Aineo wrote:beads wrote:When has God ever authorized worship to go to anyone other than God.
Really?
Hebrews 1:6
6 And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says,
"
And let all the angels of God worship Him." NAS
Would you care to rethink your response?
Aineo wrote:If Jesus is God then John 17:3... [is a lie].
How so?
This verse only says that Jesus was sent by the Father.
Aineo wrote:If Jesus is God then 1 Corinthians 8:6... [is a lie].
I see where you are trying to go with this, but the verse does not say that the "one God" and "one Lord" are exclusive persons.
How does John 17:3 state only that Jesus was sent by the Father? As to 1 Corinthians 8:6 "and" is a conjunction that connects two independent people, thoughts, and etc. And although it can be used to connect adjectives that describe the same person or object when used in this sense you will not find two names of two people as in Adam and Eve or you and I.
The point of the passage is to show that even though there are many things that are called gods and lords, there is only one God and there is only one Lord. It is not a lie to say that God can fill both of those positions in two manifestations (Father and Son).
Aineo wrote:If Jesus is God then Ephesians 4:6... [is a lie].
Basically the same argument as 1 Cor. 8:6.
Aineo wrote:If Jesus is God then 1 Timothy 2:5... [is a lie].
So you have chosen to ignore "but for us" in 1 Corinthians 8:6, how the conjunction "and" is used in Ephesians 4:6 and in 1 Timothy 2:5 as well as the word "man" in 1 Timothy 2:5.
Jump back to verse 3 of this passage. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour"
I always thought Jesus was the Savior..... but here it says "God" is the Savior. What's the conclusion?
That in accordance with what Peter taught God exalted a man to be mankind’s Savior by the Law of Agency.
... By the way, you did a fine job cherry-picking at the remainder of my previous post.
You completely skipped over my comments on your "Law of Agency" defense.
And you in no way tried to offer up any explanation for how Rev 19:13 can coexist with John 1:1, other than to say that my understanding is lacking. If I am lack understanding, then whay are you unable to refute me?
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, which is the point of John's prologue. God's first-born of all creation was His word or have you forgotten that God spoke our physical universe into existence? BTW, you did not refute the Law of Agency you sidestepped the Law of Agency.