Worshipping the MAN Christ Jesus?

[Guest]

Ely, you wrote:

In the NT, this word always carries the meaning of religious service. apart from when idolatry is being condemned, it is always used with reference to the one true God. It is neverused with reference to Jesus.

Ely, this statement is true. Notwithstanding, we read in Hebrews 13:10

We have an altar from which those who serve (latreuō) the tent have no right to eat.

Ely, would this mean that the Jews who served the tent were "worshipping" the tent, and were therefore idolators?

To everyone else, though I believe Jesus is divine, I think the passages you quote in support of His divinity either are incorrectly translated, or are translated from defective texts.

Hebrews 1:8
But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

I cannot understand how this verse has been translated this way. The word "theos" (God) in not the vocative case (the case of direct address) as in Matthew 2:46 where Jesus is quoted as saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In that verse, the Greek word for God is in the vocative case ("theë"). Rather "theos" is in the nominative case (used as subject or subjective completion)

I believe the following to be a correct translation of Hebrews 1:8

But to the Son He says: "God is your throne permanently..."

That is, God will continue to be the One whom Christ serves.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

If Jesus is "the Everlasting Father", then the Modalists, not the Trinitarians, are right!

Some manuscripts of the Septuagint, instead of "Everlasting Father" have "Father of the age to come". Jesus is the Father of the age to come, that is the age in which He will reign. But when all things have been put under His feet, that age will end, and the Kingdom will be turned over to the Father, that God may be all in all. (I Cor 15)

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. NIV

The Byzantine majority text in translation reads "Be shepherds of the church of the Lord, which he bought with his own blood."

[Guest]

I can't speak for anyone else but i don't know what this line of reasoning is supposed to prove except to a Jesus "Oneness" person. No one is asserting that Jesus is not a different being then Yahweh

Maybe you're not assetting this, but people here are trying to argue that Jesus is Yahweh, the Lord God Almighty! Trinitarianism revolves around this central point! But as anyone can see, Jesus and the Lord God Almighty are two different beings.

Also, you say that “Yahweh is the source and Jesus is subject to Him but He is not a creation of Yahweh, he is a part of Yahweh.”
For me, this is asking us to suspend our God-given reason. If a being has a source, then it is a created being, and is thus not Yahweh. Yahweh has no source, unless we want to go down the Mormon route and say that the Lord God Almighty also has a source.

So, is there any place in Revelation where Jesus is explicitly called the Lord God Almighty? No.

Yes. There is. Revelation 1:8.

Jesus says:

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

We know this is Jesus because, John turns, to see who this voice is:

Rev 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands;

Bro, look again, this time including the verse you skipped over:

Rev 1:8 "_I_ am the Alpha and the Omega," says [the] Lord God, "The One being and the One [who] was and the One [who is] coming-the Almighty."

This is the end of the introduction to the Apocalypse. There is a definite change of gear in the next verse. From then on, John begins his report:

Rev 1:9 I, John, the [one being] your* brother and partner in the affliction and the kingdom and patient endurance in Jesus Christ, came to be in the island, the one being called Patmos, because of the word of God and because of the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 1:10 I came to be in spirit [or, in [the] Spirit] on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a great voice, like a trumpet-blast,
Rev 1:11 saying, "What you see, write in a scroll, and send [it] to the seven assemblies: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."
Rev 1:12 And there I turned around to be seeing the voice which was speaking with me. And having turned around, I saw seven golden lampstands...

There is no compelling reason to say that the Son of Man was the one speakig in 1:8 (depsite the red text in that verse). I know it would be nice for Trinitarianism if Jesus did claim to be Lord God Almighty in 1:8 – but this is (as with so many Trinitarian proof texts) highly debateable at best.

Now, you talk about Jesus claiming “divine titles.” The use of similar appellatives with regard to God and Jesus need not mean that both are actually God. In scripture, we Artexerses (Ezra 7:12) and Nebuchadnezzer (Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37) are both called King of Kings. This does not mean they are Yahweh. It is thus not a massive stretch to think that Jesus claming other divine appellations does not necessarily mean he is claiming to be the Lord God Almighty.

Remember, I am claiming that Jesus is indeed second in command to God and has been given the highest possible rank under God Almighty. It’s like with Joseph. Pharaoh said to him: “You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word; only in regard to the throne will I be greater than you.” (Genesis 41:40). Likewise, Yahweh has given all things to Jesus and has made him the head of all His creation, subservient only to his Father, Yahweh, who alone is the Lod God Almighty.

