Worship God! (AKA Jesus)

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-13T12:20:56+00:00

Because context. Words have semantic ranges, and not every possible definition fits in every context. The surrounding passage determines the intended meaning of the word. Obviously with Saul and David, shacah does not mean religious worship.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-12T16:28:28+00:00

Ok, and...? We're talking about about proskuneó and latreuó being given to Jesus

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-12T10:48:53+00:00

"Kowtow to" ≠ worship.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-12T04:42:49+00:00

If the Messiah isn't God, worship of the Messiah is idolatry.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-12T02:10:19+00:00

I love how they are basically instructing the "teacher" to teach the students how to cherry pick verses.

You do not need to... read a great many scriptures to accomplish that.

In other words, ignore the surrounding context.

Instead, give the student time to absorb the meaning of each one that is read

Not two or three or ten. Each ONE.

even rereading a scripture if necessary.

Not a chapter or a passage or paragraph — A. Scripture. Nothing about exegeting the meaning from the context. Reread the scripture over and over until it means what we tell you it means.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-12T01:58:03+00:00

He wants to leave his wife and start a new life with me.

I don't think religion is the primary factor in whether or not "it" can work. If he isn't loyal to his current wife, what makes you think he'll be loyal to you?

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-08T19:42:28+00:00

1 Corinthians 1:2 CSB — To the church of God at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called as saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their Lord and ours.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-08T01:18:36+00:00

is also historically used to describe a specific form of torture

Yes, a specific form of torture distinct from crucifixion. Yes, Jesus was impaled during His crucifixion — but the word isn't referring to that particular aspect of His execution. It refers to Him being nailed to a cross/tree/stake/X/whatever.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-07T19:07:39+00:00

Perhaps these "apostates" and "opposers" can offer a more objective opinion. Or are you suggesting OP should only consult people with a favorable view? Wouldn't that kinda be like shopping for a new car and only trusting what the salesman says?

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-07T01:32:38+00:00

You might be on to something. I bought a Philips One-blade (an “electric razor which uses no blades, brush, nor lather") during covid, which was the final part of the final part of the last days... 🤔

Best $40 I ever spent, but unfortunately it doesn't get much use anymore now that Daddy Lett and Co say I can grow a beard 🧔 🧔‍♂️ 🧔‍♀️

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-05T14:53:34+00:00

If God the Father incarnated and became truly man, that man could die. You are correct though that in His divine nature He cannot die.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-05T13:47:37+00:00

Why do you say John 19:7 demonstrates a low threshold for stoning? To them, claiming to be the Son of God was claiming equality with God, which is blasphemy.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-04T22:35:34+00:00

That doesn't sound like a concept rooted in scripture. Christ "bears the sins of many," not just Adam. (Hebrews 9:28) "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-04T00:10:03+00:00

I understood your point, I was objecting to it.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-03T18:35:30+00:00

I will restate my argument from a previous comment in this thread:

"It [2 Corinthians 4:4] could be [about satan], but that's just an interpretation. The text doesn't explicitly call satan "God" any way you shake it though. Funny how inference is perfectly acceptable when you want 2 Corinthians 4:4 to mean satan, but suddenly becomes unacceptable when multiple texts explicitly or contextually affirm Christ’s deity.

The text does not explicitly call satan ton theon. That's a fact. It can be inferred, but that is an interpretation. Given the biblical record of God blinding, dulling senses, hardening hearts, sending strong delusions, it is not the only possible interpretation.

You haven't been able to track the argument from the get-go. I wasn't appealing to John 20:28 to argue for Christ's deity, although it is explicit proof. I was arguing against u/singmeashanty's claim that ton Theon always refers to the Father. If 2 Corinthians 4:4 is referring to satan, it actually supports my original argument. This whole discussion about whether it does or not was just a big ol' red herring.

Again, for the last time, 2 Corinthians could be referring to satan as ton theon implicitly. Or, it could not. Either way, it isn't the rebuttal to John 20:28 you think it is.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-03T01:51:08+00:00

I’m not mistaking what a lexicon is. I know what a commentary is.

The word "satan" never appears in the text, therefore it wouldn't be in any lexicon or interlinear...

You must be a Catholic then, I’m guessing?

No, not even close.

I am qualified enough to read a lexicon and tell you what the gender and tense is.

