Donald Diamond

Why don't you post the book here?

More a case of demons agreeing with the truth: Matt 8:29
 
I have, and there are sufficient numbers of folk like your self arguing for and against trinitarian "church father" beliefs. Reminds me of Paul's experience at Acts 23:7. I will leave it to you people to fight it out. Let me know if anyone wins.
 
Man. We are on different planets!! I will stick with Joel on this one.

You appear to expect me to answer your questions, but are not prepared to address any of my replies.
Jesus and the Jews were well aware of the prophecy that God would have a Son - he would be a descendant of David - the fruit of his loins.   Not a divine being.
2 Sam 7:12-16  When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.   I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.  And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.   (ASV)
Peter pick this up in Acts 2.
Acts 2:29  Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.   Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 
 
Scripture is clear that by the term "Son of God" in the sense Jesus uses it, means a specific human descendant of David.
You have no evidence that "Son of God" meant "God Himself." other than quoting the opposers of Jesus and trinitarian dogma.
 
You have also given IMHO no satisfactory explanation as to why, when accused of claiming to be God, Jesus' should immediately point out that
a) humans could be called gods without it meaning they were claiming to be the true God, and
b) he was claiming to be the Son of God (not God Himself).
In John 5 the Jewish leaders claimed that Jesus 
a) broke the Sabbath, and
b) made himself equal with God by calling him "his own Father".
Both these statements are untrue.   Jesus used the phrase "My Father" dozens of times and nobody took exception.  Jesus did not say "My own Father" but simply "My Father".  The Jewish leaders misquoted him, in order to set the people against him.  
I didn't address your question as to whether Satan was a false god, as the point is was making is that there is a third use of "god" in scripture - you only allowed two - a false dichotomy.   Satan is not in the category which allows for representatives of God to be called gods.  He would be a false god.
D

I am sure responsible Jehovah's Witness parents are concerned that their children make an acceptable dedication and any reassurance they can get on how to discern and support that would always be appreciated. However, I would not go as far as to say that many of them feel the way you stated below. 
 
Quite true, but are you referring to marriage in a general sense or amongst Jehovah's Witnesses?
I would venture that the level of support and encouragement provided to young people who are sincerely seeking to maintain their dedication to Jehovah greatly exceeds the encouragement to make a success of marriage in today's moral climate outside of Jehovah's Witnesses society.
Well, can't say. There are some fairly discontented postings appearing from time to time, but miserable pictures I haven't seen apart from the occasional mugshot of Witnesses guilty of crimes (Although they were unlikely to be selfies of course).
However, many of the usual archive pics have pretty positive comments as well, so I have no reason to suspect hypocrisy.
Not lots in my experience, but on a worldwide scale I am sure there are many. Regardless of the numbers, this is a sad experience for any one, and there are older ones who try to live a double life as well.
Hypocrisy is an extremely stressful course to pursue, worse when acted out with family and friends whom the individual still loves and wants to be with if it wasn't for the spiritual aspects of life.  It must cause a lot of mental anguish for those who follow this path, especially younger ones who may still be materially dependent  as well.
Over the years, I have known  young ones who experienced a faith crisis. However, some of them, even after leaving Jehovah's Witnesses (and their families) to pursue something they felt deprived of, come back, some years later, and embrace the way of life fully.
But then, we don't expect everyone to stay as one of Jehovah's Witnesses or all children to embrace the faith of their families. Matt.10:35 (comp.1John 2:19).
I think it is worth noting that this trauma is not just an experience that Jehovah's Witnesses go through when deciding to reject the religion of their families. It can also be experienced by those who leave a strong religious background to become Jehovah's Witnesses. I have seen some pretty difficult times experienced, for example, by Jewish, Muslim, Hindu  as well as Roman Catholic youths who have decided to become Jehovah's Witnesses independent of their families.
I would need to hear the whole talk to evaluate that assessment. Baubles for Baptism? I thought that strategy failed with Christendom centuries ago!! 

Is this discussion saying that Jesus was convicted for breaking the Mosaic Law on blasphemy by telling the truth about himself?

Having made such a mess of formatting, I will not attempt to cut your post up to address your response.
I showed from scripture that the term Son of God does not mean "of the same nature as God".
Neither Col 2:9 not Matt 22 state that Jesus is God. Try reading these passages without trinitarian blinkers (I don’t mean to be offensive). I agree with you that Matt 26 states that Jesus was the son of God, the Christ. That is not the same as being God Himself. When I was a trinitarian, I was told that is was, but when I studied the scriptures I realised it had no basis in scripture.
 
