Trinity Proof Scriptures

[7djengo7]

“Jesus” is NOT the name given BTW

"Jesus" is NOT the name given to WHOM?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since Jesus is the LORD God

But the Bible states that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sent His Son (Jesus) to save the world.

 

[7djengo7]

Is you argument and argument from silence? If not then explain how its not.

Are you trying to say that I am arguing that, SINCE Paul, in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV (or anywhere else), never says that the glory given to Jesus is NOT to the glory of Jesus, THEN, IT MUST FOLLOW that the glory given to Jesus IS to the glory of Jesus? If you think that I am arguing that, then you're quite mistaken. My argument is that, since Jesus, in the passage, is shown being glorified, and since Jesus can't be glorified without that glorification being TO JESUS' GLORY, Paul would

1. be engaging in redundancy, were he to write the phrase "to the glory of Jesus", since he has just described the glorification of Jesus in God the Father's highly exalting Jesus, giving Him a name above every name, etc., and

2. be contradicting his own statements were he to write the phrase "NOT to the glory of Jesus".

You're the one trying to argue from silence (and against TRUTH, at that!) You're saying, in essence, "Look, we see Paul saying only the words, "to the glory of God the Father", and we do not see Paul saying the words, "AND to the glory of Jesus", therefore, we ought to understand that the glorification of Jesus described in the passage is NOT to the glory of Jesus."

Your problem--the problem you (or your Watchtower Tract Society programmers/handlers) have created for yourself--is that you, after admitting that Jesus is being glorified in the passage, contradict your admission by claiming that that glorification of Jesus is somehow NOT to the glory of Jesus. A phrase such as, 'glorification of Jesus that is NOT to the glory of Jesus', is an OXYMORON, just like as is the phrase "square circle"; both phrases, being oxymorons, are meaningless; neither phrase has a referent. It is simply impossible for Jesus to be glorified without that glorification of Jesus being TO THE GLORY OF JESUS.

 

[7djengo7]

But the Bible states that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sent His Son (Jesus) to save the world.

It sure does!

 

[musterion]

Copying this from the other thread.

Psalm 2: Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him. No one can argue that this can only be speaking of Christ. But when that was written, Christ hadn’t yet been born into this world. Yet there He was being referred to by God as His Son, in Whom all are to trust lest they perish. THIS SAYS THAT BEFORE HE TOOK ON FLESH, CHRIST WAS GOD'S SON. So as Christ said during His incarnation, "The Father and I are One." Perfect harmony there. But here's the capper: Since there is, numerically, only one God -- beside Whom there is no other -- God is telling us that He exists in three co-equal, co-existent Persons...Father, Son and Spirit. For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. I and the Father are ONE. Perfect harmony there too. Trinitarianism is the only model that even tries dealing fairly with all this. All other models are inadequate or dishonest, and so they fail.

 

[7djengo7]

actually I think it is...you are on a moderated site and speech is NOT free and if the home field throws rocks at you while you score your goals...LOL

If you think that "speech" is NOT free on this forum, you obviously, nevertheless, count it quite cheap. Any persecuted person, who senses his/her opportunity for speaking out is but precious little, is never going to squander it the way you do, consistently, throughout your posts. You can scarcely write a sentence, and seem defiantly proud of the fact! (I know, I know...logic and grammar are abominable, PAGAN concerns, and you, o righteous one, are above all of it!) And, a Mike Tyson quote, and "LOL", to close a post about how the Inquisition is coming for you? Really?

 

[clefty]

"Jesus" is NOT the name given to WHOM?

The One called “Jesus” now.

“Jesus” is a poor translation of the original...proper names are usually not even translated...”Joshua” would actually be closer...

I mean literature purists would protest if I called him Wilhelm Shakespeare...or Donald Quixote...right?

His proper NAME seems to matter Acts 3:6 Peter heals in the name of and actually gives it credit...not Him but HIS NAME Acts 3:16
The healing creates a disturbance so disturbing that the rulers elders and scribes even the high priest Ciaphas John and Alexander and as many as were of the family of the high priest gathered to demand “BY WHAT AUTHORITY OR BY WHAT NAME HAVE YOU DONE THIS?” Acts 3:6-7

Acts 3 has Peter answer “by the name of” even “there is no other name...by which we must be saved”...and well here we are using another name Rome gave us...

Well the rulers determined that “from now on they speak to no man in this name verse 17 and 18 commanded they not SPEAK AT ALL nor teach in that name...

And so the disciples meet to council on what they were to do and finally determined verse 29–30 praying “Now Lord look on their threats and grant to your servants that with all boldness they may speak your word, by stretching out your hand to heal and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of your holy servent...”

Later when Ananias was being instructed to go heal Saul poor Ananias reminded the Lord that “here Saul has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name”...notice it is not preach the gospel or teach the teachings or practice the NEW COVENANT LIFESTYLE but merely call on His name...

Paul later on trial would not once but TWICE retell the events of his conversion on that road to Damascus and not once but TWICE when he got to the part where he asked “WHO ARE YOU?” Paul stressed he heard the name not in greek or latin certainly NOT in English but in Hebrew/Aramaic as BOTH times Paul deliberately stated the answer to his question was in that language...

Acts 21:40-22:2 and Acts 26:14 the answer of course was not “Jesus” but Yahushua or a closer version of Joshua...

The name Jesus means nothing...Yahushua actually means His Father Yah saves...

Names matter


https://youtu.be/HUs8f-lphec


and in this day and age where and when it is not fashionable to be racist or anti semitic but it is all the rage to be respectful of culture customs and history of various ethnicities and people I expect no christian wishes to be racist ya dig?

He was a jew and had a jewish name...lived according to the customs delivered by Moses...despite the jewish false testimony that Stephen taught otherwise...

So dont be racist or anti semitic using a name Rome gave us...mmmmmkay?

 

[clefty]

If you think that "speech" is NOT free on this forum, you obviously, nevertheless, count it quite cheap. Any persecuted person, who senses his/her opportunity for speaking out is but precious little, is never going to squander it the way you do, consistently, throughout your posts. You can scarcely write a sentence, and seem defiantly proud of the fact! (I know, I know...logic and grammar are abominable, PAGAN concerns, and you, o righteous one, are above all of it!) And, a Mike Tyson quote, and "LOL", to close a post about how the Inquisition is coming for you? Really?

Have a snicker...you’re not yourself when you are histrionic...

Feel better?...

 

[NWL]

.

Once again you fail to answer my question, a clear sign you are unable to handle the inconsistencies I have raised in regards to your understanding of scripture. Stop running from my questions and answer them if you will. If you are unable to then be humble and simply say so.

1. According to the bible, who ultimately receives worship out of all creation? Animals, Humans, Angels or God?

Defintion: ultimately
at the most basic level.
"ultimately he has only himself to blame"
synonyms: fundamentally, basically, primarily, essentially, at heart, deep down
"he gave two ultimately contradictory reasons"

2. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

3. Since you deny that it was through Isaac and Jacob/Israel who the promise to Abraham by God is through, do tell us who it is through?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

 

[NWL]

Where, in Scripture, does Jesus say, to anyone, "don't praise me", or, "don't glorify me"? Nowhere.
Where, in Scripture, is it said that "the Father is glorified more than the son"? Nowhere.

There are numerous places where Jesus instructs and directs people to worship God and not himself, based then on implication, it is clear, that Jesus did not want people to worship him directly. Below are verses where we can see Jesus instructing and showing people to worship God the Father.

(John 14:6) "..Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.."

(John 4:21) "..Jesus said... Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth.."

(Matthew 6:9) “..You must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.."

Why don't you try to describe exactly what (if anything) you think it would be for someone to "pass glory onto someone else"?

NWL ANSWERS AND PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE (MATHEMATICIAN STORY)

What (if anything) was the point of your little "genius mathematician" story? Obviously, it had nothing to do with the Bible.

YOU asked me the question "Why don't you try to describe exactly what (if anything) you think it would be for someone to "pass glory onto someone else"?", I then give an analogy based on your question and now you're confused as to why I provided the example, has all reason and logic left you my friend?

Interesting, also, your words regarding your "genius mathematician": you say he "wins a prize due to his intellect". The prize/praise, as you just admitted, is DUE HIM--DUE HIS INTELLECT. Why SHOULDN'T that "genius mathematician" receive the prize/praise DUE him? Did the father of your "genius mathematician" win the prize/praise? Did the father of your "genius mathematician" deserve to win the prize/praise?

He does win a prize, as does Jesus who the analogy is based on (a name above every name and every knee bending to him), but its to the fathers glory. A doctor, mathematician or a well raised child, who is now a adult, are a result of good parenting and teachers are they not? Their great accomplishments glorifies the ones who taught them the things they know, would you not agree. Likewise Jesus was "sent by the Father" to do "the will of the Father" and "say what the Father had taught him to say" and also based on the fact that Jesus could do nothing unless he learned it from his Father his teacher, any accomplishment of Jesus is to the Fathers glory, this is irrefutable since scripture clearly states it.

