Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

Could anyone explain why the Lamb of God (Jesus) in Revelation 5 DOES NOT bow down and worship the One who sits on the throne (God the Father)? Millions of angels, the four living creatures, the twenty-four elders, and every created thing in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and all that is in the sea, and all that are in them, worshiped the One who sits on the throne - But the Lamb of God, Jesus, DID NOT WORSHIP HIM.

Why do you think He did not worship God the Father?

[darinhouston]

Okay, since there's a wide range, maybe you could show me, let's say, half a dozen that don't mean that.

I'll leave that to you - it's a simple exercise with a concordance - don't neglect forms like exelthon - the basic idea is proceeding or going forth or going from one place to another or on a mission from a source - not strictly something that was "part" of or "in" something "leaving" or coming "out" of that thing. It is more about "trajectory" and "direction" than "leaving" a source.

I'm sorry, but I thought that if you made a claim, that you would be willing to back it up. But I guess not. No you can't use "exelthon" - we're not even talking about that word or any other form of exerchomai. Jesus used exerchomai to say He came out of God. I never said He used a different form than that in the verses I quoted. Obviously, a different form of exerchomai will have a different meaning. I challenged you to show me the "wide range" of usage by quoting half a dozen places where exerchomai means something other than "came out of" or "go out of" (Strong's), but either you're conceding that there are none, or you're unwilling to back up your claim.

Well, actually you were the one making the assertion - I might rephrase by saying simply I disagree that this narrow construction is to be assumed - please prove it. And if you want to ignore exelthon, so be it, but it's a for of the same word and you can see how limited the prefix "ek" is in both forms. If you want to better understand the grammatical use of ek, that's useful to you - if not, then I'm ok if you don't want to consider it.

But, you can look through these a bit...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

[darinhouston]

Could anyone explain why the Lamb of God (Jesus) in Revelation 5 DOES NOT bow down and worship the One who sits on the throne (God the Father)? Millions of angels, the four living creatures, the twenty-four elders, and every created thing in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and all that is in the sea, and all that are in them, worshiped the One who sits on the throne - But the Lamb of God, Jesus, DID NOT WORSHIP HIM.

Why do you think He did not worship God the Father?

That's an interesting observation - but, a couple of things - we do see Jesus speaking of worshiping God (in John 4?). As to the scene in Revelation? I don't know but it's possible that it's because he had ascended to the throne, had been given all power and authority and was a co-ruler in heaven at the Father's pleasure and was a "member of the royal court" you might say - we see a reflection of that in our earthly monarchies - the royal family generally don't get up from the throne and bow down before the King in every formal setting.

[darinhouston]

Could anyone explain why the Lamb of God (Jesus) in Revelation 5 DOES NOT bow down and worship the One who sits on the throne (God the Father)? Millions of angels, the four living creatures, the twenty-four elders, and every created thing in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and all that is in the sea, and all that are in them, worshiped the One who sits on the throne - But the Lamb of God, Jesus, DID NOT WORSHIP HIM.

Why do you think He did not worship God the Father?

That's an interesting observation - but, a couple of things - we do see Jesus speaking of worshiping God (in John 4?). As to the scene in Revelation? I don't know but it's possible that it's because he had ascended to the throne, had been given all power and authority and was a co-ruler in heaven at the Father's pleasure and was a "member of the royal court" you might say - we see a reflection of that in our earthly monarchies - the royal family generally don't get up from the throne and bow down before the King in every formal setting.

Along these lines, you might want to think about 1 Cor. 15:27-28 - this authority does seem temporary - this passage goes out of its way to not only distinguish God from the Son, but makes it clear that a time will come when he puts himself under God's authority (implying some temporary delegated equally of authority) and the ultimate return of God having all the authority again (even over the Son).

27 For the Scriptures say, “God has put all things under his authority.”* (Of course, when it says “all things are under his authority,” that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) 28 Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God’s authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

This is just not the way one would write about the relationship between God and the Son if the Son was God.

[dizerner]

This is just not the way one would write about the relationship between God and the Son if the Son was God.

You do realize the Bible clearly teaches Jesus gave something up?

So you are wrong.

Here's a classic debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4joi2P9lupw

[darinhouston]

This is just not the way one would write about the relationship between God and the Son if the Son was God.

You do realize the Bible clearly teaches Jesus gave something up?

So you are wrong.

Here's a classic debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4joi2P9lupw

Well, that's pretty rude, but your point is also not relevant. Nor do I agree that he "gave something up" in the nature of the prevailing kenosis theories. Not some essential pre-existing eternal attribute like being God at least. I see kenao as more akin to self-deprecation in his life choices (in contrast with the first Adam) than some inherent setting aside of divine prerogatives in stepping out of divinity into humanity.

[dwight92070]

Luke 12:5 Jesus is telling them not to fear the one who kills the body. "But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!"

But who has authority to cast into hell? Because He is the one that we should fear.

Jesus tells us in Matthew 25:41 that HE is the One who has power to cast into hell on judgment day, the last day.

So He is telling us that we need to fear HIM, but I thought we were supposed to fear GOD.

Yet another scripture that informs us that Jesus IS God.

[dwight92070]

The gospel means "good news". In the New Testament "the gospel of God" and the "the gospel of Jesus" are used interchangeably. Because the good news of Jesus IS the good news of God. And because Jesus IS God.

Mark 1:1 gospel of God; 1:14 gospel of God
Acts 20:24 gospel of the grace of God
Romans 1:1 gospel of God; 1:9 gospel of His Son; 15:16 gospel of God; 15:19 gospel of Christ; 16:25 my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 9:12 gospel of Christ
2 Corinthians 2:12 gospel of Christ
2 Corinthians 4:4 gospel of Christ; 9:13 gospel of Christ; 10:14 gospel of Christ; 11:7 gospel of God
Galatians 1:7 gospel of Christ
Philippians 1:27 gospel of Christ
1 Thessalonians 2:2 gospel of God; 2:8 gospel of God; 2:9 gospel of God; 3:2 gospel of Christ
2 Thessalonians 1:8 gospel of our Lord Jesus
1 Peter 4:17 gospel of God

The good news of Jesus and the good news of God are the SAME, because Jesus and God are the same.

[dizerner]

Well, that's pretty rude, but your point is also not relevant.

There's nothing rude about claiming someone is wrong.

Or you are just as rude as anyone, since you call a lot of people on here wrong.

So it's a hypocritical double standard and unfair accusation.


And the point was completely relevant, you just don't want to allow it.

[darinhouston]

Well, that's pretty rude, but your point is also not relevant.

There's nothing rude about claiming someone is wrong.

Or you are just as rude as anyone, since you call a lot of people on here wrong.

So it's a hypocritical double standard and unfair accusation.


And the point was completely relevant, you just don't want to allow it.

I may disagree and provide an alternative but I've never said anything quite like "don't you now xyz? You're just wrong!"

If I have, I was rude also, but this was rude, plain and simple.