You can find an ongoing debate on this very topic by clicking the below link:



The discussion revolves around Dan7:14 [LXX] which is thus:

Dan 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

See also:

Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

The word "serve" in the above in the Greek is 'latreuousa', the inflected form of latreuw for the present active participle, in the feminine gender, singular number, nominative case.

As is evident, the "Son of Man" within this context is none other than Jesus Christ Himself.

Unlike the Greek word 'proskuneo' [worship] which can have a wide range of applications, the word 'latreuo' is restricted for use to 'YHWH' alone. It denotes "sacred" or "religious" 'service'.

Read:

Matt4:8-10 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve (kai auto mono latreuseis).

We therefore have three options:

Options:

1.] Christ is lying in Matt4:8-10.

2.] The Word of God contradicts itself and later allows for 'idolatry'.

3.] We harmonize the scriptures and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. B)

Options 1 and 2 are obviously out of the question. What does this leave us with? Option #3. Jesus is God who is to be given 'sacred service' (latreuo).

Of course if anything, a change in doctrine and the allowance of sacred service to Christ... even if you miss the fact that He would have to be 'God' in order for consistency to occur...<_<

I have one immediate question. If 'latreuousa' is Greek and you are citing the LXX, then we are already one translation removed from the original language, before it is even translated into English.

My question would be, what is the original language translation of this word 'serve'?

Brown Driver Briggs
H6399
ôÌìç (Aramaic)
pelach
BDB Definition:
1) to serve, worship, revere, minister for, pay reverence to
1a) (Peal)
1a1) to pay reverence to
1a2) to serve
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: corresponding to H6398

An in-depth treatment of the meanings and use of the Greek words 'latreuo' and 'proskuneo' in relation to Christ and the Father can be found here.

I would appreciate any more information on the Aramaic for this word. Evangelion? Anyone?

It is possible that there may be no such distinction in Aramaic between worship of a god and worship of a normal ruler as there is in the Greek.

Further:



Yes, Dan 7v14 is speaking of the Son of Man, but Dan 7v27 is speaking of the Most High, who equates to the Ancient of days in v22, which all would agree is the Father, if the Son of Man is a prophecy of Christ.

Dan 7v13-14
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

The first 'him' in v14 refers to the Son of Man, but it is possible to interpret the second 'him' in v14 as refering to the Ancient of Days, especially because the same doxology is given to the Most High, who is the Father.

• Dan 4v34
  And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth forever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

• Dan 7v27
  And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

So you see there is no need to attribute sacred service to the Son of Man from this passage and nowhere else in the Old Testament is this word ascribed to any but the Father or false gods or ministers of God.

It is also useful to note that we need to be careful not to base entire doctrines on the meaning of one word, which may be disputed, but to take the whole of scripture in logical context, confirming our beliefs by the passages which cannot be disputed for meaning.

Matt 4:10 using latreuseis is quoting from Deut 6:13, where the Hebrew word is abad, not pelach (p@lach).

Capt. Levi -



*snip*

"Ongoing"?

It's over already. I made sure of that, in my final post on the subject. B)

Now, you have obviously copy/pasted part of this...



...without acknowledging your source. (As is your wont.) In future, you will acknowledge all your sources. If you do not, I shall ban you.

Meanwhile, my citation from a Trinitarian commentary...

v37
latreuousa (latreuw) "worshiped" - serve, minister ....... often of service to God. This word is regularly confused with "adoration to God" or as we would commonly say, "worship." Yet, it is a ministry word, and in Anna's case, ministry to God in the temple, most often in prayer and fasting. She was regularly in the temple, or constantly in the temple, but probably not sleeping in it.
Full text available here.

...leaves you without any evidence to support (let alone prove) your one-verse argument.

You see, Capt. Levi, what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Parakaleo has written:



I personally disagree with this, since there is no need for such an interpretation. The word applied here to Christ, is latreuousa in the LXX (which, as we have already seen, is not equivalent to the literal, religious worship of God), and pelach in the Hebrew (which adds nothing to your argument.)

The range of ôÌìç (pelach) is actually greater than that of latreou, and the two cannot be equated. Pelach can mean "revere", "minister for", and "serve" - none of which are exclusive to a religious context. This is demonstrated by its use in Ezra 7:24, where the application is to "the house of God."

Obviously, the singers, porters, priests, Levites, Nethinims and ministers were not worshipping the house of God; they were simply attending to it. Yes, they did indeed worship in the house of God - but in this verse, we are clearly told that they pelach (minister to) the house of God. No argument for the deity of Christ can be made from this word.

Somewhat curiously, you have quoted...



...and then presented us with Daniel 7:13-14, where latreuseis is not even used! Exactly how this is supposed to support your argument, I cannot say.

Finally, Jesus' response to the tempter in Matthew 4 & Luke 4 is taken from Deuteronomy 6:13:

Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Your argument requires the Hebrew word for "serve" here, to be pelach - but it is not. Instead, the word עבד (‛âbad) has been used. (In future, you will assist your case greatly by quoting relevant portions of Scripture, and tying them together in a coherent fashion.)

