You mean you don't believe me or are you testing me?
Actually neither. I just know that whenever Orthodox Trinitarians are held to give account, I am hardly ever presented with well thought out scriptural support. I get it. People come unglued when they wish to believe some kind of doctrine or other, and yet don't have the resources to present a sufficient apologetic. There are dozens of intricate and extensive books written on the Trinity by scholars (even Trinitarian scholars). I am FAR not the expert... (Where is Matthias when you need him.)
I DO wish to say, though, that I hold no disdain for any who have taken the Kierkegaardian Kool-Aid and made a leap of faith into the Trinity. On the obverse, I rarely enter into these discussions because it almost always devolves into emotional knee-jerk disdain toward me and I don't need it. It's quite similar to the disdain given by the non-charismatics to those who have experienced the anointing to speak in tongues.
But I'm sure you'd say they were worshipping him as a king, or His earthly ministry had not yet started...
You initial premise was that Jesus accepted worship, therefore he is God. One can hardly say that a babe could make such a conscious decision at this point. BUT, are not Kings to be afforded "worship"? If such "worship" as given by the Magi was the exact same as that given to God only, why didn't Mary object?
And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
But I'm sure you'd say that Mary thought she gave birth to God.
Now before going on, I should mention that I do not reject the Divinity of Jesus, only the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity. (And I do hope at some point that you address the concept of Hierarchy that you brought up.)
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
In both
Mat 14:33 and
Mat 15:25 (and as you say, others...) the word used is proskuneo (G4352
προσκυνέω) is written. If this identifies ONLY the worship given to God within the context of the OT, then why is this word used in the Septuagint for the worship of Angels?
And the two angels came to Sodom at evening. And Lot sat by the gate of Sodom, and Lot having seen them, rose up to meet them, and he worshipped (G4352 προσκυνέω) with his face to the ground, and said,
The angels accepted this worship.
And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to (WORSHIPED G4352 προσκυνέω) the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.
Abraham worshiped the people of Heth. (Nothing here says this was wrong.)
To be honest, there's a LOT of worship (G4352
προσκυνέω) going on in the OT, even David to KING Saul.
David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed (WORSHIPED G4352 προσκυνέω).
And not only did King David worship King Saul, King David accepted worship as well.
Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence to (WORSHIPED G4352 προσκυνέω) the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever.
Of course, one might say that nobody knew any better. Admittedly, then, one DOES need to deal with this verse:
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
So where is "it" written, and what, indeed, is the IT that was written? The answer given by Jesus seems to be a compaction of two verses.
For thou shalt worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.
But please note what Jesus actually said. He did not say "Thou shalt ONLY worship the Lord thy God." Instead, it is written "him only shalt thou SERVE."
Your premise seems to be that there is some command somewhere that says worship (G4352
προσκυνέω) can be given ONLY to God. Of course one is to worship (G4352
προσκυνέω) no other
god, but all the worship (G4352
προσκυνέω) going on in Septuagint wasn't ONLY to God.
But I'm sure that when you read the word "God" you replace it up inside your head with "Godhead." (That's changing the words, and you know how I feel about that.)
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
So whom did the blind man see? And who was talking to him? The Son of God. All Jesus did here was accept (more accurately allow) the worship due the Son of God. Jesus never said anything about him BEING God. (Did he? If so, where?)
So, after these scripture verses would you still make it an assertion or a fact...or something in between about Jesus being and accepting worship?
I never said he didn't. Where did I actually say that?
Worship (G4352
προσκυνέω) is used quite often in the both the New and the Old Testament texts for those
other than God. And there is no scripture that says to ONLY worship (G4352
προσκυνέω) God. Just that one is to not worship other GODS...
Now if you don't think that words matter, then why should we even bother?
Which leads me to wonder; have you or do you worship Jesus, or maybe only because He has ascended to Heaven and is the Alpha & Omega?
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Judaism).
Why does the author not tell you to Worship Christ Jesus?
My point is that what you think of as "Worship" (G4352
προσκυνέω) is not found in the scripture to be something commanded as to be ONLY directed to God, hence, the King may be worshiped, Jesus may be worshiped, but only YH is to be worshiped AS God. And one is to only
serve God. You might find it fun to do a word study on G3000.
I guess anyone seeing someone who could control the weather might think that this supernatural occurrence deserved some special recognition.
Yes, and were you there, I would have accepted your worship too. (It's a long story...)
You surmise correctly, though I do not attribute the Doctrine of the Trinity to Catholicism or any of the other Trinitarian believing denominations, as most do.
So... it just popped into your head fully grown then?
All on it's own? Sorry, C4E, you didn't compose that Doctrine. And the fight over such goes back even before 325 AD.
I'm assuming your belief is Sola Scriptura, by the use of the reference from 1 Corinthians.
MY belief? Actually no. If need be, mine might be best described Sola Pneuma. My apologies then, presuming yours to be Sola Scriptura, which is why I made such a reference. However, my belief is also DON'T CHANGE THE WORDS. ( I'm rather emphatic on that point.)
By the way does Paul say written by whom, and out of curiosity, was he including only what was present to them at the moment of this writing, but also including future writings? Hummmm....
You'll have to ask Paul.
Yes, and no. Unless you believe that Adam helped in Creation, I do believe there are limits to how far one can stretch inferring something.
I didn't infer anything. YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE calls Adam the Son of God.
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Why do you people keep changing what is written? Truly, why don't you consider this an outright sin?
My point in bringing this up was meant to address your assertion that Jesus, being the Son of God made Jesus also God. Were this true, then Adam is in the Godhead.
More of a literary device, that allows those who lack understanding to categorize it in their mind.
A literary device? One that will lead to heresy? Wow. I just do not have the (can we say "balls" here?) to ignore the warning of Jesus -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
So, you allow for inferring when it comes to Scripture then, at least up to a point right?
NO. Never did. Were to one allow such inference as you suggested, then Adam is in the Godhead. (That was my point.) All heretical doctrines start with allowing "inference." It may be, though, that you and I have a different definition of "Scripture." Scripture itself says that Scripture isn't inerrant. But that's a discussion for a later time (if such is even allowed).
Think of it like I have no problem with Jesus being fully God, and fully Man.
Many people have no problems believing heresy.
Many people have no problems changing what is written.
Many people have no problems making excuses for their disobedience.
And most all people get irate when cherished doctrines can be shown to be heresy.
and the God part as the necessary part so He would not sin. \o/ My inference!
God can't sin, so what good is that?
As far as the Hierarchy goes and my use of it, you'll have to blame the Holy Spirit for me using that. Even though I'm sure you see "hierarchy" throughout all of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation as does everyone else who reads the word, if they take the time to look, in prayerful consideration to seeing it.
THANK YOU. I agree that you don't believe in the Trinity as established in orthodox theology, but instead have created your own spin on it. As such, it cannot be called the Doctrine of The Trinity, which by definition stipulates that the three persons in the Godhead are co-equal, and being co-eternal, have always been so. There can be no hierarchy in the Trinity.
Personally, you are welcome to believe your personal doctrine (as I do mine) but sir, it's NOT the Doctrine of the Trinity. It's something else. Now I did say earlier that I am not an expert on Trinitarian Doctrine, and that there are many scholarly books written on the topic, but there is a well accepted definition of Trinity, and it rejects hierarchy.
(And you'll have to blame the Holy Spirit for me
not believing the Trinity.)
Aaah, I thought you were going to tell me who Jesus is!!! Shucks!
Though it was a question, it was not directed to you specifically, but in general to everyone.
Actually, as written, it was rhetorical.
As far as banning someone.
Best I avoid this topic.
Just turn the other check brother!
That's how I got both jaws broken.
Well, that was fun!
Glad to be of service.
I do appreciate your ability to constrain yourself in how you are replying, so as to not motivate me to doing something I really do not want to do. Your restraint is admirable!
I've not changed sir. Jesus himself would rebuke those who change the words of scripture.
No, not really, but it's better for you to stick with Sola Scriptura.
How wonderfully insulting. (You're down to one cheek left
)
Rhema
(Let me know if I missed anything you would like addressed.)