(John 5:19) "..Jesus replied, "Truly I tell you, the Son is not able to do anything on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son likewise does these things..."

(John 8:28) "..Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.."

(John 12:49) "..For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.."

Either the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus, or they are not. You can't have it both ways. Which do you say it is? Are the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing to Jesus? Yes or No?

So long as you answer neither "Yes" nor "No", you will have failed to answer the question, and you will continue to demonstrate your dedication to obfuscation.

How do the remarks about your question in red make any sense? So if I say "no, the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are NOT to Jesus" I'm wrong but if I also say "yes, the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus" I'm also wrong? What type of foolishness is this?? Would you not say yes to you're own question?

The knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus but "to the glory of God the Father" as the verse says, its as simple as that. Anything more then you're adding to scripture, anything less then you're adding to scripture. Take scripture for what it says and not what you want it to say.

Stop talking to me about how Jesus was or was not glorified unless you attempt to answer my question based on the matter. If you simply answered the question you would have answered your own question.

Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

 

[NWL]

Again, where does Paul, in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV, state that the things done to the glory of Jesus are NOT done to the glory of Jesus? Obviously, nowhere. If he did so, he would be contradicting himself, since he has, in the same passage, made it clear that those things are done to the glory of Jesus.

If you want to say that God the Father's highly exalting Jesus, and His giving Jesus a name above every other name, is NOT to the glory of Jesus, then you're a raving fool who has no hope of meaningful discourse with rational people.

As I've already stated, your argument here is one of silence, for example where does Paul in Phil 2:8-11 state the things done to the glory of Jesus are NOT done to the glory of Satan, or James, or Moses, or Judas? He doesn't. It would be stupid of me to claim that they could be the ones glorified as Paul doesn't mention them, your argument is not an argument.

My claim isn't that the "Father's highly exalting Jesus, and him giving Jesus a name above every other name, is NOT to the glory of Jesus" what I'm saying is that its "to the glory of God the Father" as the verse plainly states. You can try and bend and insert idea's into what I'm expressing but since I take scripture for what it simply says, you'll never win. Yes my understanding of the verse implies that ultimately Jesus doesn't receive the glory (as he hands it over to his God and Father) but nowhere have I ever stated that Jesus does NOT receive glory here, I've stated this many times now.

Stop talking to me about how Jesus was or was not glorified unless you attempt to answer my question based on the matter. If you simply answered the question you would have answered your own question.

Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?[/COLOR]

 

[NWL]

Are you trying to say that I am arguing that, SINCE Paul, in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV (or anywhere else), never says that the glory given to Jesus is NOT to the glory of Jesus, THEN, IT MUST FOLLOW that the glory given to Jesus IS to the glory of Jesus? If you think that I am arguing that, then you're quite mistaken. My argument is that, since Jesus, in the passage, is shown being glorified, and since Jesus can't be glorified without that glorification being TO JESUS' GLORY, Paul would

1. be engaging in redundancy, were he to write the phrase "to the glory of Jesus", since he has just described the glorification of Jesus in God the Father's highly exalting Jesus, giving Him a name above every name, etc., and

2. be contradicting his own statements were he to write the phrase "NOT to the glory of Jesus".

You're the one trying to argue from silence (and against TRUTH, at that!) You're saying, in essence, "Look, we see Paul saying only the words, "to the glory of God the Father", and we do not see Paul saying the words, "AND to the glory of Jesus", therefore, we ought to understand that the glorification of Jesus described in the passage is NOT to the glory of Jesus."

Your problem--the problem you (or your Watchtower Tract Society programmers/handlers) have created for yourself--is that you, after admitting that Jesus is being glorified in the passage, contradict your admission by claiming that that glorification of Jesus is somehow NOT to the glory of Jesus. A phrase such as, 'glorification of Jesus that is NOT to the glory of Jesus', is an OXYMORON, just like as is the phrase "square circle"; both phrases, being oxymorons, are meaningless; neither phrase has a referent. It is simply impossible for Jesus to be glorified without that glorification of Jesus being TO THE GLORY OF JESUS.

My position is simple, Jesus is glorified by the Father so that he himself can be glorified. Once again you fail to explain how every knee bending to Jesus is mentioned as being "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-11) and not to his own glory. As I've mentioned too many times now, this is because glory is given to the Father through Jesus.

