NewStats: 3,259,820 , 8,170,939 topics. Date: Monday, 26 May 2025 at 04:54 AM kf4

Nachmonides:


Later in John 1:14, the Word becomes flesh, pointing to the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.


What do you have to say about it?

the word becoming flesh, points to the word Apostle John was writing about of which John the Baptist bears witness to.

Scripture says, God sends forth his word, HIS word not he himself, the word of God was never called God, it was treated as Holy as Jesus is the Holy one of God and the term or idea of God's incarnation isn't even scriptural it's down right gnostics

gohf:
how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

you quote an exclamation of Thomas written by John who went unto to conclude in that very chapter John.20.31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

There's a reason new living translation puts it
John.20.28 "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.

Even if you do not understand verse 28 understand verse 31 of what you are expected to believe.

if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God.

John 1:1 is the word was God's or the word is from God, I have written the explanation previously about the difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.

And I have also spoke on John 8:58, where I explained the term eimi, used in Greek doesn't mean God either in that verse nor in the context of the conversation in that chapter, even explaining the difference between what was here and what was said in Exodus 3:14 which is who God is and how it relates to the name of God revealed in Exodus 6:3.

Did Jesus exist before Abraham yes he did
God reveals himself as the one who causes things to exist, who is self existing

Is Jesus self existing? No, did he come from God? Yes


Why don't you show us the trinity in Genesis 1:1
Which is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Hebrews 1:6 states: “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'”


Angels don't know everything, as we will find out in scriptures. The declaration of worship is tied to his incarnation. Not a general declaration.

Also, The command for angels to worship Jesus affirmed His divine nature and position as the Son of God, as well as the importance of His mission.

The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity.

Nachmonides:


I started by saying

There are many ages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God.

Why would the Son of God be worshipped if God is the only one deserving of worship according to scriptures; the old testament especially.

Even in scripture the son is to be worshipped but was NEVER referred to as God.

You are trying to do maths with God, because God is worshipped and the son is worshipped is therefore means the son is God.

Yet do you understand what worship is?

The son is worshipped as the one who obeyed God and redeemed us

Rev.5.12 saying with a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!"

In this verse 12, this is why Jesus is worshipped

Rev.5.13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"

gohf:
the word becoming flesh, points to the word Apostle John was writing about of which John the Baptist bears witness to.

Scripture says, God sends forth his word, HIS word not he himself, the word of God was never called God, it was treated as Holy as Jesus is the Holy one of God and the term or idea of God's incarnation isn't even scriptural it's down right gnostics

The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

Nachmonides:


The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

John1:14-15 (NLT)

14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.

15 John testified about him [/b]when he shouted to the crowds, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘Someone is coming after me [b]who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’”

I just realized I was using the NLT instead of your cherished NWT

I perceive you're a Jehovah's Witness.
Correct me if I'm wrong before I go on.

gohf:
how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

you quote an exclamation of Thomas written by John who went unto to conclude in that very chapter John.20.31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

There's a reason new living translation puts it
John.20.28 "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.

Even if you do not understand verse 28 understand verse 31 of what you are expected to believe.

if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God.

John 1:1 is the word was God's or the word is from God, I have written the explanation previously about the difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.

And I have also spoke on John 8:58, where I explained the term eimi, used in Greek doesn't mean God either in that verse nor in the context of the conversation in that chapter, even explaining the difference between what was here and what was said in Exodus 3:14 which is who God is and how it relates to the name of God revealed in Exodus 6:3.

Did Jesus exist before Abraham yes he did
God reveals himself as the one who causes things to exist, who is self existing

Is Jesus self existing? No, did he come from God? Yes


Why don't you show us the trinity in Genesis 1:1
Which is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

In Genesis.

Genesis 1:1
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth—



The word for God there is Plural, not singular.

We see another hint of this plurality in V.26 when it says, "Let us make man..."

Nachmonides:



Acts 5:3-4 (Lying to the Holy Spirit)

In Acts 5:3-4, Peter says that Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and then equates that with lying to God:
“You have not lied to men but to God.”

This statement directly connects the Holy Spirit to God. The refusal to recognize the Holy Spirit as God here contradicts the clear scriptural teaching that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, as seen in ages like Acts 5:3-4, and also in 1 Corinthians 3:16 where Paul says that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit were not divine, such a declaration would be misleading.

You have lied to the Holy Spirit, yet it was Peter that they lied to? Wasn't it. Or is Peter the Holy Spirit? Of course not. So why would Peter say such a thing, it is because Jesus taught them that
Matt.10.40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

Another translation
Matt.10.40 "Anyone who welcomes you is welcoming me, and anyone who welcomes me is welcoming the Father who sent me.

Genesis 39:9 Joseph said how can he do such and sin against God? What he was going to do was to a human but he considered it a sin against God, was he saying that Potiphar is God? Obviously not.

To lie to a man of God is to lie both to the Spirit that is with him and to God who sent him. Especially in the issue relating with ananais and his wife's offense which wasn't just because of money.

1Cor.3.16 Don't you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you?

Is it God that dwells in us? No, but the Spirit of God, did Paul not also write
1Cor.6.19 Or don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself,

That our body is the temple the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit

But does God not dwell with us, He does, He dwells with us not in us
2Cor.6.16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." (NKJV)

For Jesus said in John.14.23 Jesus replied, "All those who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and live with them.

So do you understand that we all are like Paul and Peter said

Eph.2.21 In him the whole building is ed together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
1Pet.2.5 And now God is building you, as living stones, into his spiritual temple. What's more, you are God's holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.

Nachmonides:


The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

For everyone reading this thread who is not aware:


The New World Translation (NWT), which is the Bible translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, has a distinct rendering of John 1:1 that differs from most other translations, especially in its handling of the phrase that refers to Jesus as "the Word."

Let's look at John 1:1in both the Greek and the NWT, focusing on the key differences.

John 1:1 (Greek Text)

The Greek text of John 1:1 (based on the Textus Receptus) reads:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Translation (Literal): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."



NWT Translation of John 1:1

The NWT renders John 1:1 as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1, NWT)


"the Word was God" vs. "the Word was a god":

In the Greek text, the phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (translated as "the Word was God" ) clearly presents the Word (Jesus) as God. The word "θεὸς" (theos) is a noun that can refer to the one true God, and the verb "ἦν" (ēn) is a form of "to be," indicating identity (i.e., the Word was God).

The NWT, however, translates this phrase as "the Word was a god." The indefinite article "a" is inserted, suggesting a lower god or a divine being who is not the Almighty God (YHWH) but rather a subordinate deity. This rendering is not ed by the Greek grammar or context, and is a significant departure from the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus' divinity.

This is dishonesty to the greek in which John wrote his gospel. This is what the JW's run by.

Nachmonides:


For everyone reading this thread who is not aware:


The New World Translation (NWT), which is the Bible translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, has a distinct rendering of John 1:1 that differs from most other translations, especially in its handling of the phrase that refers to Jesus as "the Word."

Let's look at John 1:1in both the Greek and the NWT, focusing on the key differences.

John 1:1 (Greek Text)

The Greek text of John 1:1 (based on the Textus Receptus) reads:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Translation (Literal): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."



NWT Translation of John 1:1

The NWT renders John 1:1 as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1, NWT)


"the Word was God" vs. "the Word was a god":

In the Greek text, the phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (translated as "the Word was God" ) clearly presents the Word (Jesus) as God. The word "θεὸς" (theos) is a noun that can refer to the one true God, and the verb "ἦν" (ēn) is a form of "to be," indicating identity (i.e., the Word was God).

The NWT, however, translates this phrase as "the Word was a god." The indefinite article "a" is inserted, suggesting a lower god or a divine being who is not the Almighty God (YHWH) but rather a subordinate deity. This rendering is not ed by the Greek grammar or context, and is a significant departure from the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus' divinity.

This is dishonesty to the greek in which John wrote his gospel. This is what the JW's run by.

The reliability on the theology of John hangs on the very first verse and chapter of his gospel.

Nachmonides do please listen
"Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10)

Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is described as an unforgivable sin. The fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable signifies that the Holy Spirit is of divine importance and has the same authority as God. This would be nonsensical if the Holy Spirit were not considered God, as blasphemy against a mere created being wouldn't hold such weight."

My response: why should it be nonsensical, but becomes sensible when one imposes that the spirit of God is God. Then does God who forgives become unforgiving when he dwells with us as the Holy Spirit. Do you not the see the implications of trying to impose what is not true so as to accept an instruction from Jesus.

If you knew the scripture should you not also know that it is written
Exod.23.20 - "See, I am sending my angel before you to lead you safely to the land I have prepared for you.
Exod.23.21 - Pay attention to him, and obey all of his instructions. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sins. He is my representative--he bears my name.


Do we then call the angel of God God as well seeing as it should make sense that one who is from God and who wouldn't forgive us would be nonsensical if he wasn't God.

gohf:


You speak of allowance as if it was not God that commanded, do you even know the scripture or the gospel? Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped.

You sound like as if God was allowing money or Satan to be worshipped, so does that mean because it can be worshipped it is god, should we also say well God left people to worship false gods so they are probably other gods as well.

Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God, he is our Lord and husband crowned with eternal glory and majesty by God YHVh his and our Father.

Maybe it's me so I'm inviting others to take a look.
Aren't these two statements contradictory?

Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped.

And

Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God

gohf:
Nachmonides do please listen
"Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10)

Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is described as an unforgivable sin. The fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable signifies that the Holy Spirit is of divine importance and has the same authority as God. This would be nonsensical if the Holy Spirit were not considered God, as blasphemy against a mere created being wouldn't hold such weight."

My response: why should it be nonsensical, but becomes sensible when one imposes that the spirit of God is God. Then does God who forgives become unforgiving when he dwells with us as the Holy Spirit. Do you not the see the implications of trying to impose what is not true so as to accept an instruction from Jesus.

If you knew the scripture should you not also know that it is written
Exod.23.20 - "See, I am sending my angel before you to lead you safely to the land I have prepared for you.
Exod.23.21 - Pay attention to him, and obey all of his instructions. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sins. He is my representative--he bears my name.


Do we then call the angel of God God as well seeing as it should make sense that one who is from God and who wouldn't forgive us would be nonsensical if he wasn't God.

You’re emphasizing that divine authority and representation doesn’t necessarily imply independent divinity, drawing on the example of the angel of God in Exodus.

In both cases (the Holy Spirit and the angel of God), the authority comes from God, but the Holy Spirit is understood in Christian theology as fully divine in a way the angel in Exodus is not. Therefore, the unforgivable nature of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit still holds true, even if we understand the Holy Spirit's role as being distinct but not separate from God the Father and Son.

Nachmonides do listen, you wrote again
"The Holy Spirit's Role (Not Listed for Worship)

The argument that the Holy Spirit is not listed for worship in the same way Jesus is is understandable but misses the point. In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead. While Jesus, as the Son, receives direct worship (Matthew 28:17, John 20:28), the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole. The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored, but rather that the Spirit’s role in the world is often to glorify the Father and the Son (John 16:14). This does not exclude worship, as the Spirit is integral to the divine action in the world and salvation."

Who ever you copied this logic from that, "In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead." Why not state in the Bible? What the heck is biblical theology, is sounds more like the teachings and traditions of men taking precedent against God's word, for Jesus corrected their many erroneous assumptions which contradicted God's word just like this one saying, "the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole." You leave out that he is sent to fellowship with us, to aid us to worship and speak to God.
"The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored" and neither does it stay that we honor him by worshipping him, even when you state his role is to glorify the Father and the son, you still deny his role by suggesting that he is equal to God. Even though Jesus says another comforter, of which he was our comforter while with us before ascension, yet in revelation what we hear of the Spirit is, the Spirit and the bride says come. When you ignore God's word for human imagination you end up in error.

"Jesus Never Revealed the Holy Spirit as God

The argument that Jesus never explicitly referred to the Holy Spirit as God is based on a misunderstanding of biblical revelation. While Jesus did not always explicitly say, "The Holy Spirit is God," He did reveal the Holy Spirit's divine role in many ways:

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, places the Holy Spirit in the same position as the Father and the Son, implying full equality."

The name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one name that the three of them witness to, the name of Jesus, it is not about position nor title. Is the name of the Holy Spirit Jesus? But we baptize in the name of Jesus because that's the name revealed by the Father through works, the name beared by the son who died for us, and the name the Holy Spirit testifies of


Do you understand?

Nachmonides be patient and hear God's word, insisting on your own wisdom while refusing it will not save you

John 14:16-17: Jesus speaks of sending another Advocate, the Spirit of truth, who will dwell with believers forever. Jesus’ words in this context imply that the Holy Spirit is the continuation of God's presence in the world after His departure.

Jesus and the Apostles Never Called the Three Persons 'Gods'

The word “God” is used in scripture, especially in the Old Testament, to emphasize the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, in the New Testament, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clear, and all are ascribed divine attributes."

When you quote Deut.6.4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. (NLT)
Deut.6.4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (NKJV)




The Hebrew word ECHAD DOES NOT MEAN UNITY.

John 1:1 refers to Jesus as God (the Word was God).

Acts 5:3-4 equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God.

Matthew 28:19 places the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and Son in the context of baptism, signifying the shared divinity of all three persons.

If your argument is that they didn't explicitly mention it, that's a fallacy.

my argument isn't that they don't just mention it, THEY DONT EVEN INFER IT NOR REFER TO IT, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION except in the imaginations of men who twist scripture to cause confusion

gohf:
Nachmonides do listen, you wrote again
"The Holy Spirit's Role (Not Listed for Worship)

The argument that the Holy Spirit is not listed for worship in the same way Jesus is is understandable but misses the point. In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead. While Jesus, as the Son, receives direct worship (Matthew 28:17, John 20:28), the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole. The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored, but rather that the Spirit’s role in the world is often to glorify the Father and the Son (John 16:14). This does not exclude worship, as the Spirit is integral to the divine action in the world and salvation."

Who ever you copied this logic from that, "In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead." Why not state in the Bible? What the heck is biblical theology, is sounds more like the teachings and traditions of men taking precedent against God's word, for Jesus corrected their many erroneous assumptions which contradicted God's word just like this one saying, "the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole." You leave out that he is sent to fellowship with us, to aid us to worship and speak to God.
"The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored" and neither does it stay that we honor him by worshipping him, even when you state his role is to glorify the Father and the son, you still deny his role by suggesting that he is equal to God. Even though Jesus says another comforter, of which he was our comforter while with us before ascension, yet in revelation what we hear of the Spirit is, the Spirit and the bride says come. When you ignore God's word for human imagination you end up in error.

"Jesus Never Revealed the Holy Spirit as God

The argument that Jesus never explicitly referred to the Holy Spirit as God is based on a misunderstanding of biblical revelation. While Jesus did not always explicitly say, "The Holy Spirit is God," He did reveal the Holy Spirit's divine role in many ways:

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, places the Holy Spirit in the same position as the Father and the Son, implying full equality."

The name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one name that the three of them witness to, the name of Jesus, it is not about position nor title. Is the name of the Holy Spirit Jesus? But we baptize in the name of Jesus because that's the name revealed by the Father through works, the name beared by the son who died for us, and the name the Holy Spirit testifies of


Do you understand?

I understand you.
Since you're a JW (you have not dismissed my assumption), I'd advise you always consult the Hebrew when reading the O.T, the Greek when reading the N.T and do proper study on the words therein.


Bible theology simply means the proper explanation of the Bible contextually; culture, grammar, location, e.t.c

Not the tradition of men.
It's more like reading a book and coming to a conclusion that this is what the author is saying.

gohf:
Nachmonides be patient and hear God's word, insisting on your own wisdom while refusing it will not save you

John 14:16-17: Jesus speaks of sending another Advocate, the Spirit of truth, who will dwell with believers forever. Jesus’ words in this context imply that the Holy Spirit is the continuation of God's presence in the world after His departure.

Jesus and the Apostles Never Called the Three Persons 'Gods'

The word “God” is used in scripture, especially in the Old Testament, to emphasize the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, in the New Testament, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clear, and all are ascribed divine attributes."

When you quote Deut.6.4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. (NLT)
Deut.6.4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (NKJV)




The Hebrew word ECHAD DOES NOT MEAN UNITY.





my argument isn't that they don't just mention it, THEY DONT EVEN INFER IT NOR REFER TO IT, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION except in the imaginations of men who twist scripture to cause confusion

I have talked about the Hebrew word ECHAD; one, unity.

Other words like YACHID means; only, unique




Like I said, always refer to the originals

Nachmonides:



Hebrews 1:6 states: “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'”


Angels don't know everything, as we will find out in scriptures. The declaration of worship is tied to his incarnation. Not a general declaration.

Also, The command for angels to worship Jesus affirmed His divine nature and position as the Son of God, as well as the importance of His mission.

The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity.

my post wasn't about whether or not angels knew everything, don't be cunny

Is that your attempt to answer or rebuff what I said here
"if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God."

The declaration of worship is NOT tied to any silly incarnation logic of yours but a command from God. Whether you choose to undermines it as, "a general declaration or not a general declaration" is a reflection of you continuous rejection of what is written as it regards what your opinion is.

Stop sprouting your personal nonsense we decided to go scripture, so what is this, "The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity."

While I continue to use even the very verses you quote you ignore them later blatantly

gohf:
my post wasn't about whether or not angels knew everything, don't be cunny

Is that your attempt to answer or rebuff what I said here
"if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God."

The declaration of worship is NOT tied to any silly incarnation logic of yours but a command from God. Whether you choose to undermines it as, "a general declaration or not a general declaration" is a reflection of you continuous rejection of what is written as it regards what your opinion is.

Stop sprouting your personal nonsense we decided to go scripture, so what is this, "The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity."

While I continue to use even the very verses you quote you ignore them later blatantly

Hebrews 1:6 states: “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'”


And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says

, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'”



His saying is tied to the fact that he brings the firstborn into the world

Is it that hard?

gohf:
my post wasn't about whether or not angels knew everything, don't be cunny

Is that your attempt to answer or rebuff what I said here
"if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God."

The declaration of worship is NOT tied to any silly incarnation logic of yours but a command from God. Whether you choose to undermines it as, "a general declaration or not a general declaration" is a reflection of you continuous rejection of what is written as it regards what your opinion is.

Stop sprouting your personal nonsense we decided to go scripture, so what is this, "The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity."

While I continue to use even the very verses you quote you ignore them later blatantly

What EXACTLY is your position on this topic? Just state it clearly without throwing in a bunch of Bible verses.
Because, honestly (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) it is not clear what your position is

Nachmonides:


The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

I have several translations play Greek and Hebrew

This is what NLT syas

John.1.1 - In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
John.1.2 - He was in the beginning with God.
John.1.3 - He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn't make.
John.1.4 - Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone.
John.1.5 - The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Not because I agree with all of NLTs translations but I do agree that He being with God in the beginning is Jesus and the He mentioned in verse 3 is God.

Jesus was in the beginning with God and God created everything, now in God was life, why WAS and not IS

Why WAS that life the light of men, why WAS

Because Jesus said in John.9.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (NKJV)

And it is this light that John the Baptist testifies of, did John come to testify about God or about the Messiah?

John.1.6 - God sent John the Baptist
John.1.7 - to tell everyone about the light so that everyone might believe because of his testimony.
John.1.8 - John himself was not the light; he was only a witness to the light.
John.1.9 - The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was going to come into the world.

For the world was made through Jesus.


So in WHO was the life, in God and that life was Jesus who came from God and became flesh, and not become an incarnation!


When did God call forth light
Gen.1.3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

The very first word God spoke in the beginning

Nachmonides:


My goal is to align with God's revelation in scripture, not impose human philosophy on it.



Please, instead of being emotional, dismissing it immediately, provide evidences against the argument.
I am willing to review ideas and consider them former if/when I see the truth.

You want to deny that I have not from the Bible shown you ALL I have said or that I have not explained it carefully piece by piece?

You claim to be willing but are you?

This is a question not an emotional response
by who's standard?

Was what I asked you

You offered clarity by reversing priority, what and who should be your priority in making your explanation, your wisdom of God's?


When what you say contradicts the very word of God, how does it align?

I asked you before about the gnostics, and you also did not answer.

Now at least answer HAVE I NOT PROVIDED FROM THE BIBLE EVIDENCES USING THE VERSES YOU QUOTED

DaddyCoool:


What EXACTLY is your position on this topic? Just state it clearly without throwing in a bunch of Bible verses.
Because, honestly (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) it is not clear what your position is

When I told you before did you understand?

I will repeat it JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD he is not God the Son or God.

If you can't accept what is revealed as the truth then you accept what is a lie.

Anyone who doesn't understand what I say is because they do not understand God's word, a bunch of bible verses you say, did you read them and study them. Did you invest your time and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach them to you.

The words Jesus gave they are spirit and they are life. Jesus said in John.8.31 - Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings.
John.8.32 - And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."


If you reject what Jesus said, you are not his disciples and if you are not his disciples then you do not know the truth and if whatever you know is a lie how can you be set free?

gohf:


I have several translations play Greek and Hebrew

This is what NLT syas

John.1.1 - In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
John.1.2 - He was in the beginning with God.
John.1.3 - He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn't make.
John.1.4 - Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone.
John.1.5 - The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Not because I agree with all of NLTs translations but I do agree that He being with God in the beginning is Jesus and the He mentioned in verse 3 is God.

Jesus was in the beginning with God and God created everything, now in God was life, why WAS and not IS

Why WAS that life the light of men, why WAS

Because Jesus said in John.9.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (NKJV)

And it is this light that John the Baptist testifies of, did John come to testify about God or about the Messiah?

John.1.6 - God sent John the Baptist
John.1.7 - to tell everyone about the light so that everyone might believe because of his testimony.
John.1.8 - John himself was not the light; he was only a witness to the light.
John.1.9 - The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was going to come into the world.

For the world was made through Jesus.


So in WHO was the life, in God and that life was Jesus who came from God and became flesh, and not become an incarnation!


When did God call forth light
Gen.1.3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

The very first word God spoke in the beginning

You have not asked any question here.

You have simply made statements.

Nachmonides:


You have not asked any question here.

You have simply made statements.

John used the narrative of Genesis to build his theology and attach it to Jesus.

He connects the light that was called in Genesis to Jesus in John1

That is his interpretation of the Genesis story.

gohf:

When I told you before did you understand?

I will repeat it JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD he is not God the Son or God.

If you can't accept what is revealed as the truth then you accept what is a lie.

Anyone who doesn't understand what I say is because they do not understand God's word, a bunch of bible verses you say, did you read them and study them. Did you invest your time and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach them to you.

The words Jesus gave they are spirit and they are life. Jesus said in John.8.31 - Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings.
John.8.32 - And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."


If you reject what Jesus said, you are not his disciples and if you are not his disciples then you do not know the truth and if whatever you know is a lie how can you be set free?

Have you asked yourself how Jesus is the Son of God?

By who's standard is he called son?

Man's standard (accepted beliefs) knows a son to be the child of his father, born of a woman through sexual means in Jesus' day (no modern science as we know it)

If this was the way as we know it, of having a son, why then would Jesus have claimed to be the Son of God, and accepted the title given to him by men?

Perhaps, there's a deeper meaning to what it means to be a son?, perhaps we are not to look at it from the carnal perspective?, perhaps there's a Jewish meaning to who a son is?



Asking me earlier, by who's standard, is a trap of wanting me to say it is man's standard so you can clap back that we ought to use God's standard — which I wholeheartedly agree.


Logic fails, if one refuses to realise that God's standards is meaningless to man if man doesn't use his (man's) own formulated standards to understand what God's standards are.

It is because of our attempt to understand how the world works, hence fields like Biology, Chemistry, Physics, man's standards of understanding God's standards/ways. It is simply to help understand.

Nachmonides:




In Genesis.

Genesis 1:1
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth—



The word for God there is Plural, not singular.

We see another hint of this plurality in V.26 when it says, "Let us make man..."

"The word for God there is Plural, not singular." This again shows you need to listen and learn what is true

Now because the seas or the ocean is plural does it mean it is a countable term?

I asked you to show what isn't there and you couldn't but showed your wrong understanding of Genesis 1:1 then how can you even understand Genesis 1:26 that you added

Now how does "naaseh" meaning let us mean there are three gods?
First of the term is used to form an agreement which agrees with oneness and unity of the Father, the word and the Spirit

Now who was God speaking to, well to the Spirit of God who moved upon the waters in Genesis 1:2, do not assume that naaseh is a request to His Spirit, but it shows that His Spirit that came from Him in the beginning plays a role in making us in God's Image

And this we see that Lord Jesus Christ who seats at the right hand of the Father is both the image and the likeness of God, in whom we were created and are now been made and established by the Holy Spirit he sent to us.

gohf:

When I told you before did you understand?

I will repeat it JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD he is not God the Son or God.

If you can't accept what is revealed as the truth then you accept what is a lie.

Anyone who doesn't understand what I say is because they do not understand God's word, a bunch of bible verses you say, did you read them and study them. Did you invest your time and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach them to you.

The words Jesus gave they are spirit and they are life. Jesus said in John.8.31 - Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings.
John.8.32 - And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."


If you reject what Jesus said, you are not his disciples and if you are not his disciples then you do not know the truth and if whatever you know is a lie how can you be set free?

Ok, but same you also wrote this:

Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped

So can you please give us your definition of God and on what basis it is the definition, and what qualifies you to come up with that definition

DaddyCoool:


Maybe it's me so I'm inviting others to take a look.
Aren't these two statements contradictory?

Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped.

And

Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God

How can anyone read worshiped as the lamb of God and never worshipped as God, and find a contradiction if what is in such a person is not contradictory?

My prayer that it is not, but a mistake and that you need to read it again and see what exactly I WROTE

Nachmonides:


You have not asked any question here.

You have simply made statements.

you have looking for questions when you haven't answered the others.

Just listen and understand what is written

gohf:
"The word for God there is Plural, not singular." This again shows you need to listen and learn what is true

Now because the seas or the ocean is plural does it mean it is a countable term?

I asked you to show what isn't there and you couldn't but showed your wrong understanding of Genesis 1:1 then how can you even understand Genesis 1:26 that you added

Now how does "naaseh" meaning let us mean there are three gods?
First of the term is used to form an agreement which agrees with oneness and unity of the Father, the word and the Spirit

Now who was God speaking to, well to the Spirit of God who moved upon the waters in Genesis 1:2, do not assume that naaseh is a request to His Spirit, but it shows that His Spirit that came from Him in the beginning plays a role in making us in God's Image

And this we see that Lord Jesus Christ who seats at the right hand of the Father is both the image and the likeness of God, in whom we were created and are now been made and established by the Holy Spirit he sent to us.

We weren't told his spirit came from him.

Yes, I understand it doesn't mean a request, in the way a son (in the traditional sense) would request something from his father.


Okay, now we can agree God spoke to the spirit of God that was upon the face of the waters. 2 beings are seen to be of equal status. No angels here, as you have pointed could have been involved.

How then is man in the image of God if God is spirit and man isn't spirit? — but flesh.

gohf:

When I told you before did you understand?

I will repeat it JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD he is not God the Son or God.

If you can't accept what is revealed as the truth then you accept what is a lie.

Anyone who doesn't understand what I say is because they do not understand God's word, a bunch of bible verses you say, did you read them and study them. Did you invest your time and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach them to you.

The words Jesus gave they are spirit and they are life. Jesus said in John.8.31 - Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings.
John.8.32 - And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."


If you reject what Jesus said, you are not his disciples and if you are not his disciples then you do not know the truth and if whatever you know is a lie how can you be set free?

So according to you Jesus christ is not God even though it is clearly written that Jesus is God?

You are the one that is rejecting the bible.
According to you God commanded angels to worship another being?

You are wallowing in deception, contradicting yourself all through.