You said I am "blinded" by my theology because I can’t see that Jesus is worshipped as God in Revelation. Well, I humbly disagree. I don't think my theology is anywhere near as mysterious and clouded as yours. For example, I am not the one trying to convince everybody that the man Jesus "became a man as part of His own creation" but at the same time "is not created, and is therefore not a creature." How can one be part of creation but at the same time not be created? Surely, either one is created and thus part of creation, or uncreated and thus not part of creation? Indeed, 'tis mystery all!

Shalom
Ely

[Guest]

Now, you talk about Jesus claiming “divine titles.” The use of similar appellatives with regard to God and Jesus need not mean that both are actually God. In scripture, we Artexerses (Ezra 7:12) and Nebuchadnezzer (Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37) are both called King of Kings. This does not mean they are Yahweh. It is thus not a massive stretch to think that Jesus claming other divine appellations does not necessarily mean he is claiming to be the Lord God Almighty.

Ely,

There is direct parallelism, as well as the direct claiming of the exact same names, in the immidiate context.

Do you not see the parallelism between 1:17-18 and 1:8?

By the way, I said to not see the parallelism is to be blinded, by your theology. If you don't see it, you must be blind indeed, because it's clearly there!

This is the end of the introduction to the Apocalypse. There is a definite change of gear in the next verse. From then on, John begins his report:

Who is the Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last, the Beginnning and the End in the book of Revelation? Are there two firsts, and two lasts?

For example, I am not the one trying to convince everybody that the man Jesus "became a man as part of His own creation" but at the same time "is not created, and is therefore not a creature."

If Jesus is eternal, then He's not created. He, Jesus, the Person, is not created. At one point in time, He took on our human nature.

God bless,

[Guest]

At one point in time, He took on our human nature.

Okay, let's start with the very basics: What is "human nature"?

[Guest]

At one point in time, He took on our human nature.

Okay, let's start with the very basics: What is "human nature"?

I get your point. I see where you are going, and what you have been talking about. You are saying Jesus is at least "somehow" created, in that He shared our nature. God is not created in anyway, therefore Jesus is not God.

This does not mean that the person Jesus is created.

Before normal created people come into being, they are non-existent. They do not exist other than perhaps a thought in the mind of God. Jesus, however, is God; the creator, without whom nothing was made that was made. He is eternal.

Frankly Ely, you are not going to convince me with the track you are taking here. We might as well agree to disagree. If you are seeking to disprove the deity of our Lord, I don't see it happening along these lines. There's far too much scripture to deal with otherwise.

For two thousand years Christians have believed in the deity of Christ, and for two thousand years they have had Romans 1:25 in their bibles (at least those that had them).

If the person Jesus is not created, which He is not, then your argument falls apart. With or without the humanity of Jesus. You have to show that the person Jesus is a creature, before we can get anywhere.

God bless,

[Guest]

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1

Is Paul not being hypocritical here, if he himself actually worshipped and served a God who had "become" a creature. A pagan could turn around say "we believe in the one Creator too. We believe He became an elephant."

Q: If you were Paul, and assuming Paul was a Trinitarian, how would you respond to such a challenge?

If you already exist, you can't become a creature. I would say to them "God has come here, for His redemptive purposes, he has proven that He is who He says by signs, wonders, and by raising Himself from the dead. Has your elephant god done this?" "The only way God could save man, was by paying mans penalty for sin, Himself, because only He is perfect, only He can make the perfect sacrifice". ecetera.

Do you think there are two absolutely perfect beings Ely? God and Jesus?

"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude"

Why were they upset? First, these Lystrians thought there were many gods wheras the apostles knew there was only one God (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, etc.) But there was something else wrong. Look carefully at what they said when they ran into the multitude:

"Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them."

In other words, "we are created things just like you are, thus, we must not be worshipped. We were all created by the one true God. He is uncreated and He alone is worthy of your worship as God."

Now, if these apostles were Trinitarians and had been preaching this everywhere they went as central point of their message, could not the pagans turn around and say "yeah, but you teach that one of the persons in your God has the same nature as us too. In fact, we've heard you say that he is fully man."

Q: Again, put yourself in Paul and Barnabus' shoes, how would you respond to such a challenge?

I would say that "no, sir, we did not say that He has the "same" nature as us, but that He (who is divine), took part in our nature. He is the God-man, not a mere human creature like you or I". "In fact, the world was made through Him, and nothing has ever been made, that wasn't made by Him".

I answer these mainly, because I really want to see you address some of the quesitons in my last post. Specifically:

How many firsts, lasts, Alphas, Omegas, Beginnings, Endings are there?

Until the book of Revelation there's only one, but it would appear that now there's two. Two firsts, and two Lasts, etc.

I would also like for you to comment on the parallelism between Rev. 1:8 and 1:17-18. Do you not see any signifigance between, "which is, and which was, and which is to come" and "that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore"?

