JW's and John 5:23

by UnDisfellowshipped 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

Death to the Pixies

Since you believe that it is okay to worship one of God's representatives as if the representative was God, and you believe that God's representatives can be addressed as if they were God, and honored as if they were God, I have one question for you:
Why does the Bible forbid worshiping God's representative who is speaking for God in the following verses?:
Revelation 19:9-10 (ESV): And the angel said to me , "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God." Then I fell down at his feet to worship him , but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy
Reply: Because "Worship" is relative to the context and has a wide semantic. This shows that in a special unique sense, only God can be "worshiped", this does not change the fact that others who worship God and represent him are also allowed to recieve a relative worship if it is in accord with God's will. In the book of Revelation itself "worship" is applied in a positive sense to others who are not the Lord God:Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. (American Standard
I would say that only God, on his own merit, is worthy of worship.
Colossians 2:2-10 (ESV): that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ , in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ . Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him , rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily , and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority .
Colossians 2:18-19 (ESV): Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels , going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
How do you explain why Paul said all the fullness of Deity dwells in Christ, and that Christians must never let anyone deceive them into worshiping angels, but should instead live for Christ?
Reply: Regardless if Jesus supercedes other representatives of God, the principle still holds because Jesus is still distinct from the God that we must "only worship" in that special sense. He is still a rep and messenger for God. The fulness of deity is, I believe, also to dwell in the elect, keep reading on in your quote from Colossians:For it is him that all the fulness of god's nature lives embodied, and in union with him you too are filled with it" (American Translation, Goodspeed) This also is in harmony with 2 Peter 1:4:Through which the most precious and great promises have been given to us, so that through these you* shall become participants of a divine nature [or, sharers in [the] divine nature] , having escaped from the corruption [that is] in [the] world by lust.

One last thing to mention:
Most Trinitarians (and even the Watchtower Society in certain publications), believe that "The Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament was the Pre-Human Jesus Christ, and that is why He is worshiped, prayed to, receives sacrifices, and called Yahweh.

BTW, I hate the fonts on this site, I can get rid of the this stupid red ink, any suggestions?
The "Angel" spoken of is the "Angel of Jehovah", the genitive here almost certainly discounts the idea that this angel is Jehovah himself, because it is of Jehovah, this seems so simple to me, but yet the Robert Morey's of the world still try this identification. Agency best explain this IMO.
Death to the Pixies

Within the Johannine narrative Jesus' implied "equality with God" is what motivates the "Jews" to "kill" him (v. 19, "because"). That this is imo a completely artificial narrative with strawmen "Jews" does not change the inner logic of the text. To the author, the "Jews" did not construe Jesus' "equality with God" as something acceptable to them as a prophet's "legal agency" would be. It was blasphemous, cf. 10:33: "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." (Ironically, the whole idea is reminiscent of the Israelite's attempt to stone Moses, Exodus 17:4; Numbers 14:10, although on completely different grounds).
Reply: I see you got into this with fjtoth, but I do not see where the Jews did not accept Jesus claim at prophethood, as opposed to him being some kinda wondergod, above any connection to a prophet or agent. They did not like his claim to prophethood, eg.. he breaks the law, condemns us, talks trash about Abraham.. etc..etc.. I still think the agency principle still applies, even if Jesus is unique and greater than the other prophets. messengers and agents of God and he proceeds directly from God.
Narkissos

