Trinity Proof Scriptures

[7djengo7]

It's not jargon my friend, I'm simply using English to convey an idea. Let's see if you can understand this, according to the bible who ultimately receives worship out of all creation? Animals, Humans, Angels or God?

Is my question loaded with jargon or do you understand the question above perfectly clear when I say "ultimately"?

I don't assume that you mean something by your words, "ultimately receives worship"; I don't assume that it must be the case that you mean something by them. I don't assume that you are asking me a question, when you write, "according to the bible who ultimately receives worship out of all creation?" I don't assume that sticking a question mark on the right-hand side of a string of text causes that string of text to embody a question. So, I don't assume you loaded a question with meaningless jargon. What you did, so far as I can tell, is merely to stick a question mark onto the end of some meaningless jargon. Obviously, you either think, or, at least want me to think that you think, that you have asked me a question. But, I don't think that you have done so, so that's you're problem.

Instead of asserting what I say is nonsensical why not explain how excatly it is nonsenseical, again, asserting something does not make you right, where is your evidence?

If you think you are asking me a question when you say "according to the bible who ultimately receives worship out of all creation?", it's not my problem if you can't convey whatever it is you think you mean. I can't read your mind. All I could do--if it seemed to me that you have asked me a question--would be to try to answer it.

The fact is, your phrases, "ultimately receives worship", and "receives the glory in the ultimate sense", are nowhere to be found in Scripture. As I said, I don't assume--nor do I have any obligation to assume--that you mean something by them. And, I certainly have no obligation to try guessing as to what (if anything) you might think you mean by them.

To give glory means to receive praise or worship or both to someone. To receive glory means to receive glory or praise or both from someone else.

OK, and anyone who denies (or who pretends to deny) that, in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV, Jesus is being given, and is receiving, worship and praise--that is, glory--manifestly has no capacity to reason from, nor about, the Bible.

 

[7djengo7]

As I've already said, I do not deny Jesus is being glorified in Phil 2, it is clear that he is, and that is exactly my point, despite him being glorified who does it go to according to the verse? Not him but the Father! Why, as I've been arguing its because according to the bible we are to worship the Father through Jesus, hence why everyone "bends the knee to Jesus" buts its "to the glory of God the Father".



Again I do not deny that Jesus is being glorified there, since it clearly says "every knee should bend to him" and that God "God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name", the fact remains, despite these things being done to Jesus its "to the glory of God the Father".

Here, again, you are a double-talker. First, you pretend you do not deny that Jesus is receiving glory in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV, but then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say "who does it go to according to the verse?", thereby denying, by means of a rhetorical "question", that Jesus is receiving glory in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV. For Jesus to be receiving glory is for glory to be going to Jesus; He could not receive what does not go to Him.

Again, is the everyone bending of the knee to Jesus "to the glory the Father" according to Phil chapter 2?

There, you (yet again) butcher English: "is the everyone bending of the knee to Jesus..."

Now, in what you wrote, here...

When every knee on heaven and earth bends to Jesus (Phil 2:8-11), to whose glory is it to, his own or the Father?

...you butchered the English language on at least two counts. I pointed this out, and you reacted by saying:

How is this a butchering of the English language, explain? Stop asserting things with proof or explanation.

You can't tell that what you wrote--"to whose glory is it to"--is wrong, and that "to whose glory is it" is right?

You can't tell that what you wrote--"his own or the Father"--is wrong, and that "his own or the Father's" is right?

Actually, I just now noticed a third count of your butchery of English: "every knee on heaven". ON heaven? Really?

Even just now you, again, butchered English; this time, by writing: "How is this a butchering of the English language, explain?" Can you not tell the difference between an interrogative sentence and an imperative sentence? Apparently, you wanted to craft some sort of freakish half-interrogative, half-imperative composite.

You wrote:

No, if Jesus glorification was equal to that of the Father then it would read as follows in Phil 2, " God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 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 to himself/Jesus]. Since the verse states that it is simply "to the glory of God the Father" then it is clear Jesus being exalted and every knee bending to him does not equate the Fathers level of glorification.

To add the words, "and to the glory of Jesus, Himself", to the end of Philippians 2:9-11 KJV, would be an exercise in redundancy. We just got done reading, in those very verses, of Jesus' being glorified--of Jesus' receiving glory. Obviously Jesus' being glorified is to the glory of Jesus. Only a deranged fool could say, "Jesus is indeed being glorified, but NOT to Jesus' glory".

If it has been instructed for us to worship the Father through Jesus who is "the image of God", and we follow that command, then bending the knee to Jesus is bending the knee to the Father, since that is how we've been instructed to worship the Father, "no one come to the father except through me" (John 14:6)

Again, your jargon, "worship the Father through Jesus", is just that: your jargon. It is to be found nowhere in Scripture.

And, in Philippians 2:9-11, we read nothing like your claim, that "bending the knee to Jesus is bending the knee to the Father". Neither do we read anything like it in John 14:6.

 

[7djengo7]

I laid out the proposition, "The holy spirit is...part of [a Spirit]." And, you reacted to it by saying:

Nope. This is your creation ... not what I wrote.

Of course you did not write the phrase, "a Spirit"; that is why I put brackets around it--to signify that you did not write that phrase. I'm not accusing you of having written it. I'm accusing you (and my accusation is true) of necessarily implying--by what you did write--that the Holy Spirit is part of a spirit. And THAT, you can't hide.

• John 4:24 declares that God is a spirit.
• You claim that the Holy Spirit is part of God.

If God is a spirit, and the Holy Spirit is part of God, then the Holy Spirit is part of a spirit.

Since, as John declared, God is a spirit, then to claim (as you claim) that the Holy Spirit is part of God, is necessarily to imply that the Holy Spirit is part of a spirit. It makes no difference that you did not write "The Holy Spirit is part of a spirit"; by what you DID write, you necessarily implied it.

Nothing was my (as you say) "creation"; all I did was NOTICE the necessary entailment from your statement, and BRING IT INTO THE LIGHT OF SCRUTINY for you to have to face it, and for others to see how puerile you must make yourself appear trying to not own it.

Only a blockhead could write the things you write. Oh, but I'm not saying that YOU are a blockhead.

God is truth, righteousness, justice, goodness, etc. Those are all aspects of His mind/spirit. The TRUE believers are those that draw near to God in every aspect of their thinking/spirit.

Here, you just shot yourself in your foot, yet again.

Since you claim that the Holy Spirit is "part of God", you, here, make "truth, righteousness, justice, goodness, etc." to be "aspects of" "part of God". You blaspheme God, here, in saying that not ALL God is truth, that not ALL God is righteousness, that not ALL God is justice, that not ALL God is justice, that not ALL God is goodness, that not ALL God is etc. You have just made truth to be only a part of a part of God.

 

[Dartman]

Go for it. Be sure to @ JohnW, 7, and myself when it's up.

I don't know how to do that. So, here is your notice.

 

[Dartman]

I laid out the proposition, "The holy spirit is...part of [a Spirit]." And, you reacted to it by saying:



Of course you did not write the phrase, "a Spirit"; that is why I put brackets around it--to signify that you did not write that phrase. I'm not accusing you of having written it. I'm accusing you (and my accusation is true) of necessarily implying--by what you did write--that the Holy Spirit is part of a spirit.

You are incorrect.
The holy spirit is THE part of God that Jesus was talking about when he said "God is spirit".
The holy spirit is GOD'S spirit. Like my spirit is ME.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, Hhe that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.


1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

AND like "Titus' spirit" was Titus;

2 Cor 7:13 Therefore we were comforted in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all.

So, was Titus refreshed by them ... or was his spirit refreshed by them??


Eph 3:14-16 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man;


1 John 4:12-13 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His spirit.

 

[7djengo7]

You are incorrect.
The holy spirit is THE part of God that Jesus was talking about when he said "God is spirit".

Jesus said that God is a spirit; Jesus did not say that PART of God is a spirit. You have serious trouble reading English!

Jesus, in John 4:24 KJV says:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

NOT:

PART OF God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[NWL]

If you were to graft a branch from a peach tree onto an apple tree, what fruit would the branch produce?

