Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?

[Shiwiii]

3 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

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

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? 

 

3 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

So it is simply not possible for the Father and Son to be equally God while not being equal in authority.

of course it is, Read Philippians 2, what does Jesus empty Himself of? Verse 6 says He was in the form of God. Jesus, when He came to the Earth made Himself humble and He emptied Himself of the form of God. So then, who would He be subject to then? Men? nope, The Father. 

[Donald Diamond]

43 minutes 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? 

 

of course it is, Read Philippians 2, what does Jesus empty Himself of? Verse 6 says He was in the form of God. Jesus, when He came to the Earth made Himself humble and He emptied Himself of the form of God. So then, who would He be subject to then? Men? nope, The Father. 

I believe I have answered this several times now.    We honour the Father for having supreme authority - we honour the Son for having been delegated authority in relation to judgement and raising the dead from his Father.  We honour the Son in executing judgement and raising the dead as if it was the Father doing it.  The reason for honouring them is different - so it is like comparing apples and oranges.  Jesus says the Father is the greater in this respect as he can do nothing of his own accord - but the passage is not concerned with "quantities" of honour,    It is an imposition on the text.

Philippians 2 says nothing about God giving up His supreme authority.    And you did not address Isaiah 40 onwards.

I feel I have answered your questions, and we have wandered far from the original issue (I take my share of the blame), so am happy to leave it there unless you have something new and relevant to ask.   I don't feel it is fair to make this thread a free for all on every trinitarian proof text.

D.

[Shiwiii]

The passage is exactly that, the equality of honor. 

 

I understand and quite agree with you on the length of this thread. We are going around in circles saying the same thing we just did. None of us is getting through to the other in a way that each of us understands our respective points. I do appreciate the conversation though. 

[Donald Diamond]

5 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The passage is exactly that, the equality of honor. 

 

I understand and quite agree with you on the length of this thread. We are going around in circles saying the same thing we just did. None of us is getting through to the other in a way that each of us understands our respective points. I do appreciate the conversation though. 

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this  and for expressing yourself without making it personal.   

D 

[Evacuated]

  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.

 

 

[Evacuated]

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.’ "
 

[Shiwiii]

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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".

I quite agree, the honor given by a child is not different from mother to father,this is because both are respected equally. A child does not know (at a very young age) the different roles each play. I can accept as the child grows older they recognize the different roles, however they still do not honor one more than the other. just as you said, regardless of the motive, honor is equal. 

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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 this honor, as John states Jesus' quote, we must honor the same. I noticed you included the words "including His Son Jesus Christ", why have you included this if you do not believe they should be honored the exact same way? 

 

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Showing honor to the Son would include (among many other things not mentioned), acknowledging his unique role in:

This is where you are differentiating honor, separating the equal honor. You have not included the same attributes, which is required by Jesus' statement. 

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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).

I'm not following your references, are you meaning Philippians 1:6? and Job 8:49? there is no Job or Joshua 8:49

 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

So are you saying that the honor is only because of Jesus role to be judge? How then how do your reconcile the scriptures in Revelation? 

Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

Here we see that this same honor is bestowed upon both equally, nothing is mentioned about judging, but rather complete honor, glory (which God has said He would not share) and might. This is equal devotion, equal worship, equality. 

 

[Donald Diamond]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

 

So are you saying that the honor is only because of Jesus role to be judge? How then how do your reconcile the scriptures in Revelation? 

Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

Here we see that this same honor is bestowed upon both equally, nothing is mentioned about judging, but rather complete honor, glory (which God has said He would not share) and might. This is equal devotion, equal worship, equality. 

 

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]

The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 :

"to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject,  but it uses singular verbs. 

I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar. 

 

 

[Donald Diamond]

12 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 :

"to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject,  but it uses singular verbs. 

I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar. 

 

 

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

[Donald Diamond]

13 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 :

"to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject,  but it uses singular verbs. 

I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar. 

 

 

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

[Shiwiii]

6 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

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

Can you provide a link so that I may research this as well please?