Is Jesus worshipped?

[NonTrinitarian]

Often in discussions on Jesus’ nature is the point that worship was given to Jesus and only God can be worshipped so Jesus must be God. As I will display below, this argument is circular to an extraordinary degree.

The term rendered “worship” in the NT is proskyneo. One definition of this word is indeed “worship.” Of course, the question of ‘what does it mean to worship someone?’ is in itself a unique discussion and not to be addressed at this time. And that discussion also has to include the matter of whether we humans can say definitely that someone is worshipping someone or even God by our merely observing them. After all, do I not say I worship God and yet most of you would answer “no.”

But proskyneo means much more than just “worship” that is due God. It is also “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet.” Another definition is to “fawn, crouch, prostrate oneself in homage.” Or “to make obeisance, do reverence to.”

This same word rendered to Jesus is also rendered to humans. According to the LXX Abraham rendered proskyneo to the people he did business with (Gen 23:7). Are we saying Abraham was worshipping these men? Nathan gave proskyneo to King David at 1 Kings 1:23. David gave proskyneo to Saul at 1 Sam 24:8. Abigail gave proskyneo to David at 1 Sam 25:23 and 25:41. At 2 Sam 1:2 we see a man who came to David and fell before him giving him proskyneo. None of these instances are understood by most to mean they were actually worshipping the person they were given proskyneo to. Rather, in EACH instance the person who was receiving the proskyneo was recognized to be God’s appointed King and these people honored them as such (except for the account in Gen 23:7). Furthermore, we note this interesting account at 1 Chron 29:20-

“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.” KJV

Here the people offer proskyneo to both YHWH and David. Now why do Bibles not translate this word as “worship” in these instances? It is SOLEY because they have a preconceived belief that these persons are NOT God. Does TwoHumble attack Trinitarian Bibles for being “inconsistent” in their rendering proskyneo as “worship” to God but as something else when it is rendered to the king? I think not.

The same issue exists in the NT. Proskyneo is given to Jesus but should we translate it as worship? No more so than we should translate it as worship at Rev. 3:9 when proskyneo is directed to humans. Firstly we note that most Bibles do not translate it as worship all the time. In fact, to my knowledge, the King James Version is the only Bible that translates it as worship whenever it is applied to Jesus. But is it correct to translate it as worship? Let’s consider an example”

Matthew 2:2 has astrologers asking the question “Where is the one that has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” –NIV

The King James, The Living Bible and Today’s English Version render similarly. But note how other Bibles translate this verse:

“And have come to do him reverence.”- The Bible in Living English
“And have come to pay him homage.”- The New Revised Standard Version
“And have come to do him homage.”-The New American Bible
“And have come to do homage to him.”- The Twentieth Century New Testament
“Have come here to pay homage to him”- The NT in Modern English
“And we have come to pay him homage.”- The New English Bible

Why do these translations use words such as “reverence”, “homage”, or “to bow down” instead of “worship”? The reason is the context does not really call for the word “worship” to be used. Consider first of all who these men were. They were astrologers who did not even worship God. (Otherwise they would not have been astrologers! See Isa 47:13,14) In addition, even if they were godly men, why would they want to worship Jesus? There is no record of them being told he was God. They simply thought he was going to be the king of the Jews. What do you do to a king? You bow down before him, show him reverence, pay homage to him and do obeisance to him. A few verses later (vs 8) King Herod says he wants to see the child to give it proskyneo. Certainly he did not mean he wanted to worship Jesus. Why would he? The information he was given from the chief priests in verse 4 to 6 did not say anything about the Christ being God. And the Jews certainly did not think the Christ was going to be God. So why would Herod want to worship Jesus? Wisely the above mentioned Bibles do not use the word worship in this context. The correct word should show the action of paying respect to a king. Note the instances of the word proskyneo as directed toward Jesus in the Gospels and how different Bibles translate it. The ones in the “Other” column use words other than worship to translate this word.

Matt 2:2 worship (LIV, NIV. TEV, NASB) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, NEB)

Matt 2:8 worship (LIV, NIV, TEV, NASB) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, NEB)

Matt 8:2 worship (LIV) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 9:18 worship (LIV ) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 14:33 worship (NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB) other (NAB, BLE, LIV, NEB)

Matt 15:25 worship (LIV, NAB) other (NRSV, BLE, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 28:9 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB) other (BLE, NEB, NAB)

Matt 28:17 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB, NAB) other (BLE, NEB)

Mark 5:6 All of them translate as other than worship accept KJV

Mark 15:19 worship (LIV) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Luke 24:52 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV) other (NAB) (NEB & NASB do not have this verse)

John 9:38 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB) other (BLE, TEV, NEB)

LIV=LIVING BIBLE
NIV=NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
NRSV-NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION
NAB= NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
TEV= TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION
BLE=BIBLE IN LIVING ENGLISH
NEB = NEW ENGLISH BIBLE
NASB= NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

As we can see, there are a number of Bibles who translate this word a number of different ways and the word they choose depends on their own feelings. Since Jesus said it is his Father we are to worship, JW’s recognize that just as it would be inappropriate to translate the word as worship when directed to David, Saul, etc,. it would also be inappropriate to translate it as worship to Jesus unless we ALREADY believed him to be God. NOTE THAT POINT!

To put it simply, “worship” would be the correct word to use if it were already believed the person giving proskyneo to someone else was actually meaning to worship the person he was giving proskyneo to. Christians could translate proskyneo as worship when used with Jesus if they thought that the people were meaning to worship Jesus. If they did not think the person was trying to worship Jesus but was instead trying to show him honor as the King of Israel, like the prophet Nathan did to David, we would use words like homage, reverence and so forth. So to translate proskyneo as “worship” when used in connection with Jesus would first require we already believe he is God and the people meant to worship him. However, we cannot then turn around and use the argument that worship was given to Jesus as proof he is God! That is something we would have had to have already proven before we could even translate proskyneo as worship. Because until we believed Jesus was God we would have no choice but to translate it the same way we translate it every other time it is directed to someone who is not God. Trinitarians thus resort to circular reasoning when they argue that “worship” given to Jesus means he is God since they have to believe he is God before they can translate it as worship.

So yes, TwoHumble, there IS bias going on in translations. On both ends. Since you already believe Jesus is God you feel it is acceptable to translate proskyneo as “worship”. Fine. But don’t use circular reasoning and turn around and tell me that this means Jesus is God! That would be like me saying ‘since only obeisance and not worship is given to Jesus he could not possibly be God.’ You would reject such an argument as ridiculous and you would be correct. Now recognize that your argument falls into the same category! In order to translate proskyneo as “worship” when directed to Jesus you are required to ALREADY believe Jesus is God else you would translate proskyneo as “homage” or the like just like you do every other time it is offered to a king other than God.

It is circular reasoning at its best!

[dizzle]

Oh boy I sure hope Metro doesn't see this. He would have a surprise for you.

[Bib Lit Major]

Of course, instead of a fallacious circular reasoning here, we seem to have a fallacy in assuming that the same word should be translated the same way in all circumstances.

The writer of Hebrews, who explicitly calls the Son, "God" (cf. 1:8, which you'll probably object to) has the angels worship (proskunhsatwsan, proskunesatosan) the Son. Thus, there is substantial reason for considering many instances of this verb as being acts of worship when done towards Jesus. There are also times, such as the 3 magi, when "paying homage" is the way to translate it, not because Jesus isn't God, but because they probably didn't recognize his divinity, thus, they weren't worshipping him.

See, if you really want to talk about bias in translation, the most biased thing you can do is assume that a word always means the same thing (whichever way we believe it should) in all circumstances refering to the same person or group of people.

[NonTrinitarian]

Oh boy I sure hope Metro doesn't see this. He would have a surprise for you.AV and I have already discussed this on another thread. Unless he was holding back something there weren't any surprises.

Of course, instead of a fallacious circular reasoning here, we seem to have a fallacy in assuming that the same word should be translated the same way in all circumstances.

The writer of Hebrews, who explicitly calls the Son, "God" (cf. 1:8, which you'll probably object to) has the angels worship (προσκυνησατωσαν, proskunesatosan) the Son. Thus, there is substantial reason for considering many instances of this verb as being acts of worship when done towards Jesus. There are also times, such as the 3 magi, when "paying homage" is the way to translate it, not because Jesus isn't God, but because they probably didn't recognize his divinity, thus, they weren't worshipping him.

See, if you really want to talk about bias in translation, the most biased thing you can do is assume that a word always means the same thing (whichever way we believe it should) in all circumstances refering to the same person or group of people.Uh, actually it's the fact that the word should NOT be translated the same way all the time (like the KJV does) that is the crux of my argument. It's Trinitarians who say 'See, they translate the word as "worship" when directed towards God. Why don't you be consistent and translate it as worship with Jesus?' So I think we're in agreement on that.

As far as Heb 1:8, I can go either way with the translation. "God is your throne" like the NEB, NRSV option or the BLE or "your throne o God" like most others. I don't have a problem with calling Jesus "god" anymore than Jesus had a problem calling men "god" (John 10:34-36). But that's not appropriate to this thread. However, Heb 1:6 is and as the New Jerusalem Bible reads, an option is "let all the angels of God pay him homage." The New English Bible also reads "let all of God's angels pay him homage."

It goes back to my original argument. These Bibles unanimously translate proskyneo as something other than worship when directed to a kingly representative of God (except the NEB at Rev 3). Why? Because it's obvious the person is not God. So what justification do they have for translating it as "worship" when directed to Jesus? As your reply shows, you believe Jesus is God (based on Heb 1:8 and numerous other scriptures I'm sure) and so choose to go with worship instead of some other word. That's fine. I'm not going to gripe about it. But don't turn around and tell me that since "worship" is given to Jesus this means he is God. You had to establish that before you chose to translate it as "worship" rather than "homage" or something similar.

You can't use your preconceived belief that Jesus is God to base your translation of proskyneo and then turn around and use your translation of proskyneo to support your belief that Jesus is God.

[Bib Lit Major]

My point is that one can't assume that all references to a person must be translated one way or the other in a dichotomy. My point is that we need to let context decide. I wasn't so much trying to argue that Jesus is God because he's worshipped. My point was that your belief that he is not God probably requires you to translate proskunew the same way every time it refers to Jesus, regardless of the context. It is the context which determines the meaning of a word, not our understandings of the ontological status of the person being referred to.

For instance, we translate proskunew at Acts 10:25 as "worship" because we can tell from Peter's response that it is more than "paying homage." Thus, a bias either way of woodenly translating it always as "worship" when referring to Jesus or as "paying homage" when referring to him is what I am critiquing here, and your post, perhaps in your effort to counteract TwoHumble, seems to be guilty of this.

My beef is when you say: In order to translate proskyneo as “worship” when directed to Jesus you are required to ALREADY believe Jesus is God else you would translate proskyneo as “homage” or the like just like you do every other time it is offered to a king other than God.

You're (in the plural sense of you and TwoHumble if your depiction is correct) not analyzing what the word means in specific contexts; you are merely basing your meaning off your understanding of the nature of Christ. My beef is with him also, if he says that just because the word is used with Jesus it should always be translated as "worship." You (NonTrinitarian) seem to hold that, since you believe he is not divine, it should be translated as "pay homage" in passages which deal with Christ. In other words, both of you are already biased and won't let the context decide for itself. You may be willing to admit this bias, but it is still faulty to know you are biased and not let the text speak for itself.

I was not trying to argue that Jesus is God because he is worshipped. My point is that a word should never be translated on the basis of our understanding of the humanity or divinity of the referent, but on the context. If you don't hold to what I am critiquing, then my apologies, but translating it one way or the other because of our understanding of Christ's nature is fallacious.

[NonTrinitarian]

My point is that one can't assume that all references to a person must be translated one way or the other in a dichotomy. My point is that we need to let context decide. I wasn't so much trying to argue that Jesus is God because he's worshipped. My point was that your belief that he is not God probably requires you to translate proskunew the same way every time it refers to Jesus, regardless of the context. It is the context which determines the meaning of a word, not our understandings of the ontological status of the person being referred to.

For instance, we translate proskunew at Acts 10:25 as "worship" because we can tell from Peter's response that it is more than "paying homage." Thus, a bias either way of woodenly translating it always as "worship" when referring to Jesus or as "paying homage" when referring to him is what I am critiquing here, and your post, perhaps in your effort to counteract TwoHumble, seems to be guilty of this. When you say that since TwoHumble believes Jesus is God, he translates the verb as "worship," while you, believing him to be non-divine, translate the verb as "pay homage," that is what my beef is with. You're not analyzing what the word means in specific contexts; you are merely basing your meaning off your understanding of the nature of Christ. My beef is with him also, if he says that just because the word is used with Jesus it should always be translated as "worship."

I was not trying to argue that Jesus is God because he is worshipped. My point is that a word should never be translated on the basis of our understanding of the humanity or divinity of the referent, but on the context.I understand what you are saying and I agree with you believe it or not. But don't ignore the fact that part of the "context" is who the person is that proskyneo is being directed to.

"After that he [Nathan] came in before the king and prostrated himself (proskyneo, LXX) to the king with his face to the earth." -1 King 1:23

Now replace the phrase "the King" with "YHWH" and practically every Bible out there would have translated this as 'put his face to the earth and worshipped YHWH.' Same with all the other verses I mentioned in the first post. Who proskyneo is directed IS the basis for many differences in the translation of proskyneo.

We can take the exact same sentence and replace David or Saul or whoever with the name YHWH and immediately proskyneo changes from obeisance, homange, bowed before, etc., to the word "worship". Why the difference? Because the context is that of it being directed to God rather than His human representative. Why do Trinitarians not do the same with Jesus? Because they believe he is God and that the people were doing more than giving him their honor as their rightful king. If they didn't think Jesus was God they would translate it the same way they do with all the other instances it is directed to humans.

A person walks up to David, falls to the earth and gives him proskyneo and it's obeisance or homage.

A person walks up to Jesus, falls to the earth and gives him proskyneo and it's worship.

And since they think Jesus is God it is appropriate for them to translate it as worship. My beef is when they turn around and use their translation to prove he is God.

[Bib Lit Major]

Actually, Trinitarians translate it many times when referring to Jesus as "paying homage," based on context. While the person's nature is part of the context, it is not the deciding factor, as I just said. Let's pretend you are a Trinitarian like me. We read the story of the three magi and we see that they proskuneo (to use the word improperly) Jesus. What you seem to be saying is that, since, you and I believe he is God, we should translate it as "they worshiped" Jesus. However, that would be unlikely, they probably "paid homage" to him, not knowing or believing him to be God like you (in this hypothetical) and me. See, in this case, it was something other than the non/divinity of Jesus that decided what sense was best.

What is important to determining the meaning of proskuneo is not our understanding of Christ's nature, or even Christ's real nature apart from however humans perceive it, but the understanding of the person who is doing the action. That is the important way that a person's nature is part of the context, since most instances of proskuneo are in narratives. Thus, we have to take into account the feelings and perceptions of the character as being more determinative for meaning than our own.

There's also something that seems fallacious in your insistence that if you switched David with YHWH, it would change from "pay homage" to "worship," because the usage of proskuneo would have to change, not the person to whom it is being done. Sorry if this seems picky, but I do linguistics as a hobby-soon-to-be profession, so thats where most of my problem comes from.

Anyways, thanks for the exchange so far, and my apologies if I have misunderstood you.

Kevin

[NonTrinitarian]

Actually, Trinitarians translate it many times when referring to Jesus as "paying homage," based on context. While the person's nature is part of the context, it is not the deciding factor, as I just said. Let's pretend you are a Trinitarian like me. We read the story of the three magi and we see that they proskuneo (to use the word improperly) Jesus. What you seem to be saying is that, since, you and I believe he is God, we should translate it as "they worshiped" Jesus. However, that would be unlikely, they probably "paid homage" to him, not knowing or believing him to be God like you (in this hypothetical) and me. See, in this case, it was something other than the non/divinity of Jesus that decided what sense was best.And I don't dispute that accept that I never said we would always translate it as worship whenever it was directed to Jesus, even if we thought he was God. Which is why in my very first post I listed a number of Bibles whose translators do believe in the divinity of Jesus but do not translate it as worship. I was not implying that these translators were saying they did not believe Jesus was God. In fact, I mentioned that very account you just mentioned to demonstrate that context is what we need to examine and in that instance it was unlikely that their intent was to "worship" Jesus. However, IF the astrologers DID believe Jesus was God and we KNEW they believed Jesus was GOD, we would then translate that word as worship. Correct? So again, it was not totally something other than the non/divinity of Jesus that decided how to quote. They didn't think he was God and so we rightly didn't assume they were "worshipping" him.

What is important to determining the meaning of proskuneo is not our understanding of Christ's nature, or even Christ's real nature apart from however humans perceive it, but the understanding of the person who is doing the action. That is the important way that a person's nature is part of the context, since most instances of proskuneo are in narratives. Thus, we have to take into account the feelings and perceptions of the character as being more determinative for meaning than our own.And this has been my argument from the beginning. Since I don't belive these people thought Jesus was God, and since I don't believe Jesus is God, I see no reason to translate it as worship when directed to him. There is nothing in their actions that dictate they thought he was God as I have mentioned several accounts where people go before a human king, fall to the ground with their faces to the earth and give him proskyneo.

There's also something that seems fallacious in your insistence that if you switched David with YHWH, it would change from "pay homage" to "worship," because the usage of proskuneo would have to change, not the person to whom it is being done. Sorry if this seems picky, but I do linguistics as a hobby-soon-to-be profession, so thats where most of my problem comes from. Not sure I understand what you are saying here. I am not insisting that proskyneo change to worship when directed to God but I doubt few Bibles would have homage instead of worship in the translation. My point is that the context, primarily dictated by whom the people thought the person they were giving proskyneo to, is the determining factor. in fact, in my very first post at the top of this thread I said this:

To put it simply, “worship” would be the correct word to use if it were already believed the person giving proskyneo to someone else was actually meaning to worship the person he was giving proskyneo to. Christians could translate proskyneo as worship when used with Jesus if they thought that the people were meaning to worship Jesus. If they did not think the person was trying to worship Jesus but was instead trying to show him honor as the King of Israel, like the prophet Nathan did to David, we would use words like homage, reverence and so forth. I believe you have simply repeated what I had already said. Which is cool because we appear to agree on the matter everywhere accept whether or not these people believed Jesus was God. You probably do think they (or at least some) thought he was God and so translate it as worship in a few instances when directed to Jesus. That is fine. I don't have a problem with that as long as you don't turn around and say 'That these people are giving Jesus worship is proof that he is God.' And you haven't said that so I don't think we really have a beef with each other.