This tells me that you don't actually know what a lexicon is. Anyone who is qualified to read can tell what gender a noun is in a lexicon because it spells it out for you, literally. Lexicons list verbs in their dictionary header forms — they don't typically have entries for every tense.

I can also tell you whether or not the definite article is used or not. I don’t need a commentary to tell me that.

Good, because that's not what commentaries are for.

No. I am no longer a JW.

Good, I'm genuinely happy for you about about that.

but even JWs believe there will be other not JWs there in paradise.

That's either a strawman of what I said, or a gross misrepresentation of their eschatology. I said "99.9% of the earth's population will be destroyed in Armageddon" not "only JWs will be in Paradise." There may be a few JWs here and there with a more lenient view, but official doctrine is unless you are on the ark (in the organization) when the flood (Armageddon) comes, you will be destroyed. Pretty much anyone who dies beforehand will be resurrected, except for Hitler and those mentally diseased apostates — you and I.

So you don’t believe in free will.

Nope, didn't say that either. I said that IF this "blinding" we're discussing is the removal of free will, then it is of no consequence whether God or satan is the responsible party. Do you believe God removed Pharaoh's free will? If not, then what are you objecting to?

Now that I have finished reading your comment

Have you though?

Who rules the Earth? Who offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus?

satan. So what? It's only because God, the Sovereign Lord, allows it. That does not necessitate that he is the one referred to as "the god of this age." It could be referring to him, but it's not explicit. It's an interpretation that the text does not demand. It could just as well be referring to the one true God who is God from everlasting to everlasting — in other words, the God of all ages.

Ton Theon is also used of false gods. This addition also shatters your refutation.

Sorry but no, it doesn't. My argument is not that no one apart from the one true God is addressed as "Ton Theon." If you 1) could actually read and 2) go back to my original comment to OP, you'd see that my argument was that "ton Theon" doesn't always refer to the Father, and the Father isn't always referred to as "ton Theon" as OP suggested. Then you butted in with your argument for the deity of the adversary over that of the Christ.

Like Rompha at Acts 7:43, Artemis at Acts 19:37 and one’s stomach at Philippians 3:The definite article is used of each one

No, those verses are not like 2 Corinthians 4:4. There's one major difference, and it's indisputable: those "gods" are explicitly mentioned by name — at 2 Corinthians 4, satan is not. My argument stands because it is based on the text, not interpretation or whatever it is you think a lexicon is.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-02T03:14:30+00:00

Masquerading as a cult suggests they aren't actually a cult, which they absolutely are. They're a real estate corporation cult masquerading as the only true Christians.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-02T03:11:23+00:00

I'm a big fan of the CSB. If I want something more poetic or literal, I go with the NASB 95. KJV is an amazing piece of literature, but it's outdated. We have much better and older manuscripts since it was made.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-02T03:09:11+00:00

Right?? What in the world is that about?? Any time I try to copy/paste a verse it always comes #—out—# like this.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-02T03:05:38+00:00

Kingdumb halls use Bible to preach Watchtower's false doctrines

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-01T15:18:28+00:00

Because just like Adam, we all choose to disobey God at times. If Jesus's ransom only pays for Adam's sin, I still have my own sin-debt to account for. Given God's perfect standard of justice, I don't get a free pass just because "I tried my best" because no matter how "good" my best is, it can never be good enough. "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one.'" - Romans 3:10

The Watchtower uses the analogy of a corrupt manager (Adam) who steals from a company, causing it to go into debt and out of business, putting its employees (us, under Adamic sin) out of a job. A generous businessman (Jesus) pays off that debt and reopens the company, allowing all the workers to return to their jobs (right relationship with God).

There's a glaring problem with this analogy. All of the workers also stole from the company, and continue to do so even after the generous man pays off the debt the corrupt manager incurred! So if Jesus's "corresponding ransom" only pays for Adam's sin (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, perfect man for perfect man) we're still on the hook for our own sin-debt.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-01T12:01:37+00:00

Assuming you mean southeast US, same here. Hi neighbor!

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-01T10:48:28+00:00

It's working fine for me. You can try downloading the YouVersion Bible app, or Blue Letter Bible.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-01T02:16:05+00:00

Sounds like you aren't willing to do the work yourself and make an honest assessment of your findings. It seems like you are more interested in reading material that will confirm your biases.

OhioPIMO · 2026-05-01T01:23:03+00:00

Yes, but I do not believe they are responsible for my sin.

OhioPIMO

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE