Originally posted by galveston75Does the sheer number of hoops you must jump through (including the outright changing of the text) in order to square your after-the-dogma Bible ever make you stop and think about the motives of those who commissioned it?
Why yes I do. First lets get a couple scriptures here to get a little insight from it.
Jesus’ opposers accused him of making himself equal to God. (John 5:18; 10:30-33) However, Jesus never claimed to be on the same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.
Jesus’ early followers did not view him as being equa ...[text shortened]... sman. He is the one that we go thru to speak to God thru our prayers.
Does this help a little?
6 edits
Originally posted by galveston75
And every creature which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, I heard saying,
-----------------------------------------------------------
To Him Who sits upon the throne ... AND TO THE LAMB ... be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I see where it says to honor them and to give them glory, but no words here like worship.
I cannot take this observation seriously.
It is hard to imagine a Bible student saying this with a straight face.
But just in case you think you can use this rationale to squirm away from universal worship of God and the Lamb, the Scriptures has God Himself say concerning the Son - "Let all the angels of God worship Him"
"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says,
And let all the angels of God worship Him." (Hebrews 1:6)
The Greek word there translated "worship" is the same word used for the exhortation NOT to worship an angel but to WORSHIP God.
" And I John am he who hears and sees these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
And he said to me, Do not do that! I am your fellow slave and a fellow slave of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the words of this scroll.
Worship God." (Rev. 22:8,9)
1.) John is told NOT to worship an angel.
2.) John is commanded by the angel TO "worship God".
3.) The identical same word for "worship" is used for all the angels of God to "WORSHIP HIM" - "Him" there being "the Firstborn" (Heb. 1:6)
Verify this by checking Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible for entry # 4352 in its Greek Dictionary. The same word is used in Hebrews 1:6 as is used in Revelation 22:8,9 .
And I cannot entertain as a serious comment that what all creatures do to God and the Lamb in Rev. 5 does not count as worship.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneChanging of text? I'm sorry but you'll have to show me that.
Does the sheer number of hoops you must jump through (including the outright changing of the text) in order to square your after-the-dogma Bible ever make you stop and think about the motives of those who commissioned it?
So do you care to try and prove your belief in the trinity and why I might be wrong in not believing it??
Originally posted by sonshipOh my goodness!!!! This is speaking of the "angels" not humans in every answer your giving. And your saying you can take me serious? If God tells his angels to worship Jesus, that his arrangement. But this is not telling humans to worship Jesus at all.......Sorry!
[quote] [b] And every creature which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, I heard saying,
-----------------------------------------------------------
To Him Who sits upon the throne ... AND TO THE LAMB ... be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever. "
---------------- ...[text shortened]... ment that what all creatures do to God and the Lamb in Rev. 5 does not count as worship.[/b]
When Jesus told his followers "NOT" to worship him but "ONLY" his Father, how in the world do you not understand that and take it for exactly what it says?
2 edits
Originally posted by Suziannead hominem much? Does the sheer number of times you appeal to personal considerations rather than the substance ever make you stop and think about your motives and the meaninglessness of your texts? you have been asked numerous times for evidence for your claims and as yet have provided nothing but the same Kellyanne Conway style assertion, I suspect that its no coincidence that Kellyanne and Suzzianne are so similar.
Does the sheer number of hoops you must jump through (including the outright changing of the text) in order to square your after-the-dogma Bible ever make you stop and think about the motives of those who commissioned it?