You said:
So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?
At last – progress. Just as they claimed he broke the Sabbath or cast out devils by Beelzebub.
Matt 26 shows that the leaders were prepared to support false accusations, and John 11:49:50 tells us "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."
It is spelt out in black and white. Why do you treat Jesus' opposers as if they were genuine believers speaking the truth?
 
Although you say you have addressed it, it remains the fact that:
a) Calling God "My Father" is not blasphemous
b) The opposers claimed that Jesus said "My own father" when he did not.
 
The terms "representative" and "image" mean that it is not the original.
D.
 

Right away Sir!
 
Matt 28:18 (Jesus)

Job 34:13 (Jehovah)

New International Version

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Who appointed him over the earth? Who put him in charge of the whole world?


 

 
New Living Translation

Jesus came and told his disciples, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth.

Who put him in charge of the earth? Who appointed him to be over the whole world?


 

 
English Standard Version

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Who gave him charge over the earth, and who laid on him the whole world?


 

 
New American Standard Bible

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

"Who gave Him authority over the earth? And who has laid on Him the whole world?


 

 
King James Bible

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?


 

 
Holman Christian Standard Bible

Then Jesus came near and said to them, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Who gave Him authority over the earth? Who put Him in charge of the entire world?


 

 
International Standard Version

Then Jesus approached them and told them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Who entrusted the earth to him? Who made him responsible for the entire inhabited world?


 

 
NET Bible

Then Jesus came up and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Who entrusted to him the earth? And who put him over the whole world?


 

 
New American Standard 1977

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

“Who gave Him authority over the earth?

            And who has laid on Him the whole world?


 

 
King James 2000 Bible

And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Who has given him charge over the earth? or who has laid on him the whole world?


 

 
American King James Version

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

Who has given him a charge over the earth? or who has disposed the whole world?


 

 
American Standard Version

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

Who gave him a charge over the earth? Or who hath disposed the whole world?


 

 
Douay-Rheims Bible

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

What other hath he appointed over the earth? or whom hath he set over the world which he made?


 

 
Darby Bible Translation

And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth.

Who hath entrusted to him the earth? and who hath disposed the whole world?


 

 
English Revised Version

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

Who gave him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?


 

 
Webster's Bible Translation

And Jesus came, and spoke to them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and upon earth.

Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?


 

 
World English Bible

Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.

Who put him in charge of the earth? or who has appointed him over the whole world?


 

 
Young's Literal Translation

And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, 'Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;

Who hath inspected for Himself the earth? And who hath placed all the habitable world?

 

It is an academic book (it is based on the Greek text and concentrates on the Greek vocabulary) - you will primarily find it in universities or theological schools.  There appear to be copies all across America including Southern California.  
https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation-1-5/oclc/37812629&referer=brief_results
and
https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation/oclc/37686762&referer=brief_results
Word Commentaries are written by reputable theologians with expertise in Biblical languages.
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=hotseries&q=se%3A%22Word+biblical+commentary%22
D

So did Abraham not name that place? 
Gen.22:14. "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh ( יְהוָה יִרְאֶה ): as it is said to this day."

Ah well! i understand. Its available, but about £24.50 in UK.
"Mony a mickle maks a muckle."

In an earlier post I drew your attention to 
1Ch 29:20  And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king. (ASV)
In this sentence construction there is only one instance of the verb, and it has two objects - Jehovah, and the king.  It is one act.
You replied:  " I do not consider this equal."
In the passage the act of worship is made for different reasons - to Jehovah because He is God, and to the king, who is His representative.
Yet in Rev 5, you argue exactly the opposite, where the context makes it even clearer that the attribution of honour, glory, worth etc to the one who sites on the throne and to the Lamb is for different reasons.    The words "same" or "equal" do not appear in the text.  
Your argument therefore appears to be inconsistent, and the "nuances" you try to introduce are based on a theological dogma instead of what the text actually says.
 
D

An interesting comment from a reputable scholarly (trinitarian?) commentary:
David Aune in Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentaries, Nelson, Dallas, 1997, page 365:

“A comparison between the analogous lists of prerogatives  in I Chon 29:11 (prerogatives of God) and Dan 2:37 (prerogatives of the king bestowed by God) with Rev 5:11 suggests that the ascription of these prerogatives to the Lamb means, not that the Lamb is thereby venerated as God (similar prerogatives could also be ascribed to kings) but that these qualities are bestowed upon the Lamb by virtue of his investiture.” 
DAVID AUNE is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the University of Notre Dame. He holds an M.A. from Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, an M.A. from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Among his publications are The New Testament in its Literary Environment and Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (editor).
Food for thought
.
 