I do not see where the Jews did not accept Jesus claim at prophethood, as opposed to him being some kinda wondergod, above any connection to a prophet or agent.
I have read this sentence several times and I am not sure what you mean exactly, so the next remarks may not directly answer it.
GJohn might have had its "Jews" attempt to stone Jesus for "false (or apostate) prophecy" (cf. Deuteronomy 18). But that is not the argument of the the text.
Neither John 5:18ff nor 10:33ff portray Jesus as a prophet (see my previous points on the quotation of Psalm 82).
The relationship of the Johannine Jesus with prophets is expressed in 12:37ff (generally acknowledged as referring to the vision in Isaiah 6), in a structurally antagonistic way: he is not one (even the foremost) of them, rather whom (or what) the prophets beheld and spoke about (cf. also 1:45):
Although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him.
This was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
"Lord, who has believed our message,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
And so they could not believe, because Isaiah also said,
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and understand with their heart and turn--
and I would heal them."
Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. (cf. also 8:56 about Abraham seeing his day).
The a fortiori argument (qol wa-chomer in rabbinical lingo) in 10:33ff is logically misused by those who jump to the conclusion that the Johannine Jesus is just a "god" like one of the judges in Psalm 82 (by the monotheistic interpretation of the Psalm). This is exactly the conclusion that cannot be drawn from an a fortiori argument. (Example "I wouldn't harm my pets, (a fortiori) I wouldn't harm my children" cannot be taken to mean "I consider my children just as I consider my pets".)
UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth,
You said:
With due respect for your lengthy effort, I got lost trying to zero in on a specific answer to my question.
I'm sorry about the lengthyness (if that is a word) of my reply to you. My main answer to your question probably did get buried. Here was my main answer to your questions about Jesus quoted from Psalms about the judges who were called "gods:"
Jesus quite often used "how much more so" type illustrations. For example, these verses here:
Matthew 7:11; Matthew 10:25; Matthew 12:12; Luke 11:13; Luke 12:24; Luke 11:8-9; Luke 18:1-7.
I believe that in John 10:34-36, Jesus was using that type of argument. This is what I believe He was saying:
"If God called wicked judges "gods," how much more so should I, the true Son of God, the true God, who was sanctified and sent from heaven by The Father, be called "God" or "The Son of God!"
As you can see from those Scriptures I posted above, Jesus frequently compared two different things, so He could use a "HOW MUCH MORE SO" argument.
fjtoth said:
Several times I've been in a room where a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian argued back and forth, each one spouting off tons of texts that seem to support his point of view and neither one giving in an inch. I tend to think that we are all in for a big surprise when we no longer see things in a hazy mirror. (1 Cor. 13:12)
I agree with you that it is a shame when people just try to argue, but never listen to what the other side is saying. I try to always understand and listen to what the other side is saying. I try to remain open to new understandings of Scripture. I test everything like Paul said, and like the Noble-Minded Bereans did. I try to never be dogmatic or harsh or judgmental. But, when it comes to the identity of Jesus Christ, everyone needs to be extremely careful about WHO they think He is and to be sure that they are truly convinced by the evidence and Scripture.
The Bible says that everyone's eternal destiny hinges on Jesus Christ's identity and what He has done for us. If you're wrong about who Jesus is, you will be wrong for eternity. There is no second chance once we leave this life.
I do want to commend you for showing the Berean attitude of wanting all of the facts about Jesus.
fjtoth said:
My question was perhaps not as clear as I intended. I'll try again.
In the psalm referred to by Jesus, God addressed the men of ancient Israel as "gods" and as "sons of the Most High." (Ps. 82:6) God designated them as such because they represented and spoke for him. He did not mean they were in reality Almighty God himself. So there is such a thing as "legal agency," mentioned by Narkissos.
I agree wholeheartedly with that, with the exception that God may have also been referring to these wicked judges as "gods" in a sarcastic way. (believe it or not, God, and God's people, occasionally did use sarcasm in the Bible)
You said:
Wasn't Jesus simply stating that he was "God" in the same "legal" sense that "the Law" spoke of those ancient men as "gods"? It seems to me he wasn't talking about apples in connection with those ancients and talking about oranges in connection with himself. The "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in Psalms and "Son of God" in John 10 had to be such in the same sense of the words, imo.
But I think it is necessary to see how Jesus reasoned with people about other subjects, in order to understand what He may have been saying in John chapter 10. Notice how Jesus reasoned here:
Matthew 7:11 (EMTV): If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, by how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
Jesus first referred to evil people, then He compared them to His Father to show HOW MUCH MORE The Father would do. I believe Jesus did the same thing in John Chapter 10, by first mentioning evil judges, then comparing those judges to Himself, to show HOW MUCH MORE SO He should be called God or Son of God.
You said:
On more than one occasion he showed the Jews that they were wrong for accusing him of blasphemy. And here in John 10 he chides them again.
Yes, but if Jesus truly WAS God, then the Pharisees would also have been wrong for accusing Him of blasphemy, and Jesus would have chided them for that as well.
Think about this: when the Jews were wondering whether John the Baptist was the Messiah, or The Prophet, he plainly told them "NO! I am NOT the Messiah or The Prophet!" Why didn't Jesus ever do that when the Jews thought He was claiming to be God?
Why didn't Jesus just say something like this:
"Truly, truly I say to you, I am not God. I have never claimed to be God. You have misunderstood what I have said. I am only a created Son of God, a lower, inferior, lesser god than My Father. I am only one of His representatives. I am a heavenly creature who came down from heaven to point people to My Father, not Myself. Please do not worship Me. Only The Father should be worshiped. I am not worthy. I am only a servant of God. I am not equal to God in any way."
Wouldn't that have stopped the Pharisees attempts to stone Him for blasphemy?
You said:
He claimed to be God's "sanctified" Son who was doing the work the Father sent him to do, but they twisted his meaning.
Let's look at the context in John 10 to see what Jesus actually claimed (taken from English Standard Version [ESV]):
John 10:9: I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
There Jesus claimed to be the One who saves people.
John 10:11, 14-15: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. [...] I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
The Good Shepherd in the Old Testament was Yahweh (Psalm 23).
John 10:17-18: For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."
Jesus said that NO ONE could ever take His life from Him. He had the authority to give His life, and He had the authority to TAKE IT BACK. Has anyone else claimed that He had the authority and power to take His own life back after being killed?
Jesus said more about this in John Chapter 2 where Jesus prophesied that He would resurrect Himself from the dead:
John 2:19-22 (ESV): Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
Back to John 10:
John 10:24-25: So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
The Jews wanted to know if Jesus claimed to be The Christ. Jesus said His works proved that He was The Christ.
John 10:28-30: I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
First, Jesus said He is the One who gives eternal life. Secondly, He said that no one can snatch His people out of His hand. He also said no one can snatch them out of The Father's hand.
Jesus said "The Father is greater than all ... I and The Father are One."
If you heard someone say that, what would you have thought He was saying?
What if I said "The Father is greater than all -- I, UnDisfellowshipped and The Father are One," what would you think? Wouldn't you probably assume I was also claiming to be "greater than all" equally with The Father?
Look at the Jews' reaction:
John 10:31-33: The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be ONE with God in a way that made Him equal to The Father, in a way that made Him God. That is what the Jews believed He was saying. The only thing to determine is whether they were mistaken. Jesus said they were definitely mistaken for accusing Him of blasphemy. However, He did not say they were mistaken for thinking that He claimed to be God.
The Watchtower Society says that Jesus was only claiming to be "One" with The Father in the sense of being in harmony with Him, of being in union with The Father. But, if that is all that Jesus meant, I can see no reason why the Jews would have accused Him of blasphemy. In fact, I am certain that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders also CLAIMED to be "One" with The Father in the sense of being in union and in harmony with Him.
Plus, if Jesus truly was only saying that He was in harmony or in union with The Father, why didn't He just tell the Jews something like this:
"Look, I did not mean that I was God. I only meant that I was in UNION with God and in HARMONY with God."
A question for you, fjtoth:
What do you believe that Jesus meant when He said "The Father is greater than all ... I and The Father are One"? How do you interpret that?
Now, here is Jesus' reply:
John 10:34-38: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
Jesus said that the works He was doing proved that The Father was IN HIM and that He was IN The Father. As soon as Jesus said those last words, the Jews again tried to arrest Him:
John 10:39: Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
Why did the Jews try to arrest Jesus for saying "The Father is IN Me and I am IN The Father"? What did that mean? The Jews obviously interpreted it to be a blasphemy.
You said:
On another occasion when they accused him of blasphemy, Jesus asked, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?" (Matt. 9:4) Imo, the correct view is stated in verse 8: "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men."
Yes, but the Jews still would have been "thinking evil" for accusing the True God of blasphemy for claiming to be the True God, would they not? How horrible that would be -- to accuse God of blasphemy for claiming to be God!
The Jewish leaders believed that God alone could forgive sins committed against God. They based this belief on several Old Testament Scriptures, such as:
Psalm 51:4: Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.
1 Kings 8:39: then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),
1 Kings 8:50: and forgive your people who have sinned against you, and all their transgressions that they have committed against you, and grant them compassion in the sight of those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them
Psalm 103:2-3: Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases,
Psalm 130:4: But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared.
Daniel 9:9: To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him
Numbers 32:23: But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD, and be sure your sin will find you out.
2 Samuel 12:13: David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.
Psalm 41:4: As for me, I said, "O LORD, be gracious to me; heal me, for I have sinned against you!"
Those verses are why the Jews believed God ALONE could forgive sins committed against Him.
For someone else to forgive sins committed against God would be like me forgiving someone who sinned against you.
You said:
I don't see the evidence you seem to see that "son of God" means "God". As proof that he was God's Son, as he had claimed, he said, "The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me." (John 10:25) The miracles did not necessarily mean he was God. Angels are "sons of God." Adam was "the son of God." Those ancient Israelites were "sons of the Most High." Christians are "sons of God." And not all scholars agree that "Son of God" means "God" himself.
Actaully, in John 10:25, Jesus said His works prove that He is The Christ. However, in John 10:37-38, Jesus said that His works prove that The Father is IN The Son and that The Son is IN The Father. What does that mean to you?
While we are discussing Jesus' works, let me ask you, how did Jesus Christ's works prove that He was The Christ? After all, others had raised the dead by God's power (Elijah, Elisha). What was it about His works that proved He was The Messiah?
The term "Son of God" did not always (perhaps not even very often) mean "God," when people used that phrase. But the truth is, the phrase "Son of Man" used by Jesus means "Man," and the phrase "sons of the prophets" meant "of the order or rank of prophet."
1 Kings 20:35: And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow at the command of the LORD, "Strike me, please." But the man refused to strike him.
The Jews interpreted Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of God" to mean that He was equal to God, and that He was God:
John 5:18 (ESV): This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Therefore, I believe that Jesus used the phrase "Son of God" the same way that the phrase "Son of Man" is used.
UnDisfellowshipped