"Pick and mix" tactics might work when you're debating your fellow Trinitarians, but they will have absolutely no effect on a Christadelphian opponent. Most of us have been reading the Bible since we were old enough to read at all.

And in my case, that's 26 years...

Hello Parakaleo and God bless-



The LXX is cited more times in the NT than the MS itself. This is precisely where you get the "Virgin" in the "Virgin birth prophecy". See also Heb1:10. This is also an LXX exclusive. In fact I'll provide a list with some of these citations within the NT.

NT/LXX is contrasted with the MS below each passage:

http://home.earthlink.net~rgjones3/Septuag...t/spexecsum.htm

NT/LXX- Matthew 1.23/ Isaiah 7.14 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel".
MS- "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

NT/LXX- Matthew 12.21/ Isaiah 42.4 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
MS- "..and the coastlands wait for his law."

NT/LXX- Matthew 13.14-15/ Isaiah 6.9-10"For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed"
MS- "Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes.."

NT/LXX- Matthew 15.8-9/ Isaiah 29.13"..in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
MS- "..and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote.."

NT/LXX- Matthew 21.16/ Psalm 8.2"Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise"
MS- "..by the mouths of babes and infants thou hast founded a bulwark.."

NT/LXX- Luke 3.4-6/ Isaiah 40.3-5"and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."
MS- "..and all flesh shall see it together.."

NT/LXX- Luke 4.18-19/ Isaiah 61.1-2 "to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind"
MS- "..to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.."

NT/LXX- Acts 7.42-43/ Amos 5.25-27 "And you took up the tent of Moloch, and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which you made to worship"
MS- "You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves.."

NT/LXX- Acts 8.32-33/ Isaiah 53.7-8 "In his humiliation justice was denied him, Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth."
MS- "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living.."

NT/LXX- Acts 13.41/ Habakkuk 1.5 "Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish"
MS- "Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded.."

NT/LXX- Acts 15.16-17/ Amos 9.11-12 "that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name"
MS- "..that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name.."

NT/LXX- Romans 2.24/ Isaiah 52.5 "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
MS- "Their rulers wail, says the LORD, and continually all the day my name is despised.."

NT/LXX- Romans 9.27-28/ Isaiah 10.22-23 Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall be saved"
MS- "For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return.."

NT/LXX- Romans 10.20/ Isaiah 65.1 "I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."
MS- "I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me.."

NT/LXX- Romans 11.9-10/ Psalm 69.22 "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever."
MS- "Let their own table before them become a snare; let their sacrificial feasts [Heb. - for security] be a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see; and make their loins tremble continually.."

NT/LXX- Romans 11.26-27/ Isaiah 59.20-21 "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"
MS- "And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression.."

NT/LXX- Romans 11.34/ Isaiah 40.13 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
MS- "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as his counsellor instructed him?"

NT/LXX- Romans 15.12/ Isaiah 11.10 "The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope."
MS- "..the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek.."

NT/LXX- Heb 1.6/ Deut. 32.43 "Let all God's angels worship him."
[The MT omits this quotation]

NT/LXX- Heb 1:10/Psa102:25 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:.."
MS- "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands."

NT/LXX- Heb 2.6-8/ Psalm 8.4-6 "Thou didst make him a little lower than the angels"
MS- "..thou hast made him a little less than God"

NT/LXX- Heb 2.13/ Isaiah 8.17"I will put my trust in him."
MS- "I will hope in him.."

NT/LXX- Heb 3.15/ Psalm 95.7-8 "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
MS- "O that today you would hearken to his voice! Harden not your hearts, as at Meribah

NT/LXX- Heb 8.8-12/ Jer. 31.31-34 "for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord"
MS- "..my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD

NT/LXX- Heb 10.5-7/ Psalm 40.6-8 "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired; but a body hast thou prepared for me"
MS- "Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear.."

NT/LXX- Heb 10.37-38/ Hab 2.3-4"and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him."
MS- "Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail [Heb. - is puffed up]

NT/LXX- Heb 11.21/ Genesis 47.31 "By faith Jacob ... bowing in worship over the head of his staff."
MS- "Then Israel bowed himself upon the head of his bed"

NT/LXX- Heb 12.5-6/ Prov 3.11-12 "For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."
MS- "..for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights"

NT/LXX- James 4.6/ Prov 3.34 "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
MS- "Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor"

NT/LXX- 1 Pet 2.22/ Isaiah 53.9 "He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips
MS- "..although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.."

NT/LXX- 1 Pet 4.18/ Prov 11.31 "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?"
MS- "If the righteous is requited on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"



I was sent the following excerpt from the BDB:

Verb. Pay reverence to, serve (deity).
1. Pay reverence to deity, Dan 3:28, 7:14, 27
2. Plural construction as noun, Ezr 7:24, servants of the house of God (+priests, Nethinim, etc.)