D

An interesting comment from a reputable scholarly (trinitarian?) commentary:
David Aune in Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentaries, Nelson, Dallas, 1997, page 365:

“A comparison between the analogous lists of prerogatives  in I Chon 29:11 (prerogatives of God) and Dan 2:37 (prerogatives of the king bestowed by God) with Rev 5:11 suggests that the ascription of these prerogatives to the Lamb means, not that the Lamb is thereby venerated as God (similar prerogatives could also be ascribed to kings) but that these qualities are bestowed upon the Lamb by virtue of his investiture.” 
DAVID AUNE is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the University of Notre Dame. He holds an M.A. from Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, an M.A. from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Among his publications are The New Testament in its Literary Environment and Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (editor).
Food for thought
.
 
D

There is nothing here that talks about "equal" honour, glory, worth, power etc.    
Rev 5:9  And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain,.....
The Lamb receives these accolades for doing something that God could not do i.e. die.  But God and the Lamb are worthy for different reasons.   The writer is not concerned about "quantities" or "sameness".  
D

There is nothing here that talks about "equal" honour, glory, worth, power etc.    
Rev 5:9  And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain,.....
The Lamb receives these accolades for doing something that God could not do i.e. die.  But God and the Lamb are worthy for different reasons.   The writer is not concerned about "quantities" or "sameness".  
D

I'll be wrapping things up by the end of the week, so I'll get the other mail out to you tomorrow perhaps.
1.  My experiences growing up among the churches was being surrounded by teachings of my soul floating away to heaven or burning in hell.  I never heard anything about the kingdom of God until I started studying with JWs.  I have had experience with Mormons visiting our home maybe once in my lifetime, but it wasn't to preach about God's kingdom.  I think that the gospel of the kingdom was one of the essential gospel messages of Christ and a duty for all to declare.  So when I speak of truth, it's about the kingdom of Christ and the benefits it would bring to mankind.  I prayed to God to show me the truth and his people and he did, and for the most part my questions were answered.  There is no religion or denomination totally correct about everything or they would be perfect, and there is no denomination I agree with on everything.  They are all imperfect bodies of people.  However, when I left the churches, just as many others, I was determined to never set foot in one again.  Turning away from a spiritual paradise would be like a dog going back to its vomit.
 
2.  From my view, I have seen a lot of neglect, hurt feelings and some major problems needing major corrections, however, I see no urgency or crisis as for as those anointed are concerned.  They are in God's hands to put in whatever rightful position he desires, not mine. 
 
3.  I don't see where a person can be disfellowshipped for quoting the Bible.
Witness said:
If you were to approach the elders and say, “I believe the only way to serve God is through Christ, for he said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ and I believe this is the accurate way to God
 
We realize there is some judging of serious matters within the congregation, but we don't want to be judging or finding fault continuously with the imperfections of each other or picking at straws.
 
I understand you are on the road so I'll cease here.  If there are any further issues feel free to reply when you can.  I still have a reply for your 04/19 posting, which I will post within the next day or two.

Shiwiii said:
"How do you honor one more than the other?"
Just an additional thought. The context of this assigning of honor to the Son as to the Father in John 5:23 is of course in Jesus assigned role as judge. It is particularly when judging that Jesus is to be shown honor commensurate with that shown to the Father, as Jehovah has given complete authority to Jesus in this aspect. John 5:22 :"For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son." . Jesus' judgement is as if Jehovah was judging and is as binding.
As an example, the account of Joseph in Egypt indicates how a ruler (Pharaoh) could assign such honor to a deserving subject without relinquishing his own superior position. Compare Gen.41:44 with Gen.45:16-20.
Although the discussion seems to have diverged somewhat from the original question, I think the answer to it is actually a resounding Yes! because the Scripture indicates clearly that God has a personal name regardless of how it is pronounced.
We must understand and appreciate the unique personal differences between Jehovah and His only-begotten Son, identified as Jesus (English pronunciation), which includes their personal names,
Only then can we possibly assign them their due, relative honor, and ensure that we follow the instruction Jesus gave as recorded at Luke 4:8:
“It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’ "
 

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
"yes, but that is not the question. The question is not about why it is about how. How do you honor one more than the other?"
Based on John 5:23:
"all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."
So, this, (depending on motive) is actually a very good question.
As the meaning of the verb "to honor" is similar to that of the Greek word used (form of timao), the definition of the English word is relevant:  
"honor" verb: to regard with great respect.
So actually the honoring is not greater or less. You either honor someone or you do not. It is what it is: honor.
However, what the honor is due for is related to the role of the subject. For example, the scriptures exhort children to honor their father and mother at Eph. 6:4. Whilst the honor is the same i.e. not less for the mother over the father, it is expressed within the parameters of the role assigned to each parent. e.g. to assign the mother the role as head of the family, and respect her wishes and/or direction over and above (possibly in contradiction to) those of the father, would be DIS-honoring the mother (and the father) within the theocratic structure (1Cor.11:3), regardless of the motive of the one showing such "honor".
Similarly, showing honor to the Father would mean, respecting Him alone as the Sovereign Lord of the Universe (Ps.83:18); the Creator of all things (Is. 42:5), including His Son Jesus Christ (Col.1:15); the provider and acceptor of the Ransom Sacrifice of His Son's perfect human life (Rom.5:8); the originator of the Kingdom administration (Eph.1:10) which includes the extending of the benefits of that Ransom Sacrifice to all obedient former children of the rebellious Adam and Eve (Acts 25:15); and many other things too numerous to mention here.
Showing honor to the Son would include (among many other things not mentioned), acknowledging his unique role in: providing his perfect human life as the Ransom Sacrifice (2Tim.2:5-6); in acknowledging that his reward for faithfully carrying out all that was required of him includes his elevated status now in heaven as the King and High Priest (Ph.2:9; 1Tim.1:15; Heb.6:20; Matt.28:18); and recognising that he would never, never place himself on equal footing with his Glorious Heavenly Father, Jehovah (1Cor 11:3; Ph.1:6).
In fact, to suggest that Jesus would consider himself equal to God would do him the greatest DIS-honor (Ph.1:6; comp. Jo.8:49).
As I said, this was a very good question.
 
 

It could be tempting to speculate on some sort of heavenly judicial scenario in the spirit world, incorporating scriptural glimpses such as Job 1;6; 2:2, and maybe ancient Jewish commentaries, alternative renderings of scripture (such as De.32:8), and much earlier writings about pantheons of angelic gods in an antediluvian or other setting.
For a number of reasons, I prefer a more "down to earth " understanding.
Brown-Driver-Briggs states that the word elohim used at Ps:82:1 can mean  rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.
Other Bible references such as Paul's words at 1 Cor 8:5-6 show that there are many viewed as "gods" on earth and the crowd's attribution to Herod at Acts 12:21-22 underlines that humans with power over others could be viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods" regardless of their deserving that description.
So the gods referred to in Psalm 8 appear to be humans with power of judging over other men (thus viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods"). From Moses onward, judges existed among God's people for good (1Ki.10:9) or bad (Mic. 4:11) depending on the historical  circumstances. As such, Psalm 8 indicates they would be called to account for any injustice in exercising that office by their Supreme Judge, Jehovah.
In the account recorded at John 10:31-39, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6 when rebutting the Jews' accusation of blasphemy for calling himself a "god",(their inference on the fact he had said he was God's son). He showed that as the scripture actually referred to humans rightly as gods, there was no crime in his reference to himself as Gods son.

Sorry for delay in replying.   The text simple says that in relation to authority over judgement and raising the dead, we should honour the delegatee as we would the delegator.   That is not a difficult concept.  
The problem you need to deal with is that supreme authority is an essential attribute of God.  Try reading from chapter 40 of Isaiah and you will see that repeated chapter after chapter.  So it is simply not possible for the Father and Son to be equally God while not being equal in authority.   IMHO you are putting the false accusation of the Jewish leaders ahead of the plain statements of Jesus.
As I have pointed out before, your argument leads to two god persons, one of whom is dependent for his authority on the other.  I cannot see that in scripture.
D

Jesus' immediate response to the claim that he was making himself equal to God was to state that he could do nothing of his own accord.   That is as clear a refutation of the claim as you can get.   Jesus then continues with further statements about his dependence on the Father.
D

Hi Witness, I didn't want to quote your whole post as these writings go on for miles already.  I will try to respond to your other mail later today if I don't get bogged down with others here.  I also have to work 2 jobs next few weeks, so please excuse me if I don't answer right away.  I do try to read all your responses to me and everyone.  Also, it appears you may be getting some of my quotes mixed up with Shiwii. 
 
I guess I'm not fully understanding your concern or I don't see it as a major problem.  I try not to sweat the small stuff.
 
I read all the verses you quoted how the Lord or Jesus has stars in his hand, and the society stating he directs the stars/elders, or something to that effect.  Then you mentioned something about the anointed.  It got a little confusing for me.
 
