Jesus himself said "Come to me" (Matt. 11:27-28). How can you do this without praying to him ?Now, about Stephen: although he does indeed see a vision of Jesus in verse 56 he doesn’t cry out to Jesus until verse 59. In between seeing Jesus in v.56 and crying out to Him in v.59 Stephen is "driven out of the city" and stoned by a hostile mob (verse 58), suggesting that the vision of Jesus had passed.A point worth mentioning with this passage is its parallel with Luke 23:46, which records Jesus’ prayer to the Father from the scene of crucifixion:"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"" (Luke 23:46)
Compare this with (Acts 7:59), what Stephen says :
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and [he] saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. ."As the author of Luke was the writer of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke he obviously saw the same function in both cases, as he uses the same words to describe both. Jesus prayed to the Father and Stephen prayed to Jesus.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Jesus is sinless he clearly is more than just a man, as no man is sinless. Only God and the angels are sinless. Which one is he ?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He knows all things (John 21:17). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hang on Peter, I do not know all things.", but instead he said "Tend my sheep", thereby accepting Peter's statement that He knew all things!As for the fact that Jesus had earlier clearly stated that there were things that he didn't know, this is because he is of a dual nature, both man and god at the same time.That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.". It is not a denial of him being God, but a confirmation of him being man. Not accepting this, exposes a number of contradictions in the Bible, like knowing all things and not knowing something, as you point out.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He gives eternal life (John 10:28). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that the Father has given Jesus authority "over all flesh". This is referring to the physical manifestation of God among sinners, i.e. Jesus, the man. And it's Jesus, the man, who is praying to the Father (just like in Luke 23:34) . The focal point here, is that Jesus has the power to give eternal life. He also has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Since only God can do these things, what is the logical conclusion here ? .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, in Isaiah 10:21, God is called the Mighty God. So if Jesus is not the Almighty God and only the mighty God, then that makes Jesus God since GOD is called the mighty God!!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I apologize.Lex

Dear Legend;

quote:

---

It is true that the word 'proskyneo' can simply mean homage or obeisance. However, it can also have the stronger meaning of 'worship' and, generally, implies a change in posture, mainly bowing at the knees. The word is encountered throughout the Bible and is used in relation to God in, at least, the following passages: (Matt. 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:20, Rev. 11:16 ). If the translation you are using is consistent then I would expect these passages too, to have been translated as 'obeisance' to God, rather than 'worship' God. Is that the case? If not, then I see no reason to change the meaning of the word when referring to Jesus!

---

As you point out the word 'proskyneo' has two meanings and which one to use is determined by the context of the usage, it is entirely correct to translate it as "Worship" in reference to Jehovah, but not to do so in reference to Jesus in light of what Jesus himself said on the subject.
Luke 4:8 "In reply Jesus said to him: "It is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" Jesus didn't say "worship me!" or "worship me for I am God!" Jesus clearly stated that worship was only to be directed to Jehovah God his Father. The Devil was testing his faithfulness to his Father, which as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, (post38 on page 3 http://EvC Forum: How Can Trinity Believers Explain This -->EvC Forum: How Can Trinity Believers Explain This ) he would not have done if Jesus was in fact part of God. So the biblical evidence is clear that translating 'proskyneo' as "worship" in regard to Jesus is in direct conflict with what Jesus taught. In light of this, it is clear that as I said in my last post, you can't use a translators decision to use the word 'worship' for 'proskyneo' towards Jesus, to try to support the Trinity. On the flip side, I don't use the decision by some other translators choice not to use the word "worship" in regard to Jesus as a disproof of the Trinity in itself. Since 'proskyneo' can be translated ether way, such translations prove nothing one way or the other, it is necessary to look at other scriptures for evidence for or against the Trinity doctrine.

quote:

---

(Heb. 1:8 ": "God is your throne forever,, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." NWT) To begin with, saying "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, " God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else!
Yes, Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another.

---

Hebrews 1:8 is very easy to understand, look at the point that "uprightness" is his scepter, meaning that Jesus will rule justly. The expression "God is your throne forever" means that God is the supporting power behind the authority of Jesus ruling as King, as indicated by verse 1 "a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things" that it is God who has appointed Jesus as King. Psalm 89:29 also confirms that Jehovah is the one who has given Jesus his throne. "And I shall certainly set up his seed forever And his throne as the days of heaven."On Psalm 45, you are confusing making an application with quoting, Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6, when you quote you don't change the verse. We have here an example of a quote and an application of the quoted verse to Jesus. It is an error for a translation to not use the same wording or at least the same meaning in both verses since one is meant to be a quote of the other. The omission of the phrase "God is your throne" in newer translations is one of the 'popular errors' Trinitarians like and publishers retain to keep up sales. Look at the KJV only crowd, same thing, they prefer the errors because they say what they want to hear. If you look at the surrounding context at Hebrews 1:8 it is very clear that God appoints Jesus as King, it is not saying that Jehovah is now making himself king, which would make no sense since he has always been the almighty.On "who laid the foundations of the earth" is explained at Hebrews 1:2 "a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things." Jehovah God created everything through Jesus, "All things came into existence through him" (John 1:3) which is why he is called the "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30) and why "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created" (Colossians 1:15-16). At Genesis 1:26 Jehovah is speaking to Jesus saying "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness," as they work together with Jehovah as the creator and Christ as his masterworker.

quote:

---

(John 5:19)
* The Son does nothing independently (he is not a separate being); He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice, not by coercion (v20: "For the Father loves the Son")
*. The Son has the same power as the Father - even to raise the dead (v21)
* The Son even has the right of judgment - a prerogative of God only (v22)
* All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father; if they don't honour the Son then they don't honour the father (v24)
Also, going back to v19. how could a 'lesser' God ( as you imply ) do all the things he sees the Father can?

---

You shot yourself in the foot on your first point, if "He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice," he is a separate being since he can made a choice, only independent beings can do so. On rasing the dead, as I pointed out the power was granted to him by his Father, it was not his to being with, which it would have been if he was his father. Since there was a time before when he didn't have this power, he can't be part of his Father. The "right of judgment" is also given to Jesus by Jehovah, "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son,." John 5:22 and notice also that Jehovah doesn't do the judging while Jesus does. So you have Jehovah not doing the judging and has given the job to Jesus. So if Jesus is part of God, how is God not Judging if Jesus is? On "All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father;" the honor we need to give Jesus is accepting him as our savour and king. Look at how Philippians 2:9-11 describes the honor given to Jesus. "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." The honor given to Jesus is to the glory of God, it glorifies God, Jesus actions sanctify his Father name, all of the glory he receives is because of his role in glorifying his Father as his God, his heavenly Father. Even the superior position he receives is still below the position of authority occupied by Jehovah. Also, if Jesus was part of God, how could he be raised to a "higher position" if he had already be equal to God? (the elevation is in respect to the position he held before coming to earth, so it is not a reference to his return to heaven.)

quote:

---

Let's not forget that the Father says "come to Jesus" (John 6:45). He also draws us to Jesus ( John 6:44) . Jesus himself said "Come to me" (Matt. 11:27-28). How can you do this without praying to him ?
Now, about Stephen: although he does indeed see a vision of Jesus in verse 56 he doesn't cry out to Jesus until verse 59. In between seeing Jesus in v.56 and crying out to Him in v.59 Stephen is "driven out of the city" and stoned by a hostile mob (verse 58), suggesting that the vision of Jesus had passed.
A point worth mentioning with this passage is its parallel with Luke 23:46, which records Jesus' prayer to the Father from the scene of crucifixion:
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"" (Luke 23:46)
Compare this with (Acts 7:59), what Stephen says :
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and [he] saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. ."
As the author of Luke was the writer of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke he obviously saw the same function in both cases, as he uses the same words to describe both. Jesus prayed to the Father and Stephen prayed to Jesus.