I'm not for sure, but I believe the 'e-sword' version of the BDB (which I own) is abridged. That's why I inquire of those who have the full version.



I saw this on CWS. There is a great argument on this at Robert Hommel's site. www.forananswer.org See 'Latreuo and Jesus'.



I've provided some citations below in my response to Evangelion.



The word is used six times in Daniel, and once I believe, in Ezra. All occurences used to denote sacred service either to a pagan deity or to YHWH Himself. See below in my response to Ev as well.



I wouldn't think so. Notice the part "there was GIVEN Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom." Sequentially, the Son is to be 'given' prior to the 'giving' back to the Father. Now notice that the 'dominion' which is said to be everlasting, comes immediately after the second occurence of 'him'.



The interesting thing here, is that "the most High" is in the plural, and therefore denoting "high places" or "high ones" as commentaries will tell you. See Eph2:6. Paul is listed within the saints. Either way, note that the "most High" is said to be the possessor of the "dominion, kingdom, etc," after we have just read that this was given to the Son of Man.



See above. Being that in vs14 we see the SOM recieve the above mentioned. I see no reason to exclude "the Most High" as referent to the Son of Man. He is afterall our "High Priest", "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" etc..



I think the context demands it. It's also easier to read that way as there is not a switching of subjects in mid context.



Most certainly! However, I find little to dispute regarding the meaning of 'latrueo'.

-God bless you-

Hello Jes and God bless-



'Pelach' is Aramic whereas 'abad' is Hebrew. That's a no-brainer. This is why you see it primarily in the book of Daniel which was written in Aramic and Hebrew. I've addressed this below in my response to Ev.

-God bless-

Hello Evangelion and God bless-



Not in any manner, shape, or form. You made two false statements which are thus:

1.] 'latreuo' is not in the Old Greek.
2.] 'latreuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo'

Each of the above was thoroughly demonstrated to be highly incorrect.

Then you had the nerve to call me an "idiot" and a "liar" despite this!



There is hardly a necessity to "cite a source" as this is merely a simple *fact*, not the copyrighted work of scholar. In fact you should have no qualms as I *did* cite this as being an excerpt from Robert Hommel's email back at CWS. Surely you didn't "forget"?

CL: "The sky is blue"

EV: "In the future you will acknowledge all your sources or I will ban you!"

See what I mean?

I will in turn ask your source when you claimed [incorrectly] that 'latreuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo', or where the source of your information was when you claimed [incorrectly] that 'latreuo' was *not* in the Old Greek of Dan7:14?



And I addressed this in my posts at CWS! Note carefully the bold. They are defining 'latrueo'! What you have cited is an expostion of a section of scripture in which the Greek words in their current forms are defined. If you had paid attention to my last post, you would have noted carefully that 'latreuousa' and 'latrueo' are not different words at all! Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the above explanation "serve, minister", although I am curious as to what they are citing.

Seems to me like you are trying to flip-flop and belittle the meaning of 'latreuo'.



So essentially your response is "But it doesn't actually mean what it says!" Well isn't that a deep rebuttal?



And just what do you think I have been doing all along? Because I have chosen to concentrate upon one verse in order to refine the argument, you feel that this must somehow entail that this is my ONLY argument? That is patently ridiculous.



Excellent!



Which is a horrid misrepresentation of the Greek. 'Latreuo' and 'Latreuousa' are the SAME word! It is NOT a 'derivative' and it is NOT a different word. I have already pointed this out numerous times. Now you are simply ignoring the facts. Instead of taking a mere 10 minutes to do a little research on this, you have chosen to merely jump the gun and make desperate assumptions.
I simply cannot believe that it is THIS that is the sticking point of the argument with you! A simple aspect of Greek grammar!
I'm also seeing a stark double-standard. The above actually comes from a guy who insists that 'harpagmon' and 'harpazo' [a derivative of 'harpagmon'] are perfectly interchangeable! This type of "whatever works at the time" methodology is precisely why things get so frustrating.

Let's read:

Mat 11:12 And1161 from575 the3588 days2250 of John2491 the3588 Baptist910 until2193 now737 the3588 kingdom932 of heaven3772 suffereth violence,971 and2532 the violent973 take it by force.726, 846

<726> 'harpadzo

Compare with:

Phi 2:6 Who,3739 being5225 in1722 the form3444 of God,2316 thought2233 it not3756 robbery725 to be1511 equal2470 with God:2316

<726> 'harpagmos'

As you can see in the above, Strong's ascribes each word a different number as they are different words. An example of where this does not happen:

Mat 4:10 Then5119 saith3004 Jesus2424 unto him,846 Get thee hence,5217 Satan:4567 for1063 it is written,1125 Thou shalt worship4352 the Lord2962 thy4675 God,2316 and2532 him846 only3441 shalt thou serve.3000 latreuseis

<3000> 'latreuo'

Rev 22:3 And2532 there shall be2071 no more3756, 3956, 2089 curse:2652 but2532 the3588 throne2362 of God2316 and2532 of the3588 Lamb721 shall be2071 in1722 it;846 and2532 his848 servants1401 shall serve3000 latreusousin him:846

<3000> 'latreuo'

What do we have? Notice that although the two occurences of 'latreuo' in the above are in different forms they are still the same word.

Quick lesson:

The 'form' of a word does not change the meaning of the word. It stays the same. Like Robert said, this is neither advanced nor intermediate, but BASIC Greek.



Rather, demonstrates from all points rather effectively....



I already responded to this and you have evidently ignored it. Precisely why I brought it here.

All you are doing is parsing the English. 'Latreuo' ALSO means to "minister for", and "serve". Let's compare with something basic like 'Strong's':

latreuo¯

lat-ryoo'-o

From λάτρις latris (a hired menial); to minister (to God), that is, render religious homage: - serve, do the service, worship (-per).

Now let's look at the meaning of another word commonly rendered in our English versions as "serve":

G1398

δουλεύω

douleuo¯

dool-yoo'-o

From G1401; to be a slave to (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily): - be in bondage, (do) serve (-ice).

So what do we come to find in comparing the above? Why, they *both* mean "to serve"! I guess that must necessarily mean they are perfectly interchangeable, eh? No. What is the essential difference? One type of 'service' i.e. 'latreuo', is only allowable to YHWH, whereas the other is a mere common form of typical 'service'. Easy.

Lastly, I should not even be arguing this as the WORD *IS* LATREUO!



LOL! I've already demonstrated you folly here. Read:

Hbr 13:10 'We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve <3000> the tabernacle.'

So do you believe [now] that 'latreuo' carries no religous connotations?

Interesting double-standard developing here.



It actually states that they are 'ministers' [titular] OF the house of God. Like 'furniture OF my home'. As I mentioned to Jes, if I am shining someone's shoes, who am I 'serving'? The shoes or the one wearing them? Now to see how your argument is all in all irrelevant:

Read the passage again:

Ezr 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the 1.priests and 2.Levites, 3.singers, 4.porters, 5.Nethinims, or 6.ministers OF this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.

Now if we are to assert that the "ministers" are "ministering [to]" the house itself and not God, then are we to assume that the 'singers of the House of God' are singing TO the House of God? Ridiculous. Or rather to God Himself? What do the 'Priests' do? They minister IN the house of God taking care of it's duties, which is in turn 'service TO God' that is only allowable to Him. So simple to understand. Are you going to tell me that the priests sacrifice TO the House of God? Ludicrus!



Not "curious" at all, once you realize that you aren't grasping an understanding of the Greek and what is at hand here.



ROTFL! They are the SAME word with the SAME meaning. Only different forms of the 'latreuo'. Why won't you grasp this? You claim that Fortigurn knows Greek, why don't you ask him? I doubt he'll lie to you.

Latreuseis
Verb - Imperative Present Active (Second Person Singular) Lemma: Latreuw
[--Friberg's Analytical Greek NT, version 2]

As with the form in Dan 7, the root is Latreu, but here the inflected ending is -seis. The word does not change meaning.



Hey, how about:

Brown, Driver, Briggs (BDB):

Verb. Pay reverence to, serve (deity).
1. Pay reverence to deity, Dan 3:28, 7:14, 27
2. Plural construction as noun, Ezr 7:24, servants of the house of God (+priests, Nethinim, etc.)

What you need to do, Ev, is offer actual support from a lexicon or some other credible work other than your own twisting of Ezr7:24.

And check this out:

Here's an interesting note from the Expositor's Bible Commentary:

"The universality of the rule of the Son of Man is emphasized in v. 14: “He was given authority [soltan], glory [yeqar] and sovereign power [malku]; all the peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.”; Christ is to be the supreme source of political power on earth after his earthly kingdom is established; and all humans, whatever their race, nationality, ethnic origin, or language, will worship and serve him (leh yiplehun), pelah being equivalent to the cultic use of the Heb. abad)" (EBC, Dan 7:23-25, Parson's Electronic Text).



In the future, you will assist your case greatly by LEARNING THE GREEK! Or at least inquiring of somone who has.



Just a fluff statement that has no bearing on me. I am 'picking and mixing' nothing. Just demonstrating facts which you won't handle thoroughly.

In conclusion for now, I'll leave with another excerpt from Sam's article:

It is little wonder that the Apostolic Father Polycarp could write that all creation gives latreuo to Christ:
“Therefore prepare for action and serve (douleusate) God in fear” and truth, leaving behind the empty and meaningless talk and the error of the crowd, and “believing in him who raised” our Lord Jesus Christ “from the dead and gave him glory” and a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in heaven and on earth were subjected, WHOM EVERY BREATHING CREATURE SERVES (latreuei), who is coming as “Judge of the living and the dead,” for whose blood God will hold responsible those who disobey him… (The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts And English Translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1999], pp. 207, 209; bold and capital emphasis ours)

-God bless you-

First a little reminder;


Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


So the word that became flesh accomplish his Godgiven task to God's glory. The subordination is clearcut.


Satan asks to receive worship from Christ and he refuses. Instead he refers to his own God (John 20:17). Could he worship himself? Would that satisfy Satan? Hardly. Thus the Cap. argument is invalid and nothing hurts the clear picture of Christ's subordination. We got a Son of man and an Ancient of days. Not only that we got the saints, "the Christ", who will also judge in and possess the Kingdom (Dan. 7:22). They will also be worshipped (Rev. 3:9) as they are also God's temple, they are limbs on Christ, the church and thus they are "the Christ". Of cause the Son is higher than them, but immortal sinless beings are temples, not mortal men who get into "conflicts of interests" with God.


Finally let us remember what this word really means according to Strongs;

3000 latreuo { lat-ryoo’-o}

from latris (a hired menial); TDNT - 4:58,503; v

AV - serve 16, worship 3, do the service 1, worshipper 1; 21

GK - 3302 { latreuvw }

1) to serve for hire
2) to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen
2a) in the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship
2b1) of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

Thus we see that the idea that latreuo can only be shown God (if that be the case) is nothing but church tradition.

Those of us that know the very wide and varied use of shacach and proskuneo in the Bible, from bowing to men to worshipping God, can well imagine that the NT writers a few places wanted to use a word that was generally considered a bit stronger.



God Bless

Hello Parakaleo and God bless-

Concerning your request:



In addition to the BDB as well as this quote:

The Expositor's Bible Commentary:

"The universality of the rule of the Son of Man is emphasized in v. 14: “He was given authority [soltan], glory [yeqar] and sovereign power [malku]; all the peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.”; Christ is to be the supreme source of political power on earth after his earthly kingdom is established; and all humans, whatever their race, nationality, ethnic origin, or language, will worship and serve him (leh yiplehun), pelah being equivalent to the cultic use of the Heb. abad)" (EBC, Dan 7:23-25, Parson's Electronic Text).

I was sent the following:

This is from the TWOT definition of 'Pelach':

serve, worship, revere, minister for

The original meaning of the root was "to cleave [open]" or "divide in two." From this meaning was derived the idea of cultivating a field and ultimately of cultivating (i.e., working hard at) the worship of a deity, hence the idea of service or worship of a deity. In Biblical Hebrew, the root is used only in the sense of cleave or split, and apparently did not develop into a term for religious service, as is the case in Aramaic." (Theological Wordbook of the OT, p. 1059).

I should have more later. Monday I plan on making a trip to the college library to research some more.

-God bless you!-

Anastasis-



First a little 'Hello Anastasis and God bless!' I missed you!



Correct. That is, in fact, a Trinitarian teaching. See Phil2:6. I discussed that passage with Ev back at CF. It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I may mention.



Rather, compare Matt4:10 with the following Scripture taken from the ASV:

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve <3000>.

..cf..

Luk 24:46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;

Note how He is merely quoting scripture. Even referring to Himself in the third person.

See also:

Mat 22:42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is He? They say
unto him, The son of David.

Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.

..cf..

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father
, even he who is in heaven.

Note the same perspective used of both Him and the Father.

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.

Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Luk 24:26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?

Same third person reference in citing scripture.



The word 'worship' in your above reference is 'proskuneo' as opposed to the Greek word 'latreuo'. I'll discuss 'worship' later. For now, the topic at hand.



I guess I'm going to have to request a BADG excerpt, eh?



So that's okay in regards to Christ?



And evidently Evangelion's as well!

Let us review some statements from Ev's post shall we:

http://www.christianwebsite.com/talk/showt...15&pagenumber=4

















The word is nowhere near a product of "church tradition". Try better than 'Strong's'.



None of the above is a reference to 'latreuo'. I like to keep my debates on the topic at hand and to the point. As for the above; certainly! In fact I plan on it.

-God bless--Capt. Levi-

*

I'll be out of town till late Sunday or early Monday at a family gathering. See you all then.

God bless

Capt. Levi -

[quote]Hello Evangelion and God bless[/quote]

*snip*

James 3:10.

Speak consistently, or not at all.

[quote]You made two false statements which are thus:

1.] 'latreuo' is not in the Old Greek.[/quote]

False. I made no such claim.

This is what I had said:

____________________

Now let's see how Thayer defines the Greek word latreuo - the word which is never used of Christ:

1) To serve for hire.

2) To serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen.
2a) In the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship.
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship.
2b1) Of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office.

You can see that although Thayer acknowledges that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, in the NT it is used only for religious service or homage.

____________________

So here I acknowledge that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, but in the NT, it is used only for religious service or homage.

In. The. NT.

Now you can tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT.

[quote]2.] 'latreuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo'[/quote]

True. It is a deritative in the sense of being another form of the word. Furthermore, this form is not equivalent to the verb form (latreuo), as I have already shown.