Death To The Pixies said:
Reply: Because "Worship" is relative to the context and has a wide semantic. This shows that in a special unique sense, only God can be "worshiped", this does not change the fact that others who worship God and represent him are also allowed to recieve a relative worship if it is in accord with God's will. In the book of Revelation itself "worship" is applied in a positive sense to others who are not the Lord God:Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. (American Standard
True, the Greek word for "worship" (proskyneo) can mean either religious worship of a god or simply an act of respectful honor/obeisance to a king or other human/angel. But how do YOU determine which verses are speaking of religious worship and which are speaking of respectful honor/obeisance?
If the Bible had wanted to teach us to give the same religious worship to Jesus that we give to the Father what would the Bible have said differently than it already says at Hebrews 1:6, Revelation Chapter 5, Philippians 2:5-11, etc.?
Death To The Pixies said:
I would say that only God, on his own merit, is worthy of worship.
I agree. But I also believe that Jesus should be worshiped on His own merit, and therefore Jesus is God.
Death To The Pixies said:
Reply: Regardless if Jesus supercedes other representatives of God, the principle still holds because Jesus is still distinct from the God that we must "only worship" in that special sense.
But why do you place Jesus in a distinct category from God when it comes to worship? (See Revelation Chapter 5 where They both receive the same worship).
Also, what is the "special sense" in which we worship The Father but do not worship The Son this way? What exactly is the difference between the worship we give The Father, and the worship we give The Son?
Death To The Pixies said:
He is still a rep and messenger for God. The fulness of deity is, I believe, also to dwell in the elect, keep reading on in your quote from Colossians:For it is him that all the fulness of god's nature lives embodied, and in union with him you too are filled with it" (American Translation, Goodspeed) This also is in harmony with 2 Peter 1:4:Through which the most precious and great promises have been given to us, so that through these you* shall become participants of a divine nature [or, sharers in [the] divine nature], having escaped from the corruption [that is] in [the] world by lust.
Jaimieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary on Colossians 2:9:
of the Godhead — The Greek (theotes) means the ESSENCE and NATURE of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (Greek, “theiotes”). He, as man, was not merely God-like, but in the fullest sense, God.
So, do you believe that all believers will become divine gods filled with the very essence and nature of God? Or is that reserved only for Christ? If that was not something unique to Christ, then why would Paul even make a big deal about it? If we all have the same divine essence/deity, then how would that make Christ worthy of special honor for having the fullness of Deity?
Also, it is a different Greek word used in 2 Peter 1:4.
Jaimieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary on 2 Peter 1:4:
the divine nature — not God’s essence, but His holiness, including His “glory” and “virtue,” 2Pe_1:3; the opposite to “corruption through lust.” Sanctification is the imparting to us of God Himself by the Holy Spirit in the soul. We by faith partake also of the material nature of Jesus (Eph_5:30). The “divine power” enables us to be partakers of “the divine nature.
Also, notice Hebrews 6:4:
Hebrews 6:4 (ASV): For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
Just because you are a "partaker" of something does not mean that you become that thing or that person. Those who are partakers of The Holy Spirit do not become the Holy Spirit.
Death To The Pixies said:
BTW, I hate the fonts on this site, I can get rid of the this stupid red ink, any suggestions?
I wish I did have suggestions. I have had that same problem for years on here.
Death To The Pixies said:
The "Angel" spoken of is the "Angel of Jehovah", the genitive here almost certainly discounts the idea that this angel is Jehovah himself, because it is of Jehovah, this seems so simple to me, but yet the Robert Morey's of the world still try this identification. Agency best explain this IMO.
But, if agency best explains this, you still have not explained why God encouraged people to worship "The Angel of the Lord" but He forbade people from worshiping the angel in Revelation, and all angels in Colossians. It is obvious that the worship given to The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is the religious type worship and not merely obeisance.
Also, the people who worshiped The Angel in the Old Testament KNEW He was The Angel, but they still referred to Him as Yahweh, prayed to Him, called Him God Almighty, sacrificed to Him, and worshiped Him. Jacob prayed to The Angel as God Almighty:
Genesis 48:3 (ESV): And Jacob said to Joseph, "God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me,
Genesis 48:15-16 (ESV): And he blessed Joseph and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."
Jacob prayed to The Angel who was God Almighty, the Great Shepherd.
The Old Testament shows that there are at least Two Persons named Yahweh:
Zechariah 3:1-2 (ESV): Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"
Genesis 19:24 (ESV): Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.
Also, the New Testament says Jesus is "The Christ OF The Lord," but it also says Jesus is the Only Lord, the Lord of all, the Lord of Lords, the One Lord. So, if Jesus can be The Christ OF The Lord, and still be The Lord, then He can certainly be The Angel of The Lord and still be The Lord.
UnDisfellowshipped

Death To The Pixies said:
1.) "Like", "Just as" I think you are making an issue here that does not exist. It is the authority we are to "honor" (not worship) like the Father "to the same degree", it is not a nature discussion in John ch. 5.
Jesus did not say to "honor my authority," He said to HONOR THE SON. The Son is a PERSON.
Death To The Pixies said:
2.)I have no problem seeing "equality" in John 5:18-9 (if that is the correct understanding, it is debate-able and I leave room for both possibilities) but the equality would clearly be in a legal sense given the context, not an ontological one. Read Jesus' response in vs 19
The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be equal to God after Jesus said He had equal authority over the Sabbath with His Father, and that God was His Own Father -- that He was The Son of God in a unique way. So, are you claiming that when Jesus called God His Father, He only meant that in a "legal" sense????
fjtoth

Undisf'd,
First of all, I want to say thanks for making a big effort to speak from the heart, to write plainly and to cover every angle from your point of view.
Secondly, I have to tell you that you haven't changed my mind. I'm hoping to not appear rude, but my analysis of your every sentence leaves me even more convinced that Jesus is not one with the Father in the sense that you and other Trinitarians understand oneness.
Thirdly, I spend long hours at work every day, and it would probably take me a week to write out in detail why I believe you are going about this topic in a way far beyond what the Bible writers had in mind as they wrote under divine inspiration.
Fourthly, I am an old man, but my life is good despite some awful circumstances in my past. I read the Bible every day, no matter how busy I am, and I pray. More than that, my prayers are often answered far beyond what I had hoped for. I can say confidently that I have often seen God's hand at work in my life and in the lives of persons near and dear to me who also do not believe that God is three divine persons.
You wrote: "If you're wrong about who Jesus is, you will be wrong for eternity. There is no second chance once we leave this life." Jesus made the promise that he and his Father would make their abode with persons who obey him. (John 14:23) If a person denies the Trinity all his life, yet still experiences the blessing Jesus promised, I think we are attempting to usurp God's throne if we suggest such a person will not be saved simply because he doesn't believe exactly as we do.
My point is that Christianity means much more than each of us pointing the finger at other students and followers of the Bible who don't happen to see eye-to-eye with us on everything. I know a non-Trinitarian who is a keen student of the Bible and who has an answer for practically any Bible question, yet he hasn't got an hour of compassionate time during an average week for his aged parents or his wife. I also work with Trinitarians who can quote Scripture as readily as a lawyer can quote the law books, but they often use the foulest language even when little children are present, and some of them have been caught telling the most obvious lies about other workers. All of them, non-Trinitarian as well as Trinitarian, are regular church goers, but their ability to quote the Scriptures in support of their belief or non-belief in the deity of Christ is hardly a recommendation for Christianity which is the way to salvation.
I've read the Bible all my life, Undisfellowshiped. My prayer has always been to understand it so that I may do my best to make glad the heart of our heavenly Father and to be obedient to Jesus. In all my years of reading and praying, I've never received the insight that the one God is three persons. Speaking through the pages of the Bible, God always speaks of himself as "I" or "me." Trinitarians seem to ignore that fact and some place a great emphasis on the very few exceptions where, from my point of view, God is obviously addressing someone else. (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7) And Jesus uses "I" and "me" of himself, even as all of us do. It is an established fact in my mind that God and Jesus are two separate beings as well as two separate persons. One is God, and the other is his Son. But God has given his Son all authority in the universe, similar to the way Pharaoh shared authority with Joseph and Nebuchadnezzar shared his authority with Daniel.
Now, I can understand if others don't see this as I do. I can't know clearly how God has been leading them or not leading them through life, and I can't read their hearts. Their standing is before God, not me.
Now, as for your answer to my question on John 10:34-36, you have told me what you "believe" Jesus meant. And, of course, I've stated what I "believe" he meant. Apparently neither of us can know for sure, so we assume we know based upon what we have personally sensed is the general inclination of the Scriptures regarding Jesus' relationship with God. Based upon what I've observed of your zeal in support of the Trinity doctrine, I doubt I could persuade you to see things differently, even if I tried for several years. Thanks again for taking the time to put forth a good effort, but hopefully you can see that I too am beyond being persuaded to view God and Jesus differently.
Frank
Death to the Pixies

True, the Greek word for "worship" (proskyneo) can mean either religious worship of a god or simply an act of respectful honor/obeisance to a king or other human/angel. But how do YOU determine which verses are speaking of religious worship and which are speaking of respectful honor/obeisance?
Since there are two clear uses of the term, context would determine. Since you use this as a prooftext, the burden lies square on the Trinitarian.
If the Bible had wanted to teach us to give the same religious worship to Jesus that we give to the Father what would the Bible have said differently than it already says at Hebrews 1:6, Revelation Chapter 5, Philippians 2:5-11, etc.?
If the bible wanted to teach that Solomon was to recieve the same religious worship as God at 1 Chron. 29:20, how would it have been worded? Merely assuming Jesus is God and therefore since "only God" can worshiped in your mind is not an argument. BTW, weren't we talking about the context at John 5 :>)
I agree. But I also believe that Jesus should be worshiped on His own merit, and therefore Jesus is God
Hmmm, Could Jesus be worshiped for fulfilling his own will? No, but the Father can. Anyway, these are not justifications for your assertions imo.
But why do you place Jesus in a distinct category from God when it comes to worship? (See Revelation Chapter 5 where They both receive the same worship).
Because scripture overwhelmingly places Jesus and God in seperate categories. An agent being worshiped (or bowed down to) alongside God is in perfect harmony with agency doctrine, the point is why is the agent being "worshiped" (relative worship, also can mean bow down, prostrate), it is not the same reason that God is being worshiped. In Rev 5 "proskyeno" does not appear til vs 14 and when it does it is ambiguous, but the Lamb is being praised, not because he is God (see vs. 9 where the Lamb is clearly distinct from the God we "only worship") but because he was worthy to take the scroll from the One seated on the Throne (God, not Jesus is seated upon the throne) and only because he has been "slaughtered" (vs.12) and has "bought persons for God" (9-10) is why he is worthy to receive the power and riches..honor and glory. God, otoh, recieves it because he "created all things" (4:11)
We can take away from ch. 5 that Christ is not God, but rather, because of what he has accompolished for God is why he is worthy to be praised alongside God.
So, do you believe that all believers will become divine gods filled with the very essence and nature of God? Or is that reserved only for Christ? If that was not something unique to Christ, then why would Paul even make a big deal about it? If we all have the same divine essence/deity, then how would that make Christ worthy of special honor for having the fullness of Deity?
Oddly enough, the "Fathers" believed that very thing:
Irenaeus, BOOK IV: "...On behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation (of mercy) and have shown that, there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess adoption."
Chapter 1: "...Therefore, this is sure and steadfast that no other God or Lord was announced by the spirit, except Him, who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who received the spirit of adoption..."