You're the one trying to argue from silence (and against TRUTH, at that!) You're saying, in essence, "Look, we see Paul saying only the words, "to the glory of God the Father", and we do not see Paul saying the words, "AND to the glory of Jesus", therefore, we ought to understand that the glorification of Jesus described in the passage is NOT to the glory of Jesus."

This is silly deduction on your part. My argument is far from an argument from silence and arguing against truth, why? Because I'm taking scripture for what it says, the scripture states "God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend.. and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.." and that is exactly what I believe, namely that every knee bends to Jesus but to the glory of God the Father. Show me how by this statement my argument is one from silence if I'm taking scripture for what it says.

Scripture is simple, we worship God through Jesus, thus, to glorify the Father we must glorify the son. Jesus himself showed this when he said "no one comes to the Father expect through me", you have outright refused to deal with this reasoning and questions related to Jesus words here as you know they contradict your argument, scripture is clear.

(John 13:31, 32) "..When, therefore, he had gone out, Jesus said: “Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in connection with him.."

Stop talking to me about how Jesus was or was not glorified unless you attempt to answer my question based on the matter. If you simply answered the question you would have answered your own question.

Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?[/COLOR]

 

[7djengo7]

Once again you fail to answer my question, a clear sign you are unable to handle the inconsistencies I have raised in regards to your understanding of scripture. Stop running from my questions and answer them if you will. If you are unable to then be humble and simply say so.

1. According to the bible, who ultimately receives worship out of all creation? Animals, Humans, Angels or God?

Again, NOT a question. Again, your phrase "ultimately receives worship" is not from the Bible. It's not MY phrase; I don't use it, and there's no burden upon me to try to explain it. It's YOUR PHRASE, and, so far, you've stonewalled against my requests that you try to explain YOUR PHRASE. You've not explained it; your silence against my request for you to try to explain it is as good as an admission that you, yourself, know very well that you don't meaning anything by it. If you meant something by your phrase, you'd tell me what you meant. Pretty simple. So, again, you've NOT asked me a question.

What angers you is that I won't play along with your cultic language games.

2. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

What (if anything) do you think you mean by "approach the Father", "approach the Father in anything", and "approach the Father in worship"? Also, your phrase, "direct worship through": not from the Bible! Not a part of my vocabulary. Perhaps your Watchtower Tract Society programmers/handlers dish those things out for you to try to use on your marks; I don't know. At any rate, those are phraseologies not found in Scripture. Again, they're all part of your language games, and I have not an iota of obligation to play along with them.

3. Since you deny that it was through Isaac and Jacob/Israel who the promise to Abraham by God is through, do tell us who it is through?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

I can't even make out what (if anything) you're claiming I have denied. I guess you'll have to quote my exact words, wherein (as you claim) I deny whatever it is you say I deny. And, of course, you'll be expected to provide the link to whichever of my posts those words are to be found in.

Also, your "New World Translation" can go to hell, so far as I'm concerned, inasmuch as it is not God's Word, and is, rather, a vile attack upon God's Word.

 

[7djengo7]

Jesus did not want people to worship him directly.

Again, as always, your phrase, "worship him directly", is

1. Not found in Scripture, and
2. Meaningless.

Where have I said I don't worship Jesus? You are a man of assumptions and false accusations my friend. I do worship Jesus since this is the method that the father deems all persons to worship him. I worship the Father by worshiping Jesus, who passes all glory to his father.

You say you worship Jesus.
You say "Jesus did not want people to worship him directly."
You are saying that YOU worship Jesus, but not "directly". Hence, you are saying that you worship Jesus "indirectly".

Have fun trying to explain what (if anything) it is for you to worship Jesus "indirectly".

 

[NWL]

Again, NOT a question. Again, your phrase "ultimately receives worship" is not from the Bible. It's not MY phrase; I don't use it, and there's no burden upon me to try to explain it. It's YOUR PHRASE, and, so far, you've stonewalled against my requests that you try to explain YOUR PHRASE. You've not explained it; your silence against my request for you to try to explain it is as good as an admission that you, yourself, know very well that you don't meaning anything by it. If you meant something by your phrase, you'd tell me what you meant. Pretty simple. So, again, you've NOT asked me a question.

What angers you is that I won't play along with your cultic language games.