This is simply not possible, the same way you can't breed a cat with a dog you cant graft a peach tree onto a apple tree, grafting of trees require them to be of the same genus. Only God knows what fruit it would bear as he is the only one possible of accomplishing such a feat.

Your question does not correlate with the example in Romans 11 which talks of grafting of "wild branches of an olive tree" with that of the "original/natural tree branches".

Israel is the natural branches. The Gentiles are the wild branches.

Good. So if the "wild branches", who we both agree are Gentiles, "were grafted in among [the natural branches]" are the wild branches now part of the natural branches, or in other words were the Gentiles(wild branches) now part of Israel?

If not, then explain how "[Gentiles] were grafted in among them [Israel]" means anything other than what it clearly states, namely, the Gentiles were grafted onto/in amoung Israel so became Israel?

Good scripture that shows that Israel (the natural branches) will be grafted back in again.

What's your point?

The verse (Romans 11:24-26) only makes sense if the the grafting relates to gentiles becoming Israel by the grafting, since it says "a partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved". "The nations" refers to the "gentiles" who are the people coming or getting grafted in. Once the full number have come in, as the verse says, Israel, both natural and unnatural will be saved. If you believe Israel ONLY refers to Israel and the gentiles don't become part of Israel by the verse, then you have to accept that "all Israel", namely all Jews will be saved.

Do you accept that all Israel/Jews will be saved, even the ones who rejected, betrayed and put Jesus to death? If not then how do you explain the text "a partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25,26)

Answer me if you will, is "Abraham seed" through/in Isaac according to Gen 21:12

All of Isaac's descendants are Abraham's seed.

But not all of Abraham's seed are Isaac's descendants.

You're ignoring the question or maybe I didn't make the question clear enough, we both already agree all of Isaac's descendants are Abraham's seed, we're talking about what the holy scriptures state about the matter. Again the scriptures state "because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac".

Remember, your claim is "Abraham seed" refers to all his descendants, whether through Isaac or his other children (Ismael). However scripture states "What will be called your seed will be through Isaac". So I'm asking does the phrase "Abraham's seed" refer solely to "Isaac seed"? If your answer is that it doesn't, then why does YHWH say in regards to Abraham that "what will be called" "Abraham's seed" is through Isaac?

Which I don't disagree with, except that we are Abraham's offspring through ADOPTION, not by natural birth.

"Abrahams seed" refers only that of "Isaac seed", Israel. Are you agreeing that we are Isaac seed/Israel by adoption?

Stop taking things out of context.

If you had read the very next verse, you would have seen that ISHMAEL was also called Abraham's seed:

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing.Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.”And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son.But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed.” - Genesis 21:9-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

You misunderstood my question which I discussed in my replies above, the focus of the text I was ealier trying to bring out was the phrase "What will be called your seed". Isaac is the only son that should be known as "Abraham seed" is my point.

The highlighted portion is describing those who converted from being Gentiles, to being Jews, what are called proselytes.

So you agree that people who are not real Israelite's can be referred to as Israelite's?

God deliberately called Isaac Abraham's "only son" because he prefigured Christ, who is God's only Son.

Good, we are getting there. So what does the "only son" part refer to hmmm?

 

[NWL]

You've ignored everything I last said to you and are simply holding onto the ONLY argument you think you can deal with. Deal with my points, then we can carry on the discussion.

No, I ignored everything else because the absurdity of "the dead did not rise when the bible said they rose" was too great already. All of your arguments are depending on ignoring scripture, and this is a prime example.

You ignored me before an have ignored me again. Deal with the questions and then we can carry on the discussion, a reasonable request. Here they are once more:

1. Answer me if you will, is the Father as mentioned in John 5:22, "the God" who "Judges the world through the man who was appointed" in Acts 17:31?

2. Is God "appointing Jesus to judge the world in Acts 17:31" and "the Father entrusting Jesus to do all the in John 5:22" referring to the same idea of Jesus receiving authority to judge?

3. Satan is the first adversary of God and he will be the last adversary of God, can someone say Satan is "the First and the last of God adversaries". Yes or no?