Pretty much all of the Fathers taught this, I cannot find all my references, but from Justin to Origen tis true. Eph 3:19 says similar: "That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God". Whatever it is that Christ is filled with, however that makes him "God Almighty" from this verse alone to you, would likewise be given to the elect. But we do not need to draw that conclusion necessarily that they are "gods" becasue they have the fulness, that language while certainly a warranted interpretation, is not an explicit teaching, nor is the point of Colossians 2.
Also, notice Hebrews 6:4:
Hebrews 6:4 (ASV): For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit ,
Just because you are a "partaker" of something does not mean that you become that thing or that person. Those who are partakers of The Holy Spirit do not become the Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit is not a nature, if I say "share in the human nature", what does that mean?
But, if agency best explains this, you still have not explained why God encouraged people to worship "The Angel of the Lord" but He forbade people from worshiping the angel in Revelation, and all angels in Colossians. It is obvious that the worship given to The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is the religious type worship and not merely obeisance.
The agent principle is that you honor the messenger/agent like you would if it was the superior that sent him. By honoring that Angel who has YHWH "name within him" you are actually honoring YHWH. It is aimed at him thru the agent. Hard as this is for a 21st century Christian to want to understand, this was the custom. You cannot get past the fact that this angel is explicitly distinguished from YHWH, you tried to so with this argument:
Also, the New Testament says Jesus is "The Christ OF The Lord," but it also says Jesus is the Only Lord, the Lord of all, the Lord of Lords, the One Lord. So, if Jesus can be The Christ OF The Lord, and still be The Lord, then He can certainly be The Angel of The Lord and still be The Lord.
But it falls flat I think. You switch-aroo a proper name with a generic title "Lord", even so, as Christ is Lord, God is Lord and even the angel witnessing to John in Rev 7 is "Lord", the grammar here discounts the Angel as being the "Lord" he is of. We are talking about a specific person, this phrase has two seperate indivduals. I think if you put down the theology, you will see the absurdity of saying the Angel is the Lord he is said to be owned by. We are talking about a proper name no less.
Old Testament shows that there are at least Two Persons named Yahweh:
Zechariah 3:1-2 (ESV): Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD , and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, " The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"
Genesis 19:24 (ESV): Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven .
But yet, Yawheh is one (Deut. 6:4) and he is the Father (Is. 64:8) Jewish idiom restates the subject for emphasis. Consider two Solomon's at 1 Kings 8:1:
"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers'

houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem.." ASV
I thank you for your tone, you are very respectful, just some helpful advice, these ideas have been debated for a long time, do not feel pressure- or like your beliefs are riding on this discussion- they are not, they will continue to be debated. With that said, I like brief exchanges, don't you :>) Less typing involved the better if you ask this cowboy.
Death to the Pixies

Jesus did not say to "honor my authority," He said to HONOR THE SON. The Son is a PERSON.
But the context here is the authority this person has (which previously the Father had) received over judgement.
The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be equal to God after Jesus said He had equal authority over the Sabbath with His Father, and that God was His Own Father -- that He was The Son of God in a unique way. So, are you claiming that when Jesus called God His Father, He only meant that in a "legal" sense????
By claiming God as his own Father, he was saying that his words were not original but he was speaking, as an agent, for God. That would be the alleged "equality". God in this text is not a poly-personal being, but the Father.
Death to the Pixies

Just a quick note, here is editor of the Anchor bible commentary, G.Buchannan on legal agency:
I have had not had any basis for changing my views expressed in this book, but I have had many reasons for updating it and clarifying many of the points. You will find them given more clearly in my book Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil Law(Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press,c1992) and Revelation:Its Introduction and Commentary(Lewiston: Mellen, c1993). One of the important distinctions to be made is between legal identity and ontological identity. A legal agent is indentical legally to the principal who sent him or her even though the principal and agent are ontologically different people. Suppose, for instance, that the queen of England(a principal)appoints an ambassador(a legal agent) to negotiate with the president of the USA. Even if the ambassador is a male, 21 years old, 6ft feet tall, and weighs 250lbs., legally he is identical to the queen. i.e. he is legally the queen. Anything he negotiates is done in the name of the queen, in the interests of the queen, and at the responsibilty of the queen. It has all the authority of the crown behind it. Rabbis said the man's agent was like the man himself. Legally, this large, young, male is the small, female queen. A legal agent is an apostle. Many kings were considered legal agents of the deity. The pharaoh, for example, was called the son of two different deities at once. This is physically impossible, but not legally. Legally, but not physically or ontologically, these kings were called gods. Just as the ambassador was the queen, so a king is God, legally. In John 14, for instance, Jesus said, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." That is like saying, "He that has seen the ambassador has seen the queen." But in the same chapter, Jesus said, "But the Father is greater." In the commentary you read, I distinguished between God himself and Jesus. I would now use the words "legal" and "ontological" to express this difference; the meaning is the same.

JW's and John 5:23

Share this