No, Jehovah's witnesses do not use the phrase "the father ultimately receive worship", I am the one using the English language to convey my thoughts, I stated this many times (search the JW online library which contains all our publications if you don't believe me, its not a common phrase, I've never seen it being used).

Who finally receives worship according to the bible
Who fundamentally receives worship according worship in the bible
Who essentially receives worship according to the bible
Who in the end receives worship according to the bible
Who ultimately receives worship according to the bible

Animals, Humans, Angels or God?

All the above questions are asking the same thing, you have mistaken my plain English for some sort of JW jargon. All I'm asking is what is expressed in the above questions. You are correct, there is no burden on you to answer the question, but how can you reasonably say what I'm saying is false and then refuse to answer questions that would fundamentally prove you wrong? I've never said it is your phrase and I've never said the phrase is in the bible, we both know these are poor excuses not to answer the question. You simply refuse to answer the question as you know it will contradict your previous position. Once again, answer any of the question in green above, a five year old could answer it. (Once again, I'm not claiming the questions are using language of the bible or that the questions are based on language you use, I'm speaking using my own understanding of the English language, none of these reasons are reasons not to answer the question).

Also, is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

2. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

What (if anything) do you think you mean by "approach the Father", "approach the Father in anything", and "approach the Father in worship"? Also, your phrase, "direct worship through": not from the Bible! Not a part of my vocabulary. Perhaps your Watchtower Tract Society programmers/handlers dish those things out for you to try to use on your marks; I don't know. At any rate, those are phraseologies not found in Scripture. Again, they're all part of your language games, and I have not an iota of obligation to play along with them.

Why are you asking questions in reply to a question? Just answer the question! According to Jesus words ""no one come to the father except through me" if we want to go to the father 'as Jesus himself said' who do we need to do it through?

Stop running my friend, man up and answer.

I can't even make out what (if anything) you're claiming I have denied. I guess you'll have to quote my exact words, wherein (as you claim) I deny whatever it is you say I deny. And, of course, you'll be expected to provide the link to whichever of my posts those words are to be found in.

You denial below.

Moreover, it was through Jaobs/Israel descendants that the "heirs with reference to a promise" (as seen in Gal 3:29) when said to Abraham by God relates.

No it wasn't.

You denied that the phrase "Abraham seed" specifically refers to "Jacobs/Israel seed" which in turn would make followers of Christ Israel by means of adoptions making "Jehovah out Father" (Isaiah 64:8). We began speaking of this as you denied that "Jehovah was our Father" but rather was only the Father of the nation of Israel as you sided with JudgeRightly false understanding. You, along with JR, were ignorant to the fact that we are the nation of Israel by adoption, we are Abraham seed.

In light of all this I showed you Romans 9:7,8 which shows that the ones known as "Abrahams seed" will be "through Isaac" specifically, again, this is something you denied, that being the case I asked you to tell us who "Abraham's seed" is through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29, and I ask you to answer the question still, who is it? If you've changed you mind and no longer agree with JR on the matter simply say so, there is no shame in changing your mind.

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

Also, your "New World Translation" can go to hell, so far as I'm concerned, inasmuch as it is not God's Word, and is, rather, a vile attack upon God's Word.

What scriptures have I used which are not in harmony when compared to other translations? If you can't name any and the scriptures that I've been using read and carry the same meaning as other texts then whats the issue?

 

[NWL]

Again, as always, your phrase, "worship him directly", is

1. Not found in Scripture, and
2. Meaningless.



You say you worship Jesus.
You say "Jesus did not want people to worship him directly."
You are saying that YOU worship Jesus, but not "directly". Hence, you are saying that you worship Jesus "indirectly".

Have fun trying to explain what (if anything) it is for you to worship Jesus "indirectly".

If you want to get onto the subject of verses saying stuff specifically and if they aren't explicit then anything against what is said is "not found in scripture" then your whole belief system will fall apart, for example,

Show me where is scripture is states "there is one God who is three persons and these three persons are co-equal and co-eternal", show me a verse? You can't and won't, why, because no verse says such a thing, nothing even close, the best you could probably do is a verse having all three (Father, Son, HS) perceived persons listed in a single scripture and that's it, with no mention that all three are one God being three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal. Show me a verse as mentioned, if you can't then why aren't you denouncing your own teaching as it's "not found in scripture"? (rhetorical, unless you want to answer)

Show me a single scripture that uses the word trinity, you can't, why, because no such scripture exists. Why aren't you denouncing your own teaching as it's "not found in scripture"? (rhetorical, unless you want to answer)

Show me a single scripture that states "all bad people go to a literal burning hell when they die", you can't, why, because no such scripture exists. Why aren't you denouncing your own teaching as it's "not found in scripture"? (rhetorical, unless you want to answer)

Show me a single scripture that says(or anything of the sort) "the soul is immortal", you can't, why, because no such scripture exists. Why aren't you denouncing your own teaching as it's "not found in scripture"? (rhetorical, unless you want to answer)

When you get into the realm of "phrases not found in scripture" you are going to end up worse than me friend, as my beliefs are generally founded on how scriptures plainly read, whereas yours are not.

 

[7djengo7]

You are correct, there is no burden on you to answer the question...

Your dishonesty is so insidious that it kind of gives me the creeps. Here is what I actually wrote:

Again, your phrase "ultimately receives worship" is not from the Bible. It's not MY phrase; I don't use it, and there's no burden upon me to try to explain it. It's YOUR PHRASE, and, so far, you've stonewalled against my requests that you try to explain YOUR PHRASE.

Nowhere have I granted that you even asked a question. I nowhere said anything about some burden to answer some question.

I said that there is no burden upon me to try to explain YOUR phrase, "ultimately receives worship". So far, you have not tried to explain, nor explained, what (if anything) you think you mean by YOUR NON-BIBLE phrase, "ultimately receives worship".

 

[7djengo7]

Who finally receives worship according to the bible
Who fundamentally receives worship according worship in the bible
Who essentially receives worship according to the bible
Who in the end receives worship according to the bible
Who ultimately receives worship according to the bible

Animals, Humans, Angels or God?

All the above questions are asking the same thing...

WHAT "same thing" would you say all those things (which YOU are calling "the above questions") "are asking"?

Where, in Scripture, would you say that any of YOUR terms--"fundamentally receives", "essentially receives", "in the end receives", "ultimately receives"--can be found in conjunction with Scripture's term "worship"?

Cite a phrase, or phraseology, in Scripture, that YOU would claim is equivalent to YOUR NON-BIBLE phrase, "ultimately receives worship".

Something, or somebody, either is worshiped, or is not worshiped; it's as simple as that.

 

[7djengo7]

So if I say "no, the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are NOT to Jesus" I'm wrong but if I also say "yes, the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus" I'm also wrong? What type of foolishness is this?? Would you not say yes to you're own question?

To my question, "Are the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing to Jesus? Yes or No?", I answer: YES.
To my question, "Either the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus, or they are not. You can't have it both ways. Which do you say it is?", I answer: The knee-bowing and tongue-confessing ARE to Jesus.

And, here, you pretend to agree with me:

The knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus...

but "to the glory of God the Father" as the verse says, its as simple as that. Anything more then you're adding to scripture, anything less then you're adding to scripture. Take scripture for what it says and not what you want it to say.

What (if anything) are you accusing me of "adding to scripture"?
What (if anything) are you accusing me of "wanting it to say"?

Stop talking to me about how Jesus was or was not glorified...

What (if anything) would you say GLORY is?
What (if anything) would you say it is to GIVE GLORY to someone?
What (if anything) would you say it is for someone to be GLORIFIED?
What (if anything) would you say it is for something to be TO THE GLORY of someone?

 

[7djengo7]

As I've already stated, your argument here is one of silence, for example where does Paul in Phil 2:8-11 state the things done to the glory of Jesus are NOT done to the glory of Satan, or James, or Moses, or Judas? He doesn't.

You just admitted, here, in agreement with me, that, in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV, the things done to the glory of Jesus are THE THINGS DONE TO THE GLORY OF JESUS!

See, the presence, in v. 11, of the words, "to the glory of God the Father", cannot negate that fact.
Just the same, the absence of a phrase such as "to the glory of Jesus" or "to the glory of the Son" cannot negate that fact.

Now, whereas you have just admitted that the things done to the glory of Jesus are done to the glory of Jesus, in an earlier post, you denied that the things done to the glory of Jesus are done to the glory of Jesus:

I already address and showed proof for this point but you ignored it. Jesus is the exception because God said he was the exception according to verses such as Phil 2:8-11 that show everyone bending the knee to Jesus as he has been exalted. Yes only God is worthy, hence why despite every knee bending to Jesus openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord its not to his glory but to the glory of God the Father as Phil 2:8-11 clearly shows.

So, now, you have contradicted what you earlier asserted.