Is Jesus inferior to God?

Originally posted by josephw
Your going to have to look a little deeper Raj. The whole of scripture teaches that the three entities referred to as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the Godhead. This is how God has revealed Himself.

This is such BS. The 'whole of Scripture?' What nonsense! St Paul certainly didn't believe it.
'We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,' (Colossians 1:3). Was
he really saying 'We give thanks to God, the Father of God?' Continue onwards to verse 15:
'He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.' In the letter
attributed to St Paul, I Timothy, it says: For there is one God. There is one mediator between
God and the human race, Christ Jesus himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all, (2:5-6a).
There are at least a dozen more just like this. Why would St Paul write so clearly, yet mean
that Jesus was God?

If you want the dozen more citations, I can provide them.

Nemesio

P.S., It's not a theological problem to believe the Trinity. It's just not Scriptural; it's doctrinal.
It's a Creedal assertion, not a Biblical one.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Uhm, as interesting as this whole trinity deal might be (evident or not),
has anyone here wondered why God would go through all this
trouble when he could have just popped out of nowhere in human
form with all his alleged powers and say: "Hey, guys! Here I am. I'm
God, and listen... I'm gonna reveal to you all how come I've created you
and wh bible we're reading as the word of God today.

Isn't all this just a little peculiar?

Isn't all this just a little peculiar?

Of course it is peculiar! Everything about God is peculiar. Nothing he does is predictable.

It's so like us to think we could conceive of a better plan for salvation than God. 😀

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is such BS. The 'whole of Scripture?' What nonsense! St Paul certainly didn't believe it.
'We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,' (Colossians 1:3). Was
he really saying 'We give thanks to God, the Father of God?' Continue onwards to verse 15:
'He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creatio st not Scriptural; it's doctrinal.
It's a Creedal assertion, not a Biblical one.

Nemesio, what would be your response to my earlier post about worship? How do you explain the fact that Jesus allowed himself to be worshipped - according to Jewish tradition a privilege reserved for the one true God?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Do you still not see the truth, Raj? Only God is to be worshipped.
__________

The Bible tells us: "As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." —Acts 10:25,26. Peter refused worship in light of the Law that said, "You shal is God.
__________

(Source: The Evidence Bible, Ray Comfort)[/b]

I've already addressed the last two texts you cited in my above posts, one which make clear
that St Paul (or his pseudonym author) did not hold the belief that 'Jesus is God,' but I should
address this red herring about worship. The problem arises from using English as your the means
for developing your theological framework (or, more likely, developing your theological framework,
then turning to the Bible in English to justify it). The word used by Mr Comfort is invariably from
the Greek word proskyneo. This word, which is translated 'worship,' doesn't mean to 'praise
as if it was God.' It means to reverence, or to submit. Ironically, the King James translation
does a better job of preserving this when they say 'did homage.' This word and the sentiment
it communicates is utterly separate and unrelated to latreia, which is the sort of worship
one offers at Temple.

Can one exhibit a proskyneo-like attitude towards God? Yes, of course. But it's not reserved only
for God, nor is it heretical to revere, or do homage to something other than God (unless that act
makes you less inclined to revere God, of course).

After all, Jesus explicitly says that He is distinct from God:

Why do you call me good? No one is good by God alone. St Mark 10:18, St Luke 18:19

(and a number of other places, which I cited to you many years ago, but you refused to address...)

Nemesio

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Nemesio, what would be your response to my earlier post about worship? How do you explain the fact that Jesus allowed himself to be worshipped - according to Jewish tradition a privilege reserved for the one true God?

Be patient.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It's so like us to think we could conceive of a better plan for salvation than God. 😀

🙂

Well, let's for the sake of argument say that I'm a non-believer.

😲 "Noooo, really?", you ask.

😵

Well, yeah, let that be the case. Before you can use this whole God
works in mysterious ways stuff on me, you need to convince me that this
bible, put together by mere mortals, the latter part of which is mostly
around a mere mortal, who many believes was one part of God
himself; that the bible is actually the word of God.

How do you do that? Because, unless I truly believe in God and more
over the version of God as presented in the bible (by God apparently 🙄),
I'm obviously not going to get the whole salvation plan thing you're
talking about.

I still find it peculiar why he wouldn't just give us a great display to leave
us without doubt. It makes no sense this way. Well, it does, but not the
kind of sense you Christians are talking about.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I've already addressed the last two texts you cited in my above posts, one which make clear
that St Paul (or his pseudonym author) did not hold the belief that 'Jesus is God,' but I should
address this red herring about worship. The problem arises from using English as your the means
for developing your theological framework (or, more likely, deve ...[text shortened]... laces, which I cited to you many years ago, but you refused to address...)

Nemesio

The word used by Mr Comfort is invariably from the Greek word proskyneo. This word, which is translated 'worship,' doesn't mean to 'praise as if it was God.' It means to reverence, or to submit.

Fair enough. Consider Matthew 4:9-10:

"And [Satan] said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

In both cases here the Greek word proskuneo is used, which has the exact same definition as proskyneo.