Anyways, thanks for the exchange so far, and my apologies if I have misunderstood you.

KevinIt's been a pleasure. Best wishes on your profession.

[sklemetti]

Since the word 'worship' is from the words 'worth' & 'ship' meaning that one is paid honor and homage according to his worth. Jesus can be and is worshipped according to his worth. His worthiness is not that of Jehovah, his Father. but that of the son of Jehoavah.

[Sparko]

Since the word 'worship' is from the words 'worth' & 'ship'

Jesus is worth a boat?

puuuhleeeze.

[spitndirt]

Often in discussions on Jesus’ nature is the point that worship was given to Jesus and only God can be worshipped so Jesus must be God. As I will display below, this argument is circular to an extraordinary degree.

The term rendered “worship” in the NT is proskyneo. One definition of this word is indeed “worship.” Of course, the question of ‘what does it mean to worship someone?’ is in itself a unique discussion and not to be addressed at this time. And that discussion also has to include the matter of whether we humans can say definitely that someone is worshipping someone or even God by our merely observing them. After all, do I not say I worship God and yet most of you would answer “no.”

But proskyneo means much more than just “worship” that is due God. It is also “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet.” Another definition is to “fawn, crouch, prostrate oneself in homage.” Or “to make obeisance, do reverence to.”

This same word rendered to Jesus is also rendered to humans. According to the LXX Abraham rendered proskyneo to the people he did business with (Gen 23:7). Are we saying Abraham was worshipping these men? Nathan gave proskyneo to King David at 1 Kings 1:23. David gave proskyneo to Saul at 1 Sam 24:8. Abigail gave proskyneo to David at 1 Sam 25:23 and 25:41. At 2 Sam 1:2 we see a man who came to David and fell before him giving him proskyneo. None of these instances are understood by most to mean they were actually worshipping the person they were given proskyneo to. Rather, in EACH instance the person who was receiving the proskyneo was recognized to be God’s appointed King and these people honored them as such (except for the account in Gen 23:7). Furthermore, we note this interesting account at 1 Chron 29:20-

“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.” KJV

Here the people offer proskyneo to both YHWH and David. Now why do Bibles not translate this word as “worship” in these instances? It is SOLEY because they have a preconceived belief that these persons are NOT God. Does TwoHumble attack Trinitarian Bibles for being “inconsistent” in their rendering proskyneo as “worship” to God but as something else when it is rendered to the king? I think not.

The same issue exists in the NT. Proskyneo is given to Jesus but should we translate it as worship? No more so than we should translate it as worship at Rev. 3:9 when proskyneo is directed to humans. Firstly we note that most Bibles do not translate it as worship all the time. In fact, to my knowledge, the King James Version is the only Bible that translates it as worship whenever it is applied to Jesus. But is it correct to translate it as worship? Let’s consider an example”

Matthew 2:2 has astrologers asking the question “Where is the one that has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” –NIV

The King James, The Living Bible and Today’s English Version render similarly. But note how other Bibles translate this verse:

“And have come to do him reverence.”- The Bible in Living English
“And have come to pay him homage.”- The New Revised Standard Version
“And have come to do him homage.”-The New American Bible
“And have come to do homage to him.”- The Twentieth Century New Testament
“Have come here to pay homage to him”- The NT in Modern English
“And we have come to pay him homage.”- The New English Bible

Why do these translations use words such as “reverence”, “homage”, or “to bow down” instead of “worship”? The reason is the context does not really call for the word “worship” to be used. Consider first of all who these men were. They were astrologers who did not even worship God. (Otherwise they would not have been astrologers! See Isa 47:13,14) In addition, even if they were godly men, why would they want to worship Jesus? There is no record of them being told he was God. They simply thought he was going to be the king of the Jews. What do you do to a king? You bow down before him, show him reverence, pay homage to him and do obeisance to him. A few verses later (vs 8) King Herod says he wants to see the child to give it proskyneo. Certainly he did not mean he wanted to worship Jesus. Why would he? The information he was given from the chief priests in verse 4 to 6 did not say anything about the Christ being God. And the Jews certainly did not think the Christ was going to be God. So why would Herod want to worship Jesus? Wisely the above mentioned Bibles do not use the word worship in this context. The correct word should show the action of paying respect to a king. Note the instances of the word proskyneo as directed toward Jesus in the Gospels and how different Bibles translate it. The ones in the “Other” column use words other than worship to translate this word.

Matt 2:2 worship (LIV, NIV. TEV, NASB) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, NEB)

Matt 2:8 worship (LIV, NIV, TEV, NASB) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, NEB)

Matt 8:2 worship (LIV) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 9:18 worship (LIV ) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 14:33 worship (NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB) other (NAB, BLE, LIV, NEB)

Matt 15:25 worship (LIV, NAB) other (NRSV, BLE, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 28:9 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB) other (BLE, NEB, NAB)

Matt 28:17 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB, NAB) other (BLE, NEB)

Mark 5:6 All of them translate as other than worship accept KJV

Mark 15:19 worship (LIV) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Luke 24:52 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV) other (NAB) (NEB & NASB do not have this verse)

John 9:38 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB) other (BLE, TEV, NEB)

LIV=LIVING BIBLE
NIV=NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
NRSV-NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION
NAB= NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
TEV= TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION
BLE=BIBLE IN LIVING ENGLISH
NEB = NEW ENGLISH BIBLE
NASB= NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

As we can see, there are a number of Bibles who translate this word a number of different ways and the word they choose depends on their own feelings. Since Jesus said it is his Father we are to worship, JW’s recognize that just as it would be inappropriate to translate the word as worship when directed to David, Saul, etc,. it would also be inappropriate to translate it as worship to Jesus unless we ALREADY believed him to be God. NOTE THAT POINT!

To put it simply, “worship” would be the correct word to use if it were already believed the person giving proskyneo to someone else was actually meaning to worship the person he was giving proskyneo to. Christians could translate proskyneo as worship when used with Jesus if they thought that the people were meaning to worship Jesus. If they did not think the person was trying to worship Jesus but was instead trying to show him honor as the King of Israel, like the prophet Nathan did to David, we would use words like homage, reverence and so forth. So to translate proskyneo as “worship” when used in connection with Jesus would first require we already believe he is God and the people meant to worship him. However, we cannot then turn around and use the argument that worship was given to Jesus as proof he is God! That is something we would have had to have already proven before we could even translate proskyneo as worship. Because until we believed Jesus was God we would have no choice but to translate it the same way we translate it every other time it is directed to someone who is not God. Trinitarians thus resort to circular reasoning when they argue that “worship” given to Jesus means he is God since they have to believe he is God before they can translate it as worship.

So yes, TwoHumble, there IS bias going on in translations. On both ends. Since you already believe Jesus is God you feel it is acceptable to translate proskyneo as “worship”. Fine. But don’t use circular reasoning and turn around and tell me that this means Jesus is God! That would be like me saying ‘since only obeisance and not worship is given to Jesus he could not possibly be God.’ You would reject such an argument as ridiculous and you would be correct. Now recognize that your argument falls into the same category! In order to translate proskyneo as “worship” when directed to Jesus you are required to ALREADY believe Jesus is God else you would translate proskyneo as “homage” or the like just like you do every other time it is offered to a king other than God.

It is circular reasoning at its best!

Hmmm....I don't get it. What form of worship should Jesus not receive from us?

(perplexed and scratching head):smile:

[sklemetti]

Jesus is worth a boat?

puuuhleeeze.

That is not what it said.


Main Entry:
Pronunciation:
\ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
Date:
before 12th century

[Sparko]

That is not what it said.


Main Entry:
Pronunciation:
\ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
Date:
before 12th century

There. I highlighted the part you seem to have missed.

DIVINE BEING.

In Christianity there is only ONE Divine Being. God.

[Weboh2]

soThere. I highlighted the part you seem to have missed.

DIVINE BEING.

In Christianity there is only ONE Divine Being. God. Actually the angels are divine and deities, but they are irrelevant when compared to YHWH.

[IncRus]

Often in discussions on Jesus’ nature is the point that worship was given to Jesus and only God can be worshipped so Jesus must be God. As I will display below, this argument is circular to an extraordinary degree.

The term rendered “worship” in the NT is proskyneo. One definition of this word is indeed “worship.” Of course, the question of ‘what does it mean to worship someone?’ is in itself a unique discussion and not to be addressed at this time. And that discussion also has to include the matter of whether we humans can say definitely that someone is worshipping someone or even God by our merely observing them. After all, do I not say I worship God and yet most of you would answer “no.”

But proskyneo means much more than just “worship” that is due God. It is also “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet.” Another definition is to “fawn, crouch, prostrate oneself in homage.” Or “to make obeisance, do reverence to.”

This same word rendered to Jesus is also rendered to humans. According to the LXX Abraham rendered proskyneo to the people he did business with (Gen 23:7). Are we saying Abraham was worshipping these men? Nathan gave proskyneo to King David at 1 Kings 1:23. David gave proskyneo to Saul at 1 Sam 24:8. Abigail gave proskyneo to David at 1 Sam 25:23 and 25:41. At 2 Sam 1:2 we see a man who came to David and fell before him giving him proskyneo. None of these instances are understood by most to mean they were actually worshipping the person they were given proskyneo to. Rather, in EACH instance the person who was receiving the proskyneo was recognized to be God’s appointed King and these people honored them as such (except for the account in Gen 23:7). Furthermore, we note this interesting account at 1 Chron 29:20-

“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.” KJV

Here the people offer proskyneo to both YHWH and David. Now why do Bibles not translate this word as “worship” in these instances? It is SOLEY because they have a preconceived belief that these persons are NOT God. Does TwoHumble attack Trinitarian Bibles for being “inconsistent” in their rendering proskyneo as “worship” to God but as something else when it is rendered to the king? I think not.

The same issue exists in the NT. Proskyneo is given to Jesus but should we translate it as worship? No more so than we should translate it as worship at Rev. 3:9 when proskyneo is directed to humans. Firstly we note that most Bibles do not translate it as worship all the time. In fact, to my knowledge, the King James Version is the only Bible that translates it as worship whenever it is applied to Jesus. But is it correct to translate it as worship? Let’s consider an example”

Matthew 2:2 has astrologers asking the question “Where is the one that has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” –NIV

The King James, The Living Bible and Today’s English Version render similarly. But note how other Bibles translate this verse:

“And have come to do him reverence.”- The Bible in Living English
“And have come to pay him homage.”- The New Revised Standard Version
“And have come to do him homage.”-The New American Bible
“And have come to do homage to him.”- The Twentieth Century New Testament
“Have come here to pay homage to him”- The NT in Modern English
“And we have come to pay him homage.”- The New English Bible

Why do these translations use words such as “reverence”, “homage”, or “to bow down” instead of “worship”? The reason is the context does not really call for the word “worship” to be used. Consider first of all who these men were. They were astrologers who did not even worship God. (Otherwise they would not have been astrologers! See Isa 47:13,14) In addition, even if they were godly men, why would they want to worship Jesus? There is no record of them being told he was God. They simply thought he was going to be the king of the Jews. What do you do to a king? You bow down before him, show him reverence, pay homage to him and do obeisance to him. A few verses later (vs 8) King Herod says he wants to see the child to give it proskyneo. Certainly he did not mean he wanted to worship Jesus. Why would he? The information he was given from the chief priests in verse 4 to 6 did not say anything about the Christ being God. And the Jews certainly did not think the Christ was going to be God. So why would Herod want to worship Jesus? Wisely the above mentioned Bibles do not use the word worship in this context. The correct word should show the action of paying respect to a king. Note the instances of the word proskyneo as directed toward Jesus in the Gospels and how different Bibles translate it. The ones in the “Other” column use words other than worship to translate this word.

Matt 2:2 worship (LIV, NIV. TEV, NASB) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, NEB)

Matt 2:8 worship (LIV, NIV, TEV, NASB) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, NEB)

Matt 8:2 worship (LIV) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 9:18 worship (LIV ) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 14:33 worship (NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB) other (NAB, BLE, LIV, NEB)

Matt 15:25 worship (LIV, NAB) other (NRSV, BLE, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Matt 28:9 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB) other (BLE, NEB, NAB)

Matt 28:17 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB, NAB) other (BLE, NEB)

Mark 5:6 All of them translate as other than worship accept KJV

Mark 15:19 worship (LIV) other (NRSV, BLE, NAB, TEV, NEB, NASB, NIV)

Luke 24:52 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, TEV) other (NAB) (NEB & NASB do not have this verse)

John 9:38 worship (LIV, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB) other (BLE, TEV, NEB)

LIV=LIVING BIBLE
NIV=NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
NRSV-NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION
NAB= NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
TEV= TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION
BLE=BIBLE IN LIVING ENGLISH
NEB = NEW ENGLISH BIBLE
NASB= NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

As we can see, there are a number of Bibles who translate this word a number of different ways and the word they choose depends on their own feelings. Since Jesus said it is his Father we are to worship, JW’s recognize that just as it would be inappropriate to translate the word as worship when directed to David, Saul, etc,. it would also be inappropriate to translate it as worship to Jesus unless we ALREADY believed him to be God. NOTE THAT POINT!

To put it simply, “worship” would be the correct word to use if it were already believed the person giving proskyneo to someone else was actually meaning to worship the person he was giving proskyneo to. Christians could translate proskyneo as worship when used with Jesus if they thought that the people were meaning to worship Jesus. If they did not think the person was trying to worship Jesus but was instead trying to show him honor as the King of Israel, like the prophet Nathan did to David, we would use words like homage, reverence and so forth. So to translate proskyneo as “worship” when used in connection with Jesus would first require we already believe he is God and the people meant to worship him. However, we cannot then turn around and use the argument that worship was given to Jesus as proof he is God! That is something we would have had to have already proven before we could even translate proskyneo as worship. Because until we believed Jesus was God we would have no choice but to translate it the same way we translate it every other time it is directed to someone who is not God. Trinitarians thus resort to circular reasoning when they argue that “worship” given to Jesus means he is God since they have to believe he is God before they can translate it as worship.

So yes, TwoHumble, there IS bias going on in translations. On both ends. Since you already believe Jesus is God you feel it is acceptable to translate proskyneo as “worship”. Fine. But don’t use circular reasoning and turn around and tell me that this means Jesus is God! That would be like me saying ‘since only obeisance and not worship is given to Jesus he could not possibly be God.’ You would reject such an argument as ridiculous and you would be correct. Now recognize that your argument falls into the same category! In order to translate proskyneo as “worship” when directed to Jesus you are required to ALREADY believe Jesus is God else you would translate proskyneo as “homage” or the like just like you do every other time it is offered to a king other than God.

It is circular reasoning at its best!

I see your point and it's good! A lot of people argue that Jesus is God because people worshiped him. And if they are asked why they worship Jesus, their answer is because Jesus is God. It is ineed circular reasoning at its best.

And I agree that translators used their pre-conceived belief that Jesus is God to base their translation of "proskyneo" into "worship" instead of "homage." And because Trinitarians see the word "worship" attributed to Jesus, then they argue that Jesus is God because the scripture says people "worshiped" him.

On the other hand, had translators believed that Jesus is a man as John 8:40 states, and the Father is the only true God as John 17:3 declares, translators would have translated "proskyneo" into "homage" instead of "worship" where "proskyneo" is attributed to Jesus.

[Pilgrim]

Often in discussions on Jesus’ nature is the point that worship was given to Jesus and only God can be worshipped so Jesus must be God. As I will display below, this argument is circular to an extraordinary degree. (snip...)

I snipped the rest because it's a waste of time as you're the only person I have ever heard make the above argument. It's just not an argument Christians make. If anything, they make the argument going the other way. Please, before you waste time in the future actually bother to accurately represent the opposing view point. It will make for a much more fulfilling conversation.

[Pilgrim]

A lot of people argue that Jesus is God because people worshiped him...

No they don't. They just don't. The only people who I have ever seen present that argument are constructing straw men.

[Sparko]

so Actually the angels are divine and deities, but they are irrelevant when compared to YHWH.

angels are not divine in the way Christians use the word. Divine means being DIETY. and any time an angel is worshiped in the bible it is condemned. So only GOD is worthy of worship.


Colossians 2:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=2&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

Luke 4:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=4&verse=8&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "

when John tried to worship an angel he was rebuked:

rev 19:10At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

[Weboh2]

angels are not divine in the way Christians use the word. Divine means being DIETY. and any time an angel is worshiped in the bible it is condemned. So only GOD is worthy of worship. They are supernatural, thus they are gods compared to us; but the life-giving God is only one who should be worshipped. I didn't imply otherwise.

[Sparko]

They are supernatural, thus they are gods compared to us; but the life-giving God is only one who should be worshipped. I didn't imply otherwise.

but Jesus accepted worship from people and did not rebuke them. That means he knew he was God.

If he were just an angel, like the JW's claim, he would have rebuked the people like the angel did in Revelation. Same if he were just a man.

[Weboh2]

Yes, Jesus accepted proskunew, but the greek means to bow to, not worship.

[Sparko]

The word is used both for bow down prostrate and worship. bowing down prostrate in front of someone and worshiping them is part of the same act. The very thing that John was reprimanded for doing to the angel in Revelation.

[Weboh2]

The word is used both for bow down prostrate and worship. bowing down prostrate in front of someone and worshiping them is part of the same act. The very thing that John was reprimanded for doing to the angel in Revelation. The word is also used in reference of slaves to owners and subjects to kings. The word means simply to bend ones back far forward in a sign of respect. It doesn't mean worship in the sense of divine prostration.

[Sparko]

The word is also used in reference of slaves to owners and subjects to kings. The word means simply to bend ones back far forward in a sign of respect. It doesn't mean worship in the sense of divine prostration.

when someone bows down to Jesus and says "My Lord and my God!" you no longer have an argument.

[John Goddard]

when someone bows down to Jesus and says "My Lord and my God!" you no longer have an argument.

It would be no different than Aaron hearing the following and saying "Wow Moses, you are my God."

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him (AARON) instead of God.

Jesus speaks and rules over us as God in a similar position, because God put him there, not because Jesus was born a God.

[IncRus]

angels are not divine in the way Christians use the word. Divine means being DIETY. and any time an angel is worshiped in the bible it is condemned. So only GOD is worthy of worship.


Colossians 2:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=2&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

Luke 4:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=4&verse=8&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "

when John tried to worship an angel he was rebuked:

rev 19:10At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Jesus said that God sent him into the world. One who is sent is a messenger. An "angel" is a messenger - and a servant.

Therefore, Jesus is an "angel" or a "fellow-servant" of God - NOT God. Jesus said that only God, the sender must be worshiped.

[IncRus]

when someone bows down to Jesus and says "My Lord and my God!" you no longer have an argument.

When someone bows down to Jesus and says, "My Lord and my God," Jesus would rebuke him saying, "Se that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship God" (Rev. 22:9).

Jesus was a "fellow servant" who was an a"angel" sent by God into the world, much like Moses whom God sent into Egypt.

[Weboh2]

It's rather possible that when in the presence of Jesus and the God, people couldn't bow to Jesus without bowing to the God, because the God's presence was there guiding and making the miracles. The Syrio-phonecian woman didn't know this, and that is why her faith was misplaced in Jesus and not in God.

[Pilgrim]

No one has addressed the point I raised that the entire point of the OP is basically a straw man as no one really ever makes the argument that since Jesus was worshipped he must be God.

[Sparko]

When someone bows down to Jesus and says, "My Lord and my God," Jesus would rebuke him saying, "Se that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship God" (Rev. 22:9).

Jesus was a "fellow servant" who was an a"angel" sent by God into the world, much like Moses whom God sent into Egypt.

except Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he did exactly that. He accepted his claim and worship. John 20.

[Sparko]

No one has addressed the point I raised that the entire point of the OP is basically a straw man as no one really ever makes the argument that since Jesus was worshipped he must be God.

yup. I am making the opposite argument. That because Jesus was God he accepted worship from others.

People worship false Gods all the time. But if Jesus is not God but merely a messenger then he would be wrong to accept worship. He should rebuke any attempt at people worshiping him as the angel did in Revelation.

[Pilgrim]

yup. I am making the opposite argument. That because Jesus was God he accepted worship from others.

People worship false Gods all the time. But if Jesus is not God but merely a messenger then he would be wrong to accept worship. He should rebuke any attempt at people worshiping him as the angel did in Revelation.

Exactly. Jesus is not God because people worshipped him, people worshipped him because he is God.

[IncRus]

When someone bows down to Jesus and says, "My Lord and my God," Jesus would rebuke him saying, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship God" (Rev. 22:9).

Jesus was a "fellow servant" who was an "angel" sent by God into the world, much like Moses whom God sent into Egyptexcept Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he did exactly that. He accepted his claim and worship. John 20.

Jesus knew that Thomas was not calling him God and was not worshiping him. But Jesus rebuked Thomas for not believing that he had risen unless he sees him first.

In John 20:29 Jesus said to Thomas: "Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed...."

What did Thomas believe because he had seen Jesus?

To answer this question, go back to John 20:25 where the other disciples tell Thomas, "We have seen the Lord." But Thomas said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hands into his side, I will not believe."

Did Thomas put his hand into the side of Jesus when Jesus told him to do that in John 20:27? No, Thomas did not do anything. Instead, Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.

How did Jesus know that Thomas had believed when Thomas did not put his hand into the side of Jesus? Jesus knew that Thomas had believed that he had indeed risen without even putting his hand into his side when Thomas said, "My Lord and my God."

Jesus understood that Thomas' statement was an expression of belief - not a declaration that Jesus is his God nor an act or worship.

[IncRus]

yup. I am making the opposite argument. That because Jesus was God he accepted worship from others.

People worship false Gods all the time. But if Jesus is not God but merely a messenger then he would be wrong to accept worship. He should rebuke any attempt at people worshiping him as the angel did in Revelation.

The "angel" in Rev. 22:8 who "showed John these things" is Jesus whom the Lord God of the Holy prophets "sent to show His servants the things which must shortly take place" (Rev. 22:6).

The Book of Revelations is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show His servants - things which must shortly take place. And He (God) sent and signified it by His angel (Jesus Christ) to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1).

In Rev. 22:8, John "fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed him these things" but the angel said to him, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" (Rev. 22:9).

[Sparko]

Jesus knew that Thomas was not calling him God and was not worshiping him. But Jesus rebuked Thomas for not believing that he had risen unless he sees him first.

In John 20:29 Jesus said to Thomas: "Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed...."

What did Thomas believe because he had seen Jesus?

To answer this question, go back to John 20:25 where the other disciples tell Thomas, "We have seen the Lord." But Thomas said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hands into his side, I will not believe."

Did Thomas put his hand into the side of Jesus when Jesus told him to do that in John 20:27? No, Thomas did not do anything. Instead, Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.

How did Jesus know that Thomas had believed when Thomas did not put his hand into the side of Jesus? Jesus knew that Thomas had believed that he had indeed risen without even putting his hand into his side when Thomas said, "My Lord and my God."

Jesus understood that Thomas' statement was an expression of belief - not a declaration that Jesus is his God nor an act or worship.

It is fascinating watching how you will twist everything to your point of view no matter what.

Me: what If someone worships Jesus and calls him My Lord and God?

Incrus: He would rebuke him

Me: But Thomas did exactly that and Jesus accepted it without rebuke

Incrus: er.... but Jesus knew he wasnt REALLY worshiping him or calling him God so it was OK.

:lmbo:

So Jesus accepts FALSE worship and claims to being God from people, but if they were sincere then he would rebuke them?

:lmbo:

[Sparko]

The "angel" in Rev. 22:8 who "showed John these things" is Jesus whom the Lord God of the Holy prophets "sent to show His servants the things which must shortly take place" (Rev. 22:6).

The Book of Revelations is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show His servants - things which must shortly take place. And He (God) sent and signified it by His angel (Jesus Christ) to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1).

In Rev. 22:8, John "fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed him these things" but the angel said to him, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" (Rev. 22:9).

bzzt. read on Incrus: verse 16

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Jesus sent that angel. HIS angel. gee who has angels except God himself?

[IncRus]

It is fascinating watching how you will twist everything to your point of view no matter what.

Me: what If someone worships Jesus and calls him My Lord and God?

Incrus: He would rebuke him

Me: But Thomas did exactly that and Jesus accepted it without rebuke

Incrus: er.... but Jesus knew he wasnt REALLY worshiping him or calling him God so it was OK.

:lmbo:

So Jesus accepts FALSE worship and claims to being God from people, but if they were sincere then he would rebuke them?

:lmbo:

As I said, Jesus did not see Thomas' statement as a declaration that he is his God nor did Jesus see it as an act of worship.

Jesus saw Thomas' statement as an "expression of belief" that Jesus had indeed risen. Thomas did not put his hand into the side of Jesus. Neither did Thomas say "I believe you have indeed risen." Yet Jesus knew that Thomas had believed. How did Jesus know? Jesus knew because Thomas' said, "My Lord and my God" instead of putting his hand into Jesus' side.

[IncRus]

The "angel" in Rev. 22:8 who "showed John these things" is Jesus whom the Lord God of the Holy prophets "sent to show His servants the things which must shortly take place" (Rev. 22:6).

The Book of Revelations is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show His servants - things which must shortly take place. And He (God) sent and signified it by His angel (Jesus Christ) to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1).

In Rev. 22:8, John "fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed him these things" but the angel said to him, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" (Rev. 22:9).
bzzt. read on Incrus: verse 16

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Jesus sent that angel. HIS angel. gee who has angels except God himself?

God sent His "angel" Jesus to show His servant John, the things that must shortly take place (Rev. 22:6; 1:1). John fell down to worship this "angel" who "showed him these things" (Rev. 22:8). This "angel" who "showed John these things which must shortly take place" rebuked John saying, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prohets and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" (Rev. 22:9).

Jesus in turn sent his "angel" to "testify" to John these things that Jesus showed him "in the churches" (Rev. 22:16).

It is not only God who can send "angels." An "angel" is one who is sent or a messenger. Apostle Paul is an "angel" or a "messenger" sent by Jesus to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

[Sparko]

God sent His "angel" Jesus to show His servant John, the things that must shortly take place (Rev. 22:6; 1:1). John fell down to worship this "angel" who "showed him these things" (Rev. 22:8). This "angel" who "showed John these things which must shortly take place" rebuked John saying, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prohets and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" (Rev. 22:9).

Jesus in turn sent his "angel" to "testify" to John these things that Jesus showed him "in the churches" (Rev. 22:16).

It is not only God who can send "angels." An "angel" is one who is sent or a messenger. Apostle Paul is an "angel" or a "messenger" sent by Jesus to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.


It is obvious that the angel John bows down to is NOT Jesus because right after that, Jesus says he sent the angel. They are not the same being. Ignoring plain language as you do does not change anything. It just shows everyone else reading the thread that you will do anything to keep from admitting you are wrong. It's really funny. :rofl:

[Sparko]

As I said, Jesus did not see Thomas' statement as a declaration that he is his God nor did Jesus see it as an act of worship.

so now you can read both Thomas' and Jesus' minds? Quite a feat. It says that Thomas called Jesus God and Jesus did not rebuke him. The plain language of the verse in greek says literally: "The Lord of me and the God of ME"

That is plainly Thomas acknowledging that Jesus was God.

keep twisting and turning.

[Pilgrim]

so now you can read both Thomas' and Jesus' minds? Quite a feat. It says that Thomas called Jesus God and Jesus did not rebuke him. The plain language of the verse in greek says literally: "The Lord of me and the God of ME"

That is plainly Thomas acknowledging that Jesus was God.

keep twisting and turning.

Sparko, just let it go. Incrus is not interested in the plain language or the truth. He doesn't approach the topic looking for the truth. He approaches it looking for a way to simply affirm what he already has chosen to believe. We went around and around with him on this.

[IncRus]

It is obvious that the angel John bows down to is NOT Jesus because right after that, Jesus says he sent the angel. They are not the same being. Ignoring plain language as you do does not change anything. It just shows everyone else reading the thread that you will do anything to keep from admitting you are wrong. It's really funny. :rofl:

Rev. 22:16 is not "right after" Rev. 22:9.

[IncRus]

so now you can read both Thomas' and Jesus' minds? Quite a feat. It says that Thomas called Jesus God and Jesus did not rebuke him. The plain language of the verse in greek says literally: "The Lord of me and the God of ME"

That is plainly Thomas acknowledging that Jesus was God.

keep twisting and turning.

The subject of the verbal exchange between Jesus and Thomnas is Thomas' not believing that Jesus had indeed risen. This is evident in John 20:25.

But Trinitrarians keep twisting and turning John 20:28 to fit their pre-conceived false belief that Jesuys is God.

[IncRus]

Sparko, just let it go. Incrus is not interested in the plain language or the truth. He doesn't approach the topic looking for the truth. He approaches it looking for a way to simply affirm what he already has chosen to believe. We went around and around with him on this.


Why don't you relate Jonh 20:28 to John 20:25 and "see?" You have been blinded for too long!

[John Goddard]

The subject of the verbal exchange between Jesus and Thomnas is Thomas' not believing that Jesus had indeed risen. This is evident in John 20:25.

But Trinitrarians keep twisting and turning John 20:28 to fit their pre-conceived false belief that Jesuys is God.

I gave an explanation a while back.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him (AARON) instead of God.

AARON TO MOSES: "Moses, you are my God!"

[Sparko]

Sparko, just let it go. Incrus is not interested in the plain language or the truth. He doesn't approach the topic looking for the truth. He approaches it looking for a way to simply affirm what he already has chosen to believe. We went around and around with him on this.

I just find it fascinating how his mind will twist the most plain language into something else just to fit his preconceptions.

Incrus reminds me of Jesus' words in Matthew 13:13

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

[IncRus]

Sparko, just let it go. Incrus is not interested in the plain language or the truth. He doesn't approach the topic looking for the truth. He approaches it looking for a way to simply affirm what he already has chosen to believe. We went around and around with him on this.
I just find it fascinating how his mind will twist the most plain language into something else just to fit his preconceptions.

Incrus reminds me of Jesus' words in Matthew 13:13

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Matthew 13:13 is addressed to Trinitarians who see and hear John 8:40 and John 17:3 but they do not understand. John 8:40 says Jesus is MAN while John 17:3 says the Father is the ONLY true God.

"In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes. "

[IncRus]

The subject of the verbal exchange between Jesus and Thomnas is Thomas' not believing that Jesus had indeed risen. This is evident in John 20:25.

But Trinitrarians keep twisting and turning John 20:28to fit their pre-conceived false belief that Jesus is God.
II gave an explanation a while back.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him (AARON) instead of God.

AARON TO MOSES: "Moses, you are my God!"

This is how the Today's English Version renders Exodus 4:16: "He will be your spokesman and speak to the people for you. Then you will be like God, telling him what to say."

Moses was never God to Aaron.