[quote]Each of the above was thoroughly demonstrated to be highly incorrect.[/quote]

False.

[quote]Then you had the nerve to call me an "idiot" and a "liar" despite this![/quote]

*snip*

You bring these things upon yourself.

If you wish to avoid them, I suggest you change both your attitude and your tactics.

[quote]There is hardly a necessity to "cite a source" as this is merely a simple *fact*, not the copyrighted work of scholar.[/quote]

*snip*

Ignoring the fallacy of equivocation which follows, I repeat: you must reference your sources.

If you do not, I shall ban you.

[quote]In fact you should have no qualms as I *did* cite this as being an excerpt from Robert Hommel's email back at CWS.[/quote]

Where? I've had you on "Ignore" at CWS for the last week. Surely you didn't "forget"?

And if you quoted it from Hommel, then it is somebody else's work (whether copyright or not - that's irrelevant), and you should reference it.

[quote]I will in turn ask your source when you claimed [incorrectly] that 'latreuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo'[/quote]

I used no "source." I simply made a legitimate observation about the word itself.

Incidentally, here's a Trinitarian scholar on the same subject:

The relationship of servant to master is expressed in the Greek latreuo and its derivatives. Though sometimes translated "worship," it is more often rendered as "service" and is used to describe "the carrying out of religious duties." Worship and service are responses and responsibilities of the Christian, the first carrying a greater connotation of praise, the second of action. Jesus reminded us of this twofold accountability in Matthew 4:10: "Thou shalt worship (proskuneo) the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve (latreuo).

Latreuo carries the idea of a way of life, of activity. It sometimes refers to the religious rituals of the old covenant. Paul recognized that the latreuo of the Jew involved sacrifices, and he internalized the concept in Romans 12:1: "I beseech you . . . that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice . . . your logiken latreia. That is, we give ourselves to God as a mental act of service, a reasonable ritual. Christian service involves acts of obedience which result from a person's total dedication to God as a freewill offering. Obedience without mental assent is not a part of the new covenant.

In a similar manner, Jesus demands that Christian worship be mentally directed and not done simply as a matter of form. In speaking to the Samaritan woman He asserted that conditions of place and time which had formerly been considered necessary would soon be superseded by the mental attitude of the worshipper: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship (proskuneo) the Father in spirit and truth." (John 4:23.) Under the new terms, form is less important than commitment. . . .

[...]

Latreuo is translated "worship" in Acts 7:42, Acts 24:14, Philippians 3:3, and Hebrews 10:2 in KJV and NIV; in NAS it is so translated only in the last two of these passages. In each of these references, as well as in those in which it is translated "service," it means a way of life rather than an act of homage.
From Worship, Service, And the Christian Assembly (Part I), by Clifton Ganus III, reprinted by his permission in the Christian journal Principally PROSKUNEO - a worship-related digest publication.

Looks fine to me.

[quote]or where the source of your information was when you claimed [incorrectly] that 'latreuo' was *not* in the Old Greek of Dan7:14?[/quote]

It isn't. Latreuo is the verb form, and the verb form does not appear in the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14. It is latreuousa that is found here.

If you will not listen to me, perhaps you will listen to a Catholic scholar:

Second, the LXX uses the Greek latria, latreutos and latreuo a total of 107 times. Latria is used only in Ex 12:25, 26; 13:5; Jos 22;27; 1Chr 28:13. In each case it refers to worship or service to God. Latreutos is used in Ex 12:16; Lev 23:7, 8, 21, 25, 35, 36; Num 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 12, 35. In each case it refers to a holy convocation to the Lord. Latreuo contains the other 88 times. It refers either to worship of the Lord, or worship of a false god, but never to a human being.

Those that refer to God are: Ex 3;12; 4:23; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7, 8, 11, 24, 26; 12:31; 20:5; 23:25; Num 16:9; Dt 4:28; 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 28:47; Jos 22:27; 24:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29; Jug 10:16; 2 Sam 15:8; Dan 3:17, 28; 6:16, 20.

Those that refer to a false god are: Ex 23:24; Lev 18:21; Dt 4:19; 5:9; 7:4, 16; 8:19; 11:16, 28; 12:2; 13:2, 6, 13; 17:3; 28:14, 36, 48; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:20; Jos 23:7, 16; 24:2, 14, 15, 16, 20; Jug 2:11, 13, 19; 3:6-7; 10:6, 10, 13; 2 Kings 17:12, 16, 33, 35; 21:21; 2 Chr 7:19; Ezk 20:32; Dan 3:12, 14, 18, 28.
Sungenis, Robert (2002), Answers to James White's The Roman Catholic Controversy and Eric Svendsen's Evangelical Answers on Prayer to Mary and the Saints.

You will notice that Sungenis does not include Daniel 7:14 as an occurrance of latreuo. (Which is, of course, just what I've been saying all along...)

[quote]And I addressed this in my posts at CWS![/quote]

*snip*

But you are on "Ignore" at CWS, remember? Wait - don't tell me that you didn't know...?! Oh dear.

