The Israelite religion and the apostles

keiw

Well-known member
The Israelite religion from Moses on up until this very day-Serve, teach and worship the Abrahamic God=YHWH(Jehovah) a single being God. Thus this was the God Jesus was taught, served and worshipped while he attended the Israelite places of worship, as was every bible writer that God used.
God did not change, he was changed at the first council of Constantinople in 381 ce, No trinity was ever served by a true follower prior to that council, nor after.
Satan is posing as all false Gods on earth to get worship. He and his teachers transforming into angels of light-2Corinthians 11:12-15
 
God did not change, he was changed at the first council of Constantinople in 381
The ambit of your contention is wide. Is the essence of your critique the failure of the church to accomodate the Arians?

If so you will first need to explain what the word "Trinity" means as against the Arian conception of God. Is "Trinity" a supervening non-Arian constitution of God in heaven, as the scholastics conceive of, or is it just an oblique reference to the baptismal formula of Matt 28:19 (known as the Trinitarian formula) without any particular connotations other than what is implied by the formula itself? How was the word "Trinity" understood in this early period of the church? How does Arianism accomodate Matt 28:19?

Then you might trace the "Trinity" back from the first council of Constantinople in AD381, and explain how it differs from the formulations adopted by the Councils of Alexandria in 362, and of Sardica in AD343, and of Nicea in AD325, (and any others), and how these differ from the formulations of the Synods of Antioch convened between AD264 and AD269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata. At what point did Arianism cease to be tolerated?

Did anything really change at the first council of Constantinople in AD381? Did these "changes" that you object to happen at previous councils? What were those changes?

Or, is your gripe really against what followed the first council of Constantinople: i.e. the Council of Chalcedon in AD451, & the Second Council of Constantinople in AD553 under Justinian I, who was widely criticized for interfering in the affairs of the church and of making perverse decisions.

_______________________
NB: a core premise is that the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father are all capable of being individually blasphemed against, and therefore sinned against, and which likely accounts for the Matt 28:19 "trinitarian" formula in the sense that honor is mandated for the three individually and yet construed as one name (one God):

Act 5:3 "Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit..." & Mat 12:32 etc.
Heb 6:4-6 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
Jas 4:4 "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God?"
 
Last edited:
This is a completely irrelevant post to this thread and is in the nature of an attack on another poster.

Your assertion is false.

It relates to it because it mentions the worship of God. The Jehovah's Witnesses (correctly) believe that only God is to be worshiped.

Since the Lord Jesus is properly worshiped proves He is God. This supports the Trinity (disproving what was asserted in the OP).

Thus, your inane assertion is completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Your assertion is false.

It relates to it because it mentions the worship of God. The Jehovah's Witnesses (correctly) believe that only God is to be worshiped.

Since the Lord Jesus is properly worshiped proves He is God. This supports the Trinity (disproving what was asserted in the OP).

Thus, your inane assertion is completely irrelevant.
Your assertion is false. Your post related to your personal obession with directing words, songs prayer etc directly to "Jesus" rather than to God, "in Jesus' name." I have already inquired of said poster whether he uses the words "in Jesus' name" and he answered in the affirmative. Thus your post above and your previous post are seen to relate only to your personal obsession with a polytheistic form of worship divesting God of his unity (cf. Matt 28:19).
 
Your assertion is false. Your post related to your personal obession with directing words, songs prayer etc directly to "Jesus"

Which proves Jesus is God and thus supports the Trinity (hint: which the OP is about).
The worship of Jesus which proves He is God has once again caused you quite a bit of confusion.


Thus your post above and your previous post are seen to relate only to your personal obsession with a polytheistic form of worship divesting God of his unity (cf. Matt 28:19).


You tried this route before and it didn't work. It still doesn't work now.


It's so easy to refute your goofy assertions.
 
Last edited:
Which proves Jesus is God and thus supports the Trinity (hint: which the OP is about).
The worship of Jesus which proves He is God has once again caused you quite a bit of confusion.
Nothing you have said proves "Jesus is God." Forms of worship of God are completely irrelevant to this thread, as are your personal theories based on them. The apostles and Jesus himself universally deferred to Jesus as man or son of Man or son of God.

You tried this route before and it didn't work. It still doesn't work now.


It's so easy to refute your goofy assertions.
Since you don't understand what this thread is about, why do hijack it to promote your own theories? Don't you realize you're getting past boring with your life long obession with preaching "Jesus is God" which concept we understand correctly in the context of Dan 7:13,14 as quoted in the NT, and not per your polytheistic vanity that ignores the rightful pre-eminence of the Father in worship, alongside Jesus his Son, in whose name worship is directed.
 
Nothing you have said proves "Jesus is God."


Being the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.

1 Kings 8:38-39
whatever prayer...is made...then hear in heaven....for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men (NASB)
God "alone" fully knows the hearts of all, so God "alone" is the proper recipient of prayer.

Since you don't understand what this thread is about, why do hijack it

Your confusion was already addressed in the beginning of post 7.

So why are you hijacking it?

Don't you realize you're getting past boring

I'm not here to entertain. Go hire a clown.

Dan 7:13,14

Thanks for citing a section of Scripture which teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of worship.
 
Last edited:
Being the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.
Jesus is the birth name of a man on earth.

I wasn't aware that anyone prayed to Jesus whilst he was on earth. Prove it.

1 Kings 8:38-39
whatever prayer...is made...then hear in heaven....for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men (NASB)
God "alone" fully knows the hearts of all, so God "alone" is the proper recipient of prayer.

Your confusion was already addressed in the beginning of post 7.

So why are you hijacking it?

I'm not here to entertain. Go hire a clown.

Thanks for citing a section of Scripture which teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of worship.
Since you obviously can't distinguish between Jesus the man and the "Word of God" and since you can't understand the relation of the "Word of God" to "God", may be it's time for you to go away.
 
Your assertion is false.

It relates to it because it mentions the worship of God. The Jehovah's Witnesses (correctly) believe that only God is to be worshiped.

Since the Lord Jesus is properly worshiped proves He is God. This supports the Trinity (disproving what was asserted in the OP).

Thus, your inane assertion is completely irrelevant.

The Greek word Proskenaue has 5 different meanings-1) worship to God, 2) obesiance to a king, 3) honor to a judge, and 2 others. It translates to bow and kiss the feet. Now since it is 100% clear the Israelite religion knew the Messiah has a God( Psalm 45:7) in reality they did not bow in worship, they bowed in obesiance to Gods appointed king. A mistranslation in your bibles to fit false council teachings of God being a trinity.
 
The Greek word Proskenaue has 5 different meanings-1) worship to God, 2) obesiance to a king, 3) honor to a judge, and 2 others. It translates to bow and kiss the feet. Now since it is 100% clear the Israelite religion knew the Messiah has a God( Psalm 45:7) in reality they did not bow in worship, they bowed in obesiance to Gods appointed king. A mistranslation in your bibles to fit false council teachings of God being a trinity.


In Acts 10:25 Cornelius renders inappropriate worship (proskyneō) to Peter (a man) and in Revelation 19:10 John renders inappropriate worship (proskyneō) to an angel (a created being). In light of both instances and the number of times the Lord Jesus receives proskyneō, why is there not even one example of inappropriate worship (proskyneō) rendered unto Him?
The reason is because the Lord Jesus was appropriately worshiped (proskyneō).
 
In Acts 10:25 Cornelius renders inappropriate worship (proskyneō) to Peter (a man) and in Revelation 19:10 John renders inappropriate worship (proskyneō) to an angel (a created being). In light of both instances and the number of times the Lord Jesus receives proskyneō, why is there not even one example of inappropriate worship (proskyneō) rendered unto Him?
I think there was an instance of inappropriate worship, John 6:15, when the crowds wanted to make Jesus king by force, but Jesus hid himself from the crowds. For such entailed carnal worship.

The reason is because the Lord Jesus was appropriately worshiped (proskyneō).
True.

But not appropriately worshipped to the exclusion of the Father. John 4:23.

For as there is appropriate worship, so there is inappropriate worship of Jesus, per Matt 7:21-23, Mark 7:6.

Here an example of inappropriate worship of Jesus:

Moreover προσκυνέω is used 179 times in the LXX in a wide variety of contexts. The word itself is of no significance. It is the context that counts.

Gen 18:2 (Abrahams bows to the angels)
Gen 19:1 (Lot bows to the angels)
Gen 23:7, Gen 23:12 (Abraham bows to the Hittites)
 
I think there was an instance of inappropriate worship, John 6:15, when the crowds wanted to make Jesus king by force, but Jesus hid himself from the crowds. For such entailed carnal worship.

No. Jesus prevented that from taking place.

True.

But not appropriately worshipped to the exclusion of the Father. John 4:23.

He never is.

For as there is appropriate worship, so there is inappropriate worship of Jesus, per Matt 7:21-23, Mark 7:6.

As with God (Matthew 15:7-9).

Moreover προσκυνέω is used 179 times in the LXX in a wide variety of contexts. The word itself is of no significance. It is the context that counts.

When used in the NT it always means worship.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): As used in the New Testament proskyneo "denoted exclusively worship addressed (or which should be addressed) to God or to Jesus Christ" (2:877, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C. Brown, the boldface is mine).
 
In Acts 10:25 Cornelius renders inappropriate worship (proskyneō) to Peter (a man) and in Revelation 19:10 John renders inappropriate worship (proskyneō) to an angel (a created being). In light of both instances and the number of times the Lord Jesus receives proskyneō, why is there not even one example of inappropriate worship (proskyneō) rendered unto Him?
The reason is because the Lord Jesus was appropriately worshiped (proskyneō).


Jesus was given worship by catholicism mistranslating that Greek word, that is why.
 
Back
Top