Now, you talk about Jesus claiming “divine titles.” The use of similar appellatives with regard to God and Jesus need not mean that both are actually God. In scripture, we Artexerses (Ezra 7:12) and Nebuchadnezzer (Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37) are both called King of Kings. This does not mean they are Yahweh. It is thus not a massive stretch to think that Jesus claming other divine appellations does not necessarily mean he is claiming to be the Lord God Almighty.

It is possible for an earthly king to be king of kings. It's a way of saying they are the most powerful king. I could see how this applies to Jesus. However, "Alpha and Omega", "The Beginning and the End", "The First and the Last", are only applied to God Almighty.

It's really something for a mere creature like you or I to go calling Himself by those names!

God bless!

[Guest]

Is Paul not being hypocritical here, if he himself actually worshipped and served a God who had "become" a creature. A pagan could turn around say "we believe in the one Creator too. We believe He became an elephant."

Q: If you were Paul, and assuming Paul was a Trinitarian, how would you respond to such a challenge?

If you already exist, you can't become a creature.

Pagan: "So, the second person of the Triune God did not become a man? Or is it that the man he became is a special uncreated man? DOes that mena that his mother is also an uncreated woman?"

"we are created things just like you are, thus, we must not be worshipped. We were all created by the one true God. He is uncreated and He alone is worthy of your worship as God."

Now, if these apostles were Trinitarians and had been preaching this everywhere they went as central point of their message, could not the pagans turn around and say "yeah, but you teach that one of the persons in your God has the same nature as us too. In fact, we've heard you say that he is fully man."

I would say that "no, sir, we did not say that He has the "same" nature as us, but that He (who is divine), took part in our nature.

Pagan: Mr Christian, what is this double-speak? How did this God "partake of our nature" without actually "having" the same nature as us? It's like saying "I partook of Roman citizenship but i didn't become a Roman." I either became a Roman citizen or I didn't become one!

It's really something for a mere creature like you or I to go calling Himself by those names!

I have responded to this, possibly twice. I don't know any other way of saying it.

[Guest]

Pagan: "So, the second person of the Triune God did not become a man? Or is it that the man he became is a special uncreated man? DOes that mena that his mother is also an uncreated woman?"

Ely, I don't know what else to say brother. Jesus, the person, is uncreated. The fact that the uncreated Jesus, became a man, (call His becoming a man whatever you want), does not make Him created. Thus, the person Jesus, is not a creature. If you don't get this, the way I'm saying it, I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer, with my limited understanding. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

Pagan: Mr Christian, what is this double-speak? How did this God "partake of our nature" without actually "having" the same nature as us? It's like saying "I partook of Roman citizenship but i didn't become a Roman." I either became a Roman citizen or I didn't become one!

He doesn't have "exactly" the same nature. He was the God-man. Or to put it another way, He became a man, and had the same nature as us, but never ceased being God, hence, it could not be said that He has "exactly" the same nature.


Again, someone who is eternal, cannot all of the sudden become created.

[Guest]

I have responded to this, possibly twice. I don't know any other way of saying it.

I forgot where. You explained how a name assumed only by God, can be used by a man?

How many firsts, lasts, Alphas, Omegas, Beginnings, Endings are there?

Until the book of Revelation there's only one, but it would appear that now there's two. Two firsts, and two Lasts, etc.

I would also like for you to comment on the parallelism between Rev. 1:8 and 1:17-18. Do you not see any signifigance between, "which is, and which was, and which is to come" and "that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore"?

I wanted to bring this up again, in case you missed it.

God bless bro,

[Guest]

STEVE7150 wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else but i don't know what this line of reasoning is supposed to prove except to a Jesus "Oneness" person. No one is asserting that Jesus is not a different being then Yahweh

Maybe you're not assetting this, but people here are trying to argue that Jesus is Yahweh, the Lord God Almighty! Trinitarianism revolves around this central point! But as anyone can see, Jesus and the Lord God Almighty are two different beings.

Also, you say that “Yahweh is the source and Jesus is subject to Him but He is not a creation of Yahweh, he is a part of Yahweh.”
For me, this is asking us to suspend our God-given reason. If a being has a source, then it is a created being, and is thus not Yahweh. Yahweh has no source, unless we want to go down the Mormon route and say that the Lord

Ely, To my knowledge trinitarianism says there is one God revealed in three persons therefore it does not claim that Jesus is Yahweh. It does claim that Jesus is equal to Yahweh but it does not claim they are one being.
From Rotherhams a non trinitarian bible "I came forth out of the Father" John 16.28 and the KJV renders this "I came out of the Father."
That's how i believe that the Father can be the source yet Jesus is not a creation because he is from the substance of God. The source of the Holy Spirit is Yahweh yet you would probably not claim the Holy Spirit is created regardless of whether you attribute personhood to Him/it.