This means that you've posted about 26 rebuttals in the past few days, only to find that I haven't read any of them! What a complete waste of time...

ROTFL!

[quote]Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the above explanation "serve, minister"[/quote]

Oh, really? What, even this part...?

latreuousa (latreuw) "worshiped" - serve, minister ....... often of service to God. This word is regularly confused with "adoration to God" or as we would commonly say, "worship." Yet, it is a ministry word, and in Anna's case, ministry to God in the temple, most often in prayer and fasting.

There's "nothing wrong" with that, eh Capt. Levi? Despite the fact that it totally destroys your entire argument. Well then. Looks like I've changed your mind with a single post.

That was easy.

[quote]although I am curious as to what they are citing.[/quote]

They are citing Luke 2:37, as they clearly state.

Did you actually read the commentary?

[quote]Seems to me like you are trying to flip-flop[/quote]

Nope.

Seems to me that I've done far more research than you have.

[quote]and belittle the meaning of 'latreuo'.[/quote]

LOL! There's no "belittling" here.

But as they say, "The results may surprise you"...

[quote]QUOTE  
You see, Capt. Levi, what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God.  Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.


So essentially your response is "But it doesn't actually mean what it says!"[/quote]

*snip*

Straw man. That is not what I am saying. Go back and read it again.

Then address it properly.

[quote]QUOTE  
All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...


And just what do you think I have been doing all along?[/quote]

Fooling about with a single verse which doesn't even prove your point. That's all you've been doing. How soon can I expect to see some kind of rational argument, with a clear, consistent stream of evidence to support it?

And when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?

[quote]Because I have chosen to concentrate upon one verse in order to refine the argument[/quote]

*snip*

Ah, but the problem for you is that this is your only verse, and therefore constitutes the entire sum of your "worship" argument!

So when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?

[quote]The above actually comes from a guy who insists that 'harpagmon' and 'harpazo' [a derivative of 'harpagmon'] are perfectly interchangeable![/quote]

*snip*

...and here you merely demonstrate your ignorance.

Remember, I am able to argue that harpagmon and harpazo are interchangeable because that is precisely what the text itself has shown.

Hence my original citation from the Expositor's Greek Testament:

We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of it's derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession', 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast'.

See also Liddell-Scott-James on harpazô:

harpazô, fut. -axô Il.22.310 , Babr.89.2, -asô X.Eq.Mag.4.17 , ( [an-] ) E.Ion1303; in Att. more commonly harpasomai Ar.Pax1118 , Ec.866, Av.1460, X.Cyr.7.2.5, ( [an-] ) Hdt.9.59; contr. harpômai, harpai LXX Le.19.13 , al.: aor. hêrpaxa Il.3.444 , Pi.N.10.67, IG4.951.11 (Epid.); Trag. and Att. hêrpasa E.Or.1634 , Th.6.101 (also Il.13.528, 17.62, Hdt.2.156): pf. hêrpaka Ar.Pl.372 , Pl.Grg.481a:--Med., aor. hêrpasamên Luc.Tim.22 , etc. huph-arpasaio Ar.Ec.921 ):--Pass., pf. hêrpasmai X.An.1.2.27 , E.Ph.1079 ( [an-] ): 3 plpf. hêrpasto Id.El.1041 ; later hêrpagmai Paus.3.18.7 , inf. -achthai Str.13.1.11 : aor. 1 hêrpasthên [p. 246] Hdt.1.1 and 4, etc., -chthên Id.2.90 (v.l.), 8.115, D.S.17.74; later, aor. 2 hêrpagên [a^] Lyc.505, etc.: fut. harpa^gêsomai 1 Ep.Thess.4.17 , J.BJ5.10.3; part. harpamenos (as if from harpêmi) AP11.59 (Maced.), Nonn.D.1.340, al., ( [huph-] ) AP9.619 (Agath.):--snatch away, carry off, hote se prôton Lakedaimonos ex erateinês epleon harpaxas Il.3.444 ; hôs d' hote tis te leôn . . agelês boun harpasêi ib.17.62; tous d' aips' harpaxasa pheren pontonde thuella Od.10.48 , cf. 5.416; klepsai te chharpasai biai S.Ph.644 ; ha. tou basileos tên thugatera Hdt.1.2 ; ha. [chruson] hupek tôn grupôn Id.3.116 ; ha. kai pherein Lys.20.17 : abs., to be a robber, hotiê p<*>iôrkeis hêrpakôs Ar.Eq.428, cf. Pl.372; harpazein blepei looks thievish, Men.Epit.181:--Pass. (or Med.), ek cherôn harpazomai I have her torn from my arms, E.Andr.661.