4. Can Adam be referred to as the "first and the last person whom God made out for dust"(this question relates to this present and not future events of Resurrection)?

5. Does using YHWH's name in vain according to Exodus 20:7 relate to the abuse of the actual name YHWH or titles that God is called?

"..You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up His name in a worthless way.." (Exo 20:7)

6. Are Ehud and Othniel both saviours (in any sense) according to scripture, yes or no?

(Judges 3:9) When the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, Jehovah raised up a savior to rescue the Israelites, Othʹni·el the son of Keʹnaz, the younger brother of Caʹleb.

(Judges 3:15) Then the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, so Jehovah raised up for them a savior, Eʹhud the son of Geʹra, a Benʹja·min·ite who was left-handed. In time the Israelites sent tribute through him to Egʹlon the king of Moʹab.

7. If the F&L is in relation to Jesus being Almighty God as in Rev 1:8 then how is it possible the "first and the last became dead" according to both Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8 since God cannot die. Please do not say its speaking about his humanity as Jesus is clearly speaking in regards to his divine nature (according to your reasoning of F&L being the same as Rev 1:8 A&O the almighty). How is it possible immortal God died. If you have answered this question, please show me where.[/QUOTE]

 

[NWL]

1. How many authors recorded the raising of the child by Elijah?
2. How many gospels recorded Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night?
3. How many gospels record the wise men coming to see Jesus after his birth?

Do you discount these events as well?

I'm not sure, I'll guess the answer it 1. But out of all those three examples what is the greater, a number of people simultaneously coming to life at the death of Jesus and appearing to people in Jerusalem or, the raising of the child by Elijah and Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night and wise men coming to see Jesus after his birth?

My point wasn't that only one bible writer recorded it, it was that if they were resurrected that all but one failed to record such an amazing feat of a mass resurrection, which had never been done before.

 

[NWL]

I don't assume that you mean something by your words, "ultimately receives worship"; I don't assume that it must be the case that you mean something by them. I don't assume that you are asking me a question, when you write, "according to the bible who ultimately receives worship out of all creation?" I don't assume that sticking a question mark on the right-hand side of a string of text causes that string of text to embody a question. So, I don't assume you loaded a question with meaningless jargon. What you did, so far as I can tell, is merely to stick a question mark onto the end of some meaningless jargon. Obviously, you either think, or, at least want me to think that you think, that you have asked me a question. But, I don't think that you have done so, so that's you're problem.

I'm asking you a question, stop playing silly and answer it. Let me also say that I don't nor have ever said the phrase "God/Father ultimately receives worship" (or like phrase) is ever stated in scripture, as I stated to you before I'm using language (English) to convey thoughts and ideas to you. I ask again:

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"

The fact is, your phrases, "ultimately receives worship", and "receives the glory in the ultimate sense", are nowhere to be found in Scripture. As I said, I don't assume--nor do I have any obligation to assume--that you mean something by them. And, I certainly have no obligation to try guessing as to what (if anything) you might think you mean by them.

When have I said they were? The idea is expressed in scripture, as I've clearly shown and as you've been unable to refute.

If I asked you where the word trinity in the bible was you would say "it's not, but its expressed in scripture". I state that it is the Father who "ultimately receives worship" and you go off on one stating the phrase "is not found in scripture", when I never stated it was in the first place.

To give glory means to receive praise or worship or both to someone. To receive glory means to receive glory or praise or both from someone else.

OK, and anyone who denies (or who pretends to deny) that, in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV, Jesus is being given, and is receiving, worship and praise--that is, glory--manifestly has no capacity to reason from, nor about, the Bible.

I have never denied that he does, I have stated this more than once now. My point, which you keep failing to address, is that despite the actions being done to Jesus in Phil 2:7-11 its not to his glory but "to the glory of God the Father". All I'm doing is quoting scripture friend in reply to your claims, if you can't deal with that stop replying. If you can, then actually explain how all the actions done to Jesus in Phil 2:8-11 are to him yet the verse states it not to his glory, but to the Fathers.

You also ignored one of my questions, here it is again:

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

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]

Here, again, you are a double-talker. First, you pretend you do not deny that Jesus is receiving glory in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV, but then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say "who does it go to according to the verse?", thereby denying, by means of a rhetorical "question", that Jesus is receiving glory in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV. For Jesus to be receiving glory is for glory to be going to Jesus; He could not receive what does not go to Him.

Yes Jesus receiving glory is glory going to him, but if he passes that glory onto someone else then it no longer going to him but to the person whom he gives it too. As I've repeatably said, we worshipers are only ever instructed to the Father, Jesus himself stated "no one come to the Father expect though me" , I've previously posted verses showing that we give praise to the Father through Jesus.

You are not understanding. If I tell my Son to relay a message to my wife and tell my son that message, and my son in turn tells my wife, I have told my son that message but he has not kept that message to himself but has passed it to my wife.

In like manner we go to the father through Jesus. We give glory and worship to Jesus, he in turns passes that to the Father. Hence why in Phil 2:8-11 the bending to the knee is given to Jesus, but its to the glory of God the Father and not his own.

(Ephesians 2:18) because through him [Jesus] we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit.

There, you (yet again) butcher English: "is the everyone bending of the knee to Jesus..."

...you butchered the English language on at least two counts. I pointed this out, and you reacted by saying:

You can't tell that what you wrote--"to whose glory is it to"--is wrong, and that "to whose glory is it" is right?

You can't tell that what you wrote--"his own or the Father"--is wrong, and that "his own or the Father's" is right?

Actually, I just now noticed a third count of your butchery of English: "every knee on heaven". ON heaven? Really?

Even just now you, again, butchered English; this time, by writing: "How is this a butchering of the English language, explain?" Can you not tell the difference between an interrogative sentence and an imperative sentence? Apparently, you wanted to craft some sort of freakish half-interrogative, half-imperative composite.

LOL.

To add the words, "and to the glory of Jesus, Himself", to the end of Philippians 2:9-11 KJV, would be an exercise in redundancy. We just got done reading, in those very verses, of Jesus' being glorified--of Jesus' receiving glory. Obviously Jesus' being glorified is to the glory of Jesus. Only a deranged fool could say, "Jesus is indeed being glorified, but NOT to Jesus' glory".

Yes Jesus is gloried by the Father with everyone bending the knee to him, but according to the verse who's glory is it done to? Why can't you answer the question!? The verse is so clear.

(Philippians 2:9-11) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 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.

Again, your jargon, "worship the Father through Jesus", is just that: your jargon. It is to be found nowhere in Scripture.

And, in Philippians 2:9-11, we read nothing like your claim, that "bending the knee to Jesus is bending the knee to the Father". Neither do we read anything like it in John 14:6.

Let's see if what I say makes sense. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

 

[Dartman]

Yes Jesus receiving glory is glory going to him, but if he passes that glory onto someone else then it no longer going to him but to the person whom he gives it too. As I've repeatably said, we worshipers are only ever instructed to the Father, Jesus himself stated "no one come to the Father expect though me" , I've previously posted verses showing that we give praise to the Father through Jesus.

You are not understanding. If I tell my Son to relay a message to my wife and tell my son that message, and my son in turn tells my wife, I have told my son that message but he has not kept that message to himself but has passed it to my wife.

In like manner we go to the father through Jesus. We give glory and worship to Jesus, he in turns passes that to the Father. Hence why in Phil 2:8-11 the bending to the knee is given to Jesus, but its to the glory of God the Father and not his own.

(Ephesians 2:18) because through him [Jesus] we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit.




LOL.

Yes Jesus is gloried by the Father with everyone bending the knee to him, but according to the verse who's glory is it done to? Why can't you answer the question!? The verse is so clear.

(Philippians 2:9-11) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 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.



Let's see if what I say makes sense. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

Excellent post.

I would add, Intrinsic to Jesus being Lord is the origin of Jesus, and the origin of being exalted to be Lord, and Christ.

When a ruler sends a delegate/agent to another ruler, that delegate/agent represents the one who sent them. Jesus REPEATEDLY stated he was SENT by God.

Jesus stated that the words (logos) he spoke, were NOT his words.... they were his God's words.
Jesus stated that the works he did, were commanded to him by his God.

Again, great post, keep up the good work!

 

[7djengo7]

If you can, then actually explain how all the actions done to Jesus in Phil 2:8-11 are to him yet the verse states it not to his glory, but to the Fathers.

Nowhere in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV is it stated that the glory given to Jesus is not to Jesus' glory. Nowhere. You are simply stuffing your unitarianism into the text--you are committing eisegesis. On the contrary, according to the passage, Jesus is glorified; the glorification of Jesus is, ipso facto, TO JESUS' GLORY.

Philippians 2:8-11 KJV:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Notice that we read, "to the glory of God the Father"; we do NOT read, "to the glory of God the Father, but NOT to the glory of the Son."

And, again, it need not read "to the glory of God the Father, AND to the glory of the Son", since vv. 9-11 just got done telling us--without using, or needing to use, the word "glory"--that the Son is glorified. God the Father glorifies the Son in highly exalting Him, and in giving Him a name which is above every name, and every tongue glorifies the Son in confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, and every knee, by bowing.

• For the text to read, "to the glory of God the Father, AND to the glory of the Son", would be redundant.
• For the text to read, "to the glory of God the Father, BUT NOT to the glory of the Son", would be for the text to contradict itself.

 

[7djengo7]

Yes Jesus receiving glory is glory going to him, but if he passes that glory onto someone else then it no longer going to him but to the person whom he gives it too.

For Jesus to have received glory is for that glory which He received to have gone TO JESUS. The glory that is going to Jesus is (guess what!) going to Jesus. Besides that, where, in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV, do we read anything, whatsoever, about Jesus "passing glory onto someone else"? The fact is that NOWHERE do we find that.

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

 

[7djengo7]

Hence why in Phil 2:8-11 the bending to the knee is given to Jesus, but its to the glory of God the Father and not his own.

NOWHERE does it say that the glory given to Jesus is NOT to Jesus' own glory. For the Bible to say that would be for the Bible to egregiously contradict the Bible, the way you egregiously contradict the Bible.

 

[Dartman]

Jesus said that God is a spirit;

Not quite, Jesus said God is spirit...... the "a" isn't in the Greek, or most modern translations.

Jesus did not say that PART of God is a spirit.

Another "Straw Man". I didn't claim Jesus SAID the word "part". But, I think even you, as bitter and vindictive as you are, will admit that Jesus' remark was NOT intended to be a detailed explanation of ALL that God is.

 

[glorydaz]

Not quite, Jesus said God is spirit...... the "a" isn't in the Greek, or most modern translations.

And what difference does it make if God is spirit or a spirit?

The meaning stays the same. God is Divine...a spirit being and must be worshipped in spirit.

Another "Straw Man". I didn't claim Jesus SAID the word "part". But, I think even you, as bitter and vindictive as you are, will admit that Jesus remark was NOT intended to be a detailed explanation of ALL that God is.

Put your emotions on the back burner and stop imagining a person is "bitter and vindictive". You can't see into a man's heart, so stop pretending like you can.

 

[Dartman]

And what difference does it make if God is spirit or a spirit?

God is spirit explains a perspective of God, like "God is love".

God is Divine...

Yes.

...a spirit being

There is no such thing.

and must be worshipped in spirit.

Absolutely. We are to worship God with "all our mind/spirit", our thinking must be patterned like His thinking/spirit. What we know of God is almost exclusively mental. We learn His definition of righteousness, His justice, His wisdom, His knowledge, His love, His wrath, His values ..... all of these things are aspects of His thinking/mind/heart/spirit.

You can't see into a man's heart, so stop pretending like you can.

Jesus says we CAN discern;

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

The bitter and vindictive words are fruits.

I will admit, 7d7 is NOT as bad as Johnw ... who I would have been banned the first day I saw his posts.

But, 7d7's posts are frequently so vile I won't even respond.

 

[clefty]

God is spirit explains a perspective of God, like "God is love".

Yes.
There is no such thing.
Absolutely. We are to worship God with "all our mind/spirit", our thinking must be patterned like His thinking/spirit. What we know of God is almost exclusively mental. We learn His definition of righteousness, His justice, His wisdom, His knowledge, His love, His wrath, His values ..... all of these things are aspects of His thinking/mind/heart/spirit.

Jesus says we CAN discern;

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

The bitter and vindictive words are fruits.

I will admit, 7d7 is NOT as bad as Johnw ... who I would have been banned the first day I saw his posts.

But, 7d7's posts are frequently so vile I won't even respond.

Banning is what a Pharisee and the Inquisition does...so threatened by the dissenting message or so insecure in their own belief they must censore even kill the other argument...lest it persuade...

Truth will prevail though it be ignored, mocked or fought. Ask Gandhi.

“Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence. ... Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle”― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


One lie needs an army of support.

Rather alone with the truth than celebrity king of the deceived...

I thank Yah for those that hate and persecute...especially falsely (Matt 5:11)

To maintain this trinity thingy trastic measure had to be done...councils had to be called and creeds established and other bullying tactics employed...yup killing included not just mean posting...

Some here indeed are more entertaining than others but after how martyrs were jailed tortured and killed and STILL uncompromised...it is comforting to me I rarely side with those doing the censoring/killing...let alone have to read a mean post with emojis LOL

For instance not once were sabbath keepers known to kill to maintain their belief in Yahushua...HalleluYah

Notice too that throughout history it was those that sought to build temporal power which sought to censor with force...

His Way however is straight and NARROW for a reason...it is direct and not many travel it...

 

[NWL]

Nowhere in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV is it stated that the glory given to Jesus is not to Jesus' glory. Nowhere. You are simply stuffing your unitarianism into the text--you are committing eisegesis. On the contrary, according to the passage, Jesus is glorified; the glorification of Jesus is, ipso facto, TO JESUS' GLORY.

Philippians 2:8-11 KJV:




Notice that we read, "to the glory of God the Father"; we do NOT read, "to the glory of God the Father, but NOT to the glory of the Son."

And, again, it need not read "to the glory of God the Father, AND to the glory of the Son", since vv. 9-11 just got done telling us--without using, or needing to use, the word "glory"--that the Son is glorified. God the Father glorifies the Son in highly exalting Him, and in giving Him a name which is above every name, and every tongue glorifies the Son in confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, and every knee, by bowing.

• For the text to read, "to the glory of God the Father, AND to the glory of the Son", would be redundant.
• For the text to read, "to the glory of God the Father, BUT NOT to the glory of the Son", would be for the text to contradict itself.

This is poor reasoning, I will explain why. For one you say "Nowhere in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV is it stated that the glory given to Jesus is not to Jesus' glory, the argument you are using it the arugment of silence. For example I could say, "well the bible doesn't say God doesn't have the form of a giant spaghetti monster and lives on the moon and eat cheese, therefore he is and does those things", and argument from silence is not an argument at all. According to Phil 2:8-11 God "exalted [Jesus] to a superior position" for two reasons as you can see below from the quoted breakdown of the text in question:

Phil 2:9-11
"for this very reason God exalted him to a superior position"

(1)"so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground"
(2)"and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

The text is very clear, the Father exalted Jesus so that every knee would bend to him and also so that every tongue would acknowledge Jesus is lord for his -the fathers- own glory. What you are attempting to do is claiming that since it does not directly exclude Jesus that I can't say he is not included. Well the verse doesn't say that the apostles, or the Angels or even Satan weren't included in the glorification, so according to the argument from silence they all too could be included in the verse. Such a claim would be foolish, since we can only take scripture for what it says, if the verse states "its to the glory of the Father" then we must understand it to mean just that, if we do insert any other meaning into the verse (without scriptural backing) then we are adding our own thoughts into scripture.

Also, nowhere in Phil 2:8-11 does it directly mention that the actions to Jesus was him receiving glory, when both you and I agree and say "Jesus received glory according to Phil 2:8-11" we do so by the said actions the Father, namely "God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name" and the actions of man and Angels, namely "every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth [to Jesus]". So to say that the verse doesn't exclude Jesus in the glorification at the end of v11 is hard to argue when it doesn't even mention Jesus was "glorified" in the verse directly, we simply deduce he was by the actions of the Father to him.

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