Witness said:
Firstly, the stars do not only mean anointed elders, but all anointed ones within the Body of Christ, his Temple priests.  1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 6:19,20
 
We're all directed by God's holy spirit in different ways.  If the society speculates on what certain verses mean toward the anointed or bodies of elders, I may agree with their speculations or not.  As long as they are not telling me I need to worship them, they can make whatever speculations about the way they feel God or Christ is directing us, the elders, the anointed, or the organization.
 
I do however have a problem with being told I can't speculate on some verses because someone decides their speculations have changed.  But it's still not a bone of contention to cause me to dismiss my faith as others have done because I do agree with the main tenets of faith if not all in their entirety or my views have changed somewhat on certain issues.
 
I've read older publications of the society that I have not totally agreed with or completely understood.  The society has also rejected some earlier views as well.  Often I look at commentaries online for opinions of certain verses.  Some are similar, but of the hundreds/thousands, with their different speculations, I can agree or not, as their speculations can change over time as well.  It's my choice what to accept or believe.  No one can reach inside my mind.  I don't have to be overly discontent and write letters to the editor to tell them they are going above their authority about what some verse means.
 
There is a problem with outside views which I've had problems with, family, co-workers, neighbors etc., which caused me to stumble quite a bit, and it took me a long time to get back on my feet where I needed to be.  Their complaints constantly buzzing in my ears and nit-picking everything in every publication, made me more concerned about what they said rather than my faith and relationship with Jehovah and focusing on the commandments and work Jesus instructed us to do.  So now I say to anyone, tell me what you feel is the right way to go.  They might suggest their faith or denomination, but usually, they can't give me an answer, other than list all the so-called cults to stay away from.  They also say nothing of the preaching work or kingdom which was the main focus of Jesus' message.
 
Lastly, I'm not sure what the solution would be to these statements below, whether the anointed ones should commence the operations of the society or not. 
 
Witness said:
In the house of the Lord, his Temple, only chosen priests were to serve.  The house of the Lord today is Christ’s Body, his Temple members, holy priesthood which are the anointed ones. Since the early temple was a shadow of the heavenly one, it takes the spiritual eye to see that the transgressing of the Temple today is through the elder arrangement esteemed to be the “stars” in Christ’s right hand.
Witness said:
The elder body are the “others” who have taken the place of the anointed ones; by doing so, God’s sanctuary is profaned. The have “entered” it by replacing God’s choice of whom should serve the people. 
Witness said:
It is my opinion that not only is God’s name being profaned in this way, but through such actions, Christ and his Temple are rejected by the organization.

You may not agree (which is fine).   However, you appear to be arguing that the Son was claiming to be equal with God, while you also maintain that the Son was NOT equal to the Father in authority,    That is a self contradictory argument.  The fact that you can't see that is disappointing.  
I have specifically addressed the question you ask here.  We are told to honour the Son as we honour the Father because the Father has granted the Son authority over the judgement and raising the dead.
John 5:22, 23 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. (ASV)
I feel you have not addressed any of my arguments which directly deal with the points you made.  However, I am happy to leave it for the readers to make up their own minds.  
D

Supreme authority is an attribute of God. You find that all over scripture.   You appear to have invented two god-persons, one of whom is supreme, and the other who is not, but is subject to the first.  This is confusion, and the passage does not support such a notion.    
The passage says nothing about whether the Son and the Father are equally God - it is about the inequality in authority between the Father and the Son which leads to the Father granting the Son authority in judgement and raising the dead - something he does not have of his own accord.   This refutes any notion that Jesus is claiming equality with God.
D 

Well Shiwiii, I have quoted what you said.  It is here:
http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5838-do-people-really-need-to-know-and-use-the-word-jehovah-or-other-language-equivalents-to-truly-know-god/?do=findComment&comment=8247
This is what you said and what I was addressing:
" I do not believe that the Father and the Son have equal authority. The Father is over the Son. "
If the Father is over the Son, they are not equal.
If you read the greater context (ie the gospel records) you will see that the Jews (which in the gospels generally means the leaders of the Jews) sought to kill Jesus, and they were prepared to bear false witness against him.   They were intimidated by him and were afraid he would cause an adverse reaction from the Romans.  Have you not read that?
The accusations made against Jesus were:
a) He broke the sabbath
b) He made himself equal with God.
If Jesus broke the sabbath, he would be a sinner - Jesus was born under the law.
So both these accusations were false.   The most likely explanation is that the leaders were attempting to turn the people against him.  They wanted Jesus dead.  That accords with the greater and nearer context.
What the text tells us is that we are to honour the Son as we honour the Father who is over the Son and grants him authority over the judgement and raising the dead..
We honour them for different reasons.   Therefore arguments about "equal honour" are meaningless.
D