2. seize hastily, snatch up, laan Il.12.445 ; doru A.Th.624 ; ta hopla X.An.6.1.8 ; ha. tina meson seize him by the waist, Hdt.9.107; lithos hêtis ton sidêron harpazei, of the magnet, Hp.Steril.243: c. gen. of the part seized, ha. tina tenontos podos E.Cyc.400 : c. gen. partit., ha. toutôn enetragon Timocl.16.7 : abs., apogeuontai harpazontesgreedily, Pl.R.354b :--Med. in Luc. Sacr.3.

3. seize, overpower, overmaster, glôssan ha. phobos A.Th. 259 ; seize, occupy a post, X.An.4.6.11; harpasai peiran seize an opportunity of attacking, S.Aj.2; ha. ton kairon Plu.Phil.15 ; snap up, hôsper heurêma Herod.6.30.

4. seize, adopt a legend, of an author, Hdt.2.156.
5. grasp with the senses, osmai -omenai tais osphrêsesin Plu.2.647e .
6. captivate, ravish, LXXJu.16.9, Plu. Ant.28.
7. draw up by means of a vacuum, Simp. in Ph.647.28.

II. plunder, poleis, ta ek tôn oikiôn, tên Hellada, etc., Th.1.5, X.Cyr.7.2.5, D.8.55, etc.

Finally, the Interpreter's Bible (1999) on harpagmon:

Since he [the Son] had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to 'equality' with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience....

Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher...

But the Greek, and in English, the word 'robbery' involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belonged to God.

So we see that there is no essential difference in the meaning, despite the difference in the form.

By contrast, latreuo is very different. The meaning can change, depending on the form and the derivative.

Observe:

• Liddell-Scott-James on Latreuô:-
  
  latr-euô, Elean latreiô (q.v.), work for hire or pay, Sol. 13.48: to be in servitude, serve, X.Cyr.3.1.36; para tini Apollod.2.6.3.
  
  2. l. tini to be subject or enslaved to, S.Tr.35, etc.: c. acc. pers., serve, E.IT1115 (lyr.), f.l. in Id.El.131: metaph., l. petrai, of Prometheus, A.Pr.968; mochthois latreuôn tois hupertatois brotôn S.OC105 ; l. nomois obey, X.Ages.7.2; l. kairôi, = Lat. temporibus inservire, Ps.-Phoc.121; tôi kallei l. to be devoted to . . , Isoc.10.57; l. hêdonêi Luc.Nigr.15.
  
  3. serve the gods with prayers and sacrifices, l. Phoibôi E.Ion152 (lyr.): c. acc. cogn., ponon l. tini render due service, ib.129 (lyr.); ponon . . tond' elatreusa theai IG2.1378.
  
  
  Middle LSJ:-
  
  latreuô 1 2 [latris]
  
  1. to work for hire or pay, to be in servitude, serve, Xen.
  
  2. l. tini to be bound or enslaved to, Soph., Eur., etc.; c. acc. pers. to serve, Eur.:--metaph., latr. petrai, of Prometheus, Aesch.; mochthois latr. Soph.; l. nomois to obey, Xen.
  
  3. to serve the gods, l. Phoibôi Eur.: c. acc. cogn., ponon l. to render them due service, id=Eur.
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latreia:-
  
  latr-eia, hê, the state of a hired labourer, service, A.Pr.966; epiponon echein l. S.Tr.830 (lyr.): pl., hoias latreias anth' hosou zêlou trephei Id.Aj.503 , cf. E.Ph.225 (lyr.), etc.: metaph., the business or duties of life, Plu.2.107c.
  
  2. l. tou theou, theôn, service to the gods, divine worship, Pl.Ap.23c, Phdr.244e (pl.): abs., LXX Ex.12.25, al., Ep.Rom.9.4, etc.
  
  
  Middle LSJ:-
  
  latreia 1 [latreuô]
  
  1. the state of a hired workman, service, servitude, Trag.
  
  2. l. tou theou, theôn service to the gods, divine worship, Plat.; absol., NTest.
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latris:-
  
  latr-is, ios, ho and hê, hired servant, and in fem. handmaid, Thgn.302, 486, S.Tr.70, E.Supp.639, Supp.Epigr. 1.405B1 (Samos, iii A.D.); Hermên . . daimonôn latrin E.Ion4 ; hêmigunaika theês latrin hos . . [Simon.] 179.9; of slaves, E.IA868 (troch.): fem., Id.Hec.609; hê theôn l. handmaid of the gods, Id.HF823; tên Apollônos l., of Cassandra, Id.Tr.450 (troch.), cf. Phld.Piet.91: metaph., mitou poludinea l., of the spindle, AP6.39 (Arch.); Phoibou l., of the raven, ib.9.272 (Bianor).
  
  
  Middle LSJ:-
  
  latris 1 a workman for hire, hired servant, and in fem. a handmaid, Theogn., Soph. [from latron]
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latrios:-
  
  latr-ios, a, on, of a servant or service, misthos Pi.O.10.28 ; latrian Iaolkon paredôken gave Iolcos into slavery, Id.N.4.54 (ubi codd. latreian contra metrum); l. erga Man.1.275.
  
  