That which both Peter and the angel refused (proskyneo), that which Satan demands from Jesus (proskuneo), and that which the law designates for God (proskuneo), are all one and the same thing: worship.

I understand your argument that people are able to proskyneo any object or person they desire, but...

Is there any other instance in the Bible where a man, besides Jesus, is worshipped (in the proskyneo sense) and with God's blessing? Indeed, the word proskyneo is easily transferable to this or that, be it Satan, an idol, a false god, or Christ, or God, but in which instance is proskyneo actually condoned by God?

Worship is only condoned in the case of Christ and God.

Originally posted by Jigtie
🙂

Well, let's for the sake of argument say that I'm a non-believer.

😲 "Noooo, really?", you ask.

😵

Well, yeah, let that be the case. Before you can use this whole God
works in mysterious ways stuff on me, you need to convince me that this
bible, put together by mere mortals, the latter part of which is mostly
around a mere mortal, ...[text shortened]... se this way. Well, it does, but not the
kind of sense you Christians are talking about.

I don't need to convince you of anything. That's not my job.

Your rejection of the Bible is based solely on the fact that its claims (e.g. Christ's divinity) seem to you to be implausible or nonsensical. Assume for one moment, though, that the Bible's claims are true: would rejecting those claims on the sole basis that they seemed implausible or nonsensical be a wise idea?

Jesus would implore you, rather, to test whether His words are truly the words of God by demonstrating their effectiveness through faithful obedience to them.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The word used by Mr Comfort is invariably from the Greek word proskyneo. This word, which is translated 'worship,' doesn't mean to 'praise as if it was God.' It means to reverence, or to submit.

Fair enough. Consider Matthew 4:9-10:

"And [Satan] said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” actually condoned by God?

Worship is only condoned in the case of Christ and God.[/b]

Can I ask you a question!!!

Is Jesus GOD the father?

Originally posted by ahosyney
Can I ask you a question!!!

Is Jesus GOD the father?

Yes, if you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father. Jesus and the Father are one.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, if you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father. Jesus and the Father are one.

you are wrong,

if they are the exactly the same thing then Trinity has no meaning.

Besides Jesus say something different:

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-30)(I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.)

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-31)(If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. )

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-32)(There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. )

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-33)(Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. )

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-34)(But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. )

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-35)(He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. )

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-36)(But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. )

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-37)(And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.)


It is clear here that Jesus say that if witness to himself, it will be a false witness. Then say that another person withness to him, and that witness is the father himself.

I think Jesus knows better than you, and Jesus say that the father is another person than himself, although you say something different.

Originally posted by ahosyney
you are wrong,

if they are the exactly the same thing then Trinity has no meaning.

Besides Jesus say something different:

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-30)(I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.)

(KJV)(John)(Jn-5-31)(If I bear witne Jesus say that the father is another person than himself, although you say something different.

You are wrong, if they are the exactly the same thing then Trinity has no meaning.

The Trinity doctrine states that God exists as three persons, but is still one Being. So, no, if the Father and the Son are one in the same, that does not detract in anyway from the Trinity doctrine.

I think Jesus knows better than you, and Jesus say that the father is another person than himself, although you say something different.

In case you didn't notice, I recited Jesus' own words in my last post. I didn't say anything different than what Christ said about himself.

Furthermore, it is no surprise that Christ also refers to the Father as separate from himself, since they are not only one in the same, but also separate Persons.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Uhm, as interesting as this whole trinity deal might be (evident or not),
has anyone here wondered why God would go through all this
trouble when he could have just popped out of nowhere in human
form with all his alleged powers and say: "Hey, guys! Here I am. I'm
God, and listen... I'm gonna reveal to you all how come I've created you
and wh ...[text shortened]... bible we're reading as the word of God today.

Isn't all this just a little peculiar?

I like to think of the "Trinity" as the three faces of Grace: Prevenient Grace representing Gof the father, Justifying Grace representing Christ, and Sanctifying Grace representing the Holy Spirit.


Just my thoughts

Originally posted by epiphinehas
In both cases here the Greek word proskuneo is used, which has the exact same definition as proskyneo.

So? I already said that it can be used for the worship of God, and that it can be used in
the sense of worshipping other things in opposition to God.

However, the NT texts aren't the only Greek texts ever written, and the word proskyneo is used,
legitimately, to pay homage to other things.

Is there any other instance in the Bible where a man, besides Jesus, is worshipped (in the proskyneo sense) [b]and with God's blessing? Indeed, the word proskyneo is easily transferable to this or that, be it Satan, an idol, a false god, or Christ, or God, but in which instance is proskyneo actually condoned by God?[/b]

You should be asking if latreia was ever used with Jesus. It wasn't. Only God.

Why would the NT authors include doing homage to someone else? The only other person
might be St John the Baptist, but there is no record of that. However, in the Hebrew Scriptures,
the word Hebrew shachah (which equates with proskyneo according to the Septuagint translators)
is used all the time in reference to lesser people paying homage to more important people.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7812&t=KJV

Nemesio