---

We have to come to Jesus as our savour, not in prayer, all prayers are to be directed to Jehovah since prayers are a form of worship and Jesus clearly stated that it is only Jehovah who is to be worshipped. (Luke 4:8) Jesus' role in prayer is not as the one to be prayed to, but as the one through whom prayers are made to God through. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is our mediator between us and God, (Hence he can't be God if he is the mediator.) We are instructed to pray to Jehovah in his name. "no matter what YOU ask the Father in my name he might give it to YOU." John 15:16 "If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name." John 16:23 We are to ask things from Jehovah in Jesus' name, asking things of Jesus in Jesus' name doesn't even make sense. To pray to Jesus would be to ignore his position as mediator and high priest, we can not be his true followers if we do that.There is no indication that Stephen's vision ended before he was stoned, his statements are spoken statements and not prayer or prayers since he didn't make the requests in Jesus' name and the second was made to Jehovah which if a prayer without being made in Jesus' name, would have been a rejection of Jesus' role as the mediator. Jesus in praying to his heavenly Father couldn't use himself as his own mediator, being the only begotten son of God he could pray directly. So Stephen's statement at Acts 7:59 is not a parallel with Luke 23:46.

quote:

---

If Jesus is sinless he clearly is more than just a man, as no man is sinless. Only God and the angels are sinless. Which one is he ?

---

Jesus while on earth was a perfect sinless man, just as Adam was before he sinned. Adam was without sin or defect when he was created. "God proceeded to create the man . . . God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good." Genesis 1:27-31 Adam became sinful once he sinned. Adam's creation would not be described by God as being very good if he was sinful or imperfect when he was created. The world of mankind was without sin until Adam sinned, it was this sin that condemned him and all his off spring to death. To make up for what Adam lost, another perfect man would need to offer his life as a sacrifice, none of mankind could do this since we were all born in sin and fall short of perfection. Paul explained this;
"through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned . . . Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come. . . . For if by one man's trespass many died, . . . For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, . . . So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. . . . sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:12-21Jesus offered up the value of his life as a perfect man that exactly balanced what Adam had lost when a sinned, his life as a perfect man free from sin. That is why Paul calls Jesus' sacrifice "a corresponding ransom" 1 Timothy 2:6 because it corresponded or equaled what Adam had lost. If Jesus had been a "god-man" the value of his life would not have matched what Adam lost, he had to be a perfect man, nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

---

Note that Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hang on Peter, I do not know all things.", but instead he said "Tend my sheep", thereby accepting Peter's statement that He knew all things!
As for the fact that Jesus had earlier clearly stated that there were things that he didn't know, this is because he is of a dual nature, both man and god at the same time.
That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.". It is not a denial of him being God, but a confirmation of him being man. Not accepting this, exposes a number of contradictions in the Bible, like knowing all things and not knowing something, as you point out.

---

The contradiction only arises in the first place if you misinterpret what Peter said. Peter wasn't saying that Jesus knew everything in an absolute sense, he was saying it a relative sense. Peter was aware of Jesus' ability to know things through the spirit, the way he could read what was in a person's mind and heart, that is what he was referring to. He knew that Jesus knew that he loved him. That is how the possible contradiction is avoided.

quote:

---

Note that the Father has given Jesus authority "over all flesh". This is referring to the physical manifestation of God among sinners, i.e. Jesus, the man. And it's Jesus, the man, who is praying to the Father (just like in Luke 23:34) . The focal point here, is that Jesus has the power to give eternal life. He also has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Since only God can do these things, what is the logical conclusion here ? .

---

You skipped a logic groove here, he stated that it was his Father who had given these things to him. You are making the same error that scribes made believing that only God can forgive sins, notice what Jesus said to them. "Now there were some of the scribes there, sitting and reasoning in their hearts: "Why is this man talking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?" But Jesus, having discerned immediately by his spirit that they were reasoning that way in themselves, said to them: "Why are YOU reasoning these things in YOUR hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and pick up your cot and walk'? But in order for YOU men to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth,"he said to the paralytic: "I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to your home." At that he did get up, and immediately picked up his cot and walked out in front of them all," Mark 2:6-12 Jesus corrected them by demonstrating that God had given him authority to forgive sins, he didn't agree with them and say "yes only god can forgive sins" and then prove himself as being God.
Also with the judging, the authority is given him by God. Only God can control nature? Read about the OT prophets, they controlled nature on many occasions, and none of them were God.

quote:

---

in Isaiah 10:21, God is called the Mighty God. So if Jesus is not the Almighty God and only the mighty God, then that makes Jesus God since GOD is called the mighty God!!

---

Jesus and Jehovah are both mighty gods, but only Jehovah is referred to as Almighty God.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Legend;

quote:

---

It is true that the word 'proskyneo' can simply mean homage or obeisance. However, it can also have the stronger meaning of 'worship' and, generally, implies a change in posture, mainly bowing at the knees. The word is encountered throughout the Bible and is used in relation to God in, at least, the following passages: (Matt. 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:20, Rev. 11:16 ). If the translation you are using is consistent then I would expect these passages too, to have been translated as 'obeisance' to God, rather than 'worship' God. Is that the case? If not, then I see no reason to change the meaning of the word when referring to Jesus!

---

As you point out the word 'proskyneo' has two meanings and which one to use is determined by the context of the usage, it is entirely correct to translate it as "Worship" in reference to Jehovah, but not to do so in reference to Jesus in light of what Jesus himself said on the subject.
Luke 4:8 "In reply Jesus said to him: "It is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" Jesus didn't say "worship me!" or "worship me for I am God!" Jesus clearly stated that worship was only to be directed to Jehovah God his Father. The Devil was testing his faithfulness to his Father, which as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, (post38 on page 3 http://EvC Forum: How Can Trinity Believers Explain This -->EvC Forum: How Can Trinity Believers Explain This ) he would not have done if Jesus was in fact part of God. So the biblical evidence is clear that translating 'proskyneo' as "worship" in regard to Jesus is in direct conflict with what Jesus taught. In light of this, it is clear that as I said in my last post, you can't use a translators decision to use the word 'worship' for 'proskyneo' towards Jesus, to try to support the Trinity. On the flip side, I don't use the decision by some other translators choice not to use the word "worship" in regard to Jesus as a disproof of the Trinity in itself. Since 'proskyneo' can be translated ether way, such translations prove nothing one way or the other, it is necessary to look at other scriptures for evidence for or against the Trinity doctrine.

quote:

---

(Heb. 1:8 ": "God is your throne forever,, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." NWT) To begin with, saying "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, " God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else!
Yes, Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another.

---

Hebrews 1:8 is very easy to understand, look at the point that "uprightness" is his scepter, meaning that Jesus will rule justly. The expression "God is your throne forever" means that God is the supporting power behind the authority of Jesus ruling as King, as indicated by verse 1 "a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things" that it is God who has appointed Jesus as King. Psalm 89:29 also confirms that Jehovah is the one who has given Jesus his throne. "And I shall certainly set up his seed forever And his throne as the days of heaven."On Psalm 45, you are confusing making an application with quoting, Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6, when you quote you don't change the verse. We have here an example of a quote and an application of the quoted verse to Jesus. It is an error for a translation to not use the same wording or at least the same meaning in both verses since one is meant to be a quote of the other. The omission of the phrase "God is your throne" in newer translations is one of the 'popular errors' Trinitarians like and publishers retain to keep up sales. Look at the KJV only crowd, same thing, they prefer the errors because they say what they want to hear. If you look at the surrounding context at Hebrews 1:8 it is very clear that God appoints Jesus as King, it is not saying that Jehovah is now making himself king, which would make no sense since he has always been the almighty.On "who laid the foundations of the earth" is explained at Hebrews 1:2 "a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things." Jehovah God created everything through Jesus, "All things came into existence through him" (John 1:3) which is why he is called the "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30) and why "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created" (Colossians 1:15-16). At Genesis 1:26 Jehovah is speaking to Jesus saying "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness," as they work together with Jehovah as the creator and Christ as his masterworker.

quote:

---

(John 5:19)
* The Son does nothing independently (he is not a separate being); He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice, not by coercion (v20: "For the Father loves the Son")
*. The Son has the same power as the Father - even to raise the dead (v21)
* The Son even has the right of judgment - a prerogative of God only (v22)
* All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father; if they don't honour the Son then they don't honour the father (v24)
Also, going back to v19. how could a 'lesser' God ( as you imply ) do all the things he sees the Father can?

---

You shot yourself in the foot on your first point, if "He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice," he is a separate being since he can made a choice, only independent beings can do so. On rasing the dead, as I pointed out the power was granted to him by his Father, it was not his to being with, which it would have been if he was his father. Since there was a time before when he didn't have this power, he can't be part of his Father. The "right of judgment" is also given to Jesus by Jehovah, "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son,." John 5:22 and notice also that Jehovah doesn't do the judging while Jesus does. So you have Jehovah not doing the judging and has given the job to Jesus. So if Jesus is part of God, how is God not Judging if Jesus is? On "All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father;" the honor we need to give Jesus is accepting him as our savour and king. Look at how Philippians 2:9-11 describes the honor given to Jesus. "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." The honor given to Jesus is to the glory of God, it glorifies God, Jesus actions sanctify his Father name, all of the glory he receives is because of his role in glorifying his Father as his God, his heavenly Father. Even the superior position he receives is still below the position of authority occupied by Jehovah. Also, if Jesus was part of God, how could he be raised to a "higher position" if he had already be equal to God? (the elevation is in respect to the position he held before coming to earth, so it is not a reference to his return to heaven.)

quote:

---

Let's not forget that the Father says "come to Jesus" (John 6:45). He also draws us to Jesus ( John 6:44) . Jesus himself said "Come to me" (Matt. 11:27-28). How can you do this without praying to him ?
Now, about Stephen: although he does indeed see a vision of Jesus in verse 56 he doesn't cry out to Jesus until verse 59. In between seeing Jesus in v.56 and crying out to Him in v.59 Stephen is "driven out of the city" and stoned by a hostile mob (verse 58), suggesting that the vision of Jesus had passed.
A point worth mentioning with this passage is its parallel with Luke 23:46, which records Jesus' prayer to the Father from the scene of crucifixion:
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"" (Luke 23:46)
Compare this with (Acts 7:59), what Stephen says :
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and [he] saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. ."
As the author of Luke was the writer of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke he obviously saw the same function in both cases, as he uses the same words to describe both. Jesus prayed to the Father and Stephen prayed to Jesus.

---

We have to come to Jesus as our savour, not in prayer, all prayers are to be directed to Jehovah since prayers are a form of worship and Jesus clearly stated that it is only Jehovah who is to be worshipped. (Luke 4:8) Jesus' role in prayer is not as the one to be prayed to, but as the one through whom prayers are made to God through. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is our mediator between us and God, (Hence he can't be God if he is the mediator.) We are instructed to pray to Jehovah in his name. "no matter what YOU ask the Father in my name he might give it to YOU." John 15:16 "If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name." John 16:23 We are to ask things from Jehovah in Jesus' name, asking things of Jesus in Jesus' name doesn't even make sense. To pray to Jesus would be to ignore his position as mediator and high priest, we can not be his true followers if we do that.There is no indication that Stephen's vision ended before he was stoned, his statements are spoken statements and not prayer or prayers since he didn't make the requests in Jesus' name and the second was made to Jehovah which if a prayer without being made in Jesus' name, would have been a rejection of Jesus' role as the mediator. Jesus in praying to his heavenly Father couldn't use himself as his own mediator, being the only begotten son of God he could pray directly. So Stephen's statement at Acts 7:59 is not a parallel with Luke 23:46.

quote:

---

If Jesus is sinless he clearly is more than just a man, as no man is sinless. Only God and the angels are sinless. Which one is he ?

---

Jesus while on earth was a perfect sinless man, just as Adam was before he sinned. Adam was without sin or defect when he was created. "God proceeded to create the man . . . God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good." Genesis 1:27-31 Adam became sinful once he sinned. Adam's creation would not be described by God as being very good if he was sinful or imperfect when he was created. The world of mankind was without sin until Adam sinned, it was this sin that condemned him and all his off spring to death. To make up for what Adam lost, another perfect man would need to offer his life as a sacrifice, none of mankind could do this since we were all born in sin and fall short of perfection. Paul explained this;
"through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned . . . Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come. . . . For if by one man's trespass many died, . . . For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, . . . So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. . . . sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:12-21Jesus offered up the value of his life as a perfect man that exactly balanced what Adam had lost when a sinned, his life as a perfect man free from sin. That is why Paul calls Jesus' sacrifice "a corresponding ransom" 1 Timothy 2:6 because it corresponded or equaled what Adam had lost. If Jesus had been a "god-man" the value of his life would not have matched what Adam lost, he had to be a perfect man, nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

