Evacuated

In the verse at John 5:23, in responding to the Jews at that time (v19), Jesus showed that the honor which the Jews were accustomed to give to Jehovah as their Judge, they would now have to give equally to Jesus as well. This was because Jehovah would be transferring the executive role of Judge to His Son, Jesus. (Acts 17:31).
Of course, in delegating authority for judging to Jesus, Jehovah in no way relinquishes His position as Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. He is that eternally by His very nature as Creator and God. That is why those Jews would need to continue honoring the Father and would now additionally have to honor the Son as they had formerly honored the Father alone.
As Jehovah has "set a day to judge the entire inhabited earth", this requirement for honor to be given to both Jehovah and Jesus is incumbent on all of mankind who wish to gain a favourable judgement in line with the principle stated at 1Sam 2:30: "those honoring me I will honor". Honoring Jehovah necessitates the honoring of His Son and vice versa.
John 5:23.
"so that 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"
 

The CQC inspection is looking at whether the home is working in accordance with governmental regulations and thereby reflecting current best practice. The same criteria applies to 'worldly' homes as well. 
The problems at Jah-Jireh Wigan weren't centered around the general ethos but were these:
 It's good to see that improvements have been made since. 
The report had lots of positive comments too. 

This home has been inspected again by the Care Quality Commission recently. Improvement has been noted with some further work required.
INS2-2453310514.pdf

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?

 

No...I think I'm dealing with an Internet bot, also known as web robot, WWW robot or simply bot, is a software application that runs automated tasks (scripts) over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone.

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."

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."

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

The question sets up a fallacy of the excluded middle. That's why I quoted Ps. 82.
Here I'd like to acknowledge those who pointed out that 'gods' here refer to humans - you're right. I should have checked beyond my old, brief scribblings when looking for a quick reference to post. 

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.’ "
 

Dagobert Duck seems to be German version of Scrooge McDuck.  Wikipedia says  "He was in his first few appearances characterized as a greedy miser and antihero (as Charles Dickens' original Scrooge was), but in later comics and animated shorts and the modern day he is more often portrayed as a charitable and thrifty hero, adventurer, explorer, and philanthropist." 
The picture above is of a toy version of a popular superhero called Northstar.
Wikipedia says of this character:  "The character is one of the first openly gay superheroes in American comic books, and the first openly gay character to come out in a book published by Marvel Comics. He married his husband, Kyle Jinadu, inAstonishing X-Men #51 (June 2012), which was the first depiction of a same-sex marriage in mainstream comics."
I agree entirely with this point, but just feel it is necessary to make the point that in order for the conscience to work effectively, it needs to be informed.

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

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.
 
 

Wow!!  Where do you live?????

Thankyou @Jerry A Miller for posting this link to a kind and fair assessment.
I have a sad feeling there will be a flood of dirt-dishers in the coming days as the tabloids cash in on any story to feed the prurient market for celebrity rumor and gossip.

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.
 
 

This may have been the plainest room Prince spent time in as an adult
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-prince-jehovah-20160424-story.html

First off if I may say this was not Prince's Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses it is for any and all that enter and want to learn about Jehovah God and his words. Secondly it is not nor will it ever be known as a church,that is why it is called a Kingdom Hall.I just feel that people need to be aware of these 2 things. I am not here for an argument just stating facts.

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.

Wow!!  Where do you live?????

I think Eoin has made an excellent conclusion to this matter and I kind of hated to spoil it by agreeing with it. It reminds me of the ultimate conclusion of a discussion of so many of the "immaterial" [vain] material matters that we deal with "under the sun" as discussed in the book of Ecclesiastes:
(Ecclesiastes 7:27-29) 27 “See, this is what I found,” says the congregator. “I investigated one thing after another to reach my conclusion, 28 but what I continually sought, I have not found. ... 29 This alone I have found: The true God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”
(Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14) 13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.
But it would not be fair to just end it here. The presentation has been too lop-sided. The WTS position has not been presented. Since no one else has really presented it, I will likely post the WTS position next. Perhaps even from the very first time the entire chronology issue was first addressed by the WTS, with a specific discussion of how the 70 years fits in. This will simultaneously present a good idea of the history of the doctrine and how closely we still hold to the same positions and arguments.