---

Note that Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hang on Peter, I do not know all things.", but instead he said "Tend my sheep", thereby accepting Peter's statement that He knew all things!
As for the fact that Jesus had earlier clearly stated that there were things that he didn't know, this is because he is of a dual nature, both man and god at the same time.
That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.". It is not a denial of him being God, but a confirmation of him being man. Not accepting this, exposes a number of contradictions in the Bible, like knowing all things and not knowing something, as you point out.

---

The contradiction only arises in the first place if you misinterpret what Peter said. Peter wasn't saying that Jesus knew everything in an absolute sense, he was saying it a relative sense. Peter was aware of Jesus' ability to know things through the spirit, the way he could read what was in a person's mind and heart, that is what he was referring to. He knew that Jesus knew that he loved him. That is how the possible contradiction is avoided.

quote:

---

Note that the Father has given Jesus authority "over all flesh". This is referring to the physical manifestation of God among sinners, i.e. Jesus, the man. And it's Jesus, the man, who is praying to the Father (just like in Luke 23:34) . The focal point here, is that Jesus has the power to give eternal life. He also has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Since only God can do these things, what is the logical conclusion here ? .

---

You skipped a logic groove here, he stated that it was his Father who had given these things to him. You are making the same error that scribes made believing that only God can forgive sins, notice what Jesus said to them. "Now there were some of the scribes there, sitting and reasoning in their hearts: "Why is this man talking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?" But Jesus, having discerned immediately by his spirit that they were reasoning that way in themselves, said to them: "Why are YOU reasoning these things in YOUR hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and pick up your cot and walk'? But in order for YOU men to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth,"he said to the paralytic: "I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to your home." At that he did get up, and immediately picked up his cot and walked out in front of them all," Mark 2:6-12 Jesus corrected them by demonstrating that God had given him authority to forgive sins, he didn't agree with them and say "yes only god can forgive sins" and then prove himself as being God.
Also with the judging, the authority is given him by God. Only God can control nature? Read about the OT prophets, they controlled nature on many occasions, and none of them were God.

quote:

---

in Isaiah 10:21, God is called the Mighty God. So if Jesus is not the Almighty God and only the mighty God, then that makes Jesus God since GOD is called the mighty God!!

---

Jesus and Jehovah are both mighty gods, but only Jehovah is referred to as Almighty God.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Just my 2 cents : Nowhere in the Bible is Trinity mentioned. If anyone can find a verse please show me. Wouldnt it be logical for God to make his nature as clear as possible lest people end up worshipping him 'not in spirit and truth'
Also I think the clincher is Matthew 24 : 36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only" Surely if Jesus was the Almighty God he would have known wouldnt he? Also John 14:28 reads, "You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." Surely Jesus' own words should count for something. He acknowledged his father as Almighty God. Trinity really is something man made and not from God

wmscott,sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I had to travel a lot with work in the last few days. You raised many interesting points in your post. For the sake of readability and also because of time constraints, I will attempt to answer one or two points at a time. Here goes, When Jesus says (Luke 4:8) "It is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship...", he is quoting from scripture and this is what is of significance. He could easily banish Satan, as God. Instead, he fights Satan as a man, using the only human resources available, i.e. scripture. This is why he says "It is written" and he doesn't say straight 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship'. This is also why he doesn't say 'worship me'. Jesus is making a point of countering evil with scripture, not explicitly specifying who should be worshipped.The problem with the transaltion of 'proskyneo' is that, as I pointed out, the same word is used in relation to God. The only plausible translation, in relation to God, is 'worship'. You don't do 'obeisance' to God, you worship God. As the same word is also used in relation to Jesus, I see no reason to change it, unless the context gives strong reason to do so. So far, I can't see this as being the case.But if you prefer not to get stuck on specific words and translations, look at how both Jehovah and Jesus are given the same worship by the 24 elders in the book of Revelation. Jehovah is "worthy to receive glory and honor and power" (4:11). Jesus is "worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing" (5:12). Every creature in heaven and on the earth give identical praise and worship to both God and Christ in verse 5:13-14. No differentiation in worshiping God and Jesus there. But both Psalms 45:6 and Heb 1:8 make perfect sense when translated as "Your throne, O God, is for ever.....". Where do you see the change in verses or meaning ?The Greek transcript says: "o Thronos sou o Theos". In order for this verse to be definitively translated as "God is your throne" there would have to be the verb "to be" in the sentence, i.e. "o Thronos sou eine o Theos". The verse could be translated as "God is your throne", in a loose manner, if the context implied it, but the absence of the verb "eine (to be)" is a strong indication that this verse should be literally translated as "Your throne, O God..." Therefore, in the context of the passage, the author of Hebrews says that Yahweh is saying to Jesus, "Your throne, O God, will last forever." In the process of saying this, the often used Greek word "Kyrios", meaning Lord or master, is not used, but the strong word "Theos", which can only be translated as God.Psalm 89:29 cannot ne used as support of the 'God is your throne' theory, because it doesn't aim to explain Jesus's position with respect to the Father, as Hebrews 1 does. Psalm 89:29 has a symbolic meaning when applied to Jesus. By his 'seed' we are to understand his subjects, all believers, his spiritual seed, the children which God has given him (Heb. 2:13). This is that seed which shall be made to endure for ever, and his throne amongst them, 'as the days of heaven'. What it says here is that Christ will always have a people in the world to serve and honour him. 'Throne' doesn't refer to God's or Jesus's relation to, or authority over, each other, but it symbolizes Jesus's place amongst his 'seed'.You also seem to be reading 'God appoints Jesus as King' where it says '...whom he hath appointed heir of all things...' ! Jesus is the heir of all things because the world is not the way God created it - man's sinfulness has corrupted it. God gave the world to man but man forfeited it to Satan. The purpose of Jesus's coming was to redeem the earth back to God, hence he is the rightful 'heir'.Furthermore, Jesus Himself indicated that He was the heir of all creation through the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21:33-44). Jesus represents the heir of the vineyard, who is killed by the workers. Jesus said that he would be the cornerstone which was rejected by the builders.Jesus the man, is not the King, he's the heir, who came -in human form- to reclaim the world, in the name of the king (the Trinity God).The entire context of Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that the Son is God, equal to the Father as deity and sits with the Father on the heavenly throne. I've explained Hebrews 1:2 above. Where is he called the "master worker" ? It's not in Proverbs."All things came into existence through him" (John 1:3) is referring to the Word, who, BTW, is God (John 1:1), therefore he is uncreated (as Paul says in Colossians 1:16).Speaking of Colossians, I notice that you insert the word "[other]" in there. This is an extrapolation on your behalf. No such word (or grammatical reason to insert this word) exists in the Greek scripture. Colossians 1:16 clearly says that Jesus created all things.Genesis 1:26 does indeed point to God speaking to Jesus (not Jesus the man, as he wasn't incarnate yet, but the Word, i.e. Jesus before he became man). If you choose to interpret this as proof for the concept that Jesus is God's little helper, there are scriptures that make clear that God doesn't need a "master worker"."Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'" (Isaiah 44:24).this verse is clearly saying that there is only one God, who's stretching out the heavens ALONE.compare this with Colossians 1:15-16 where Jesus is the creator of all things. If you think that Jesus is a separate being and God's master creator, this poses a contradiction between the two verses. The only plausible explanation is that Jehovah is not simply the name of the Father, but that it is the name of God the Trinity. Therefore, since Jesus is God in flesh, it can be said that Jesus created all things and that Jehovah did it alone.One more thing: if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to believe that Jesus was created by God and he's 'like' God but not 'quite' God. In my eyes, that gives us 2 gods (albeit one 'lesser' than the other). This is contradicted in the Bible:"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isaiah 43:10)"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8)

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

JML,please read the rest of the thread before makiing any comments,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I did which is why I said my 2 cents i.e. what I believe the scriptures say. Anyone and everyone can form an opinion on this issue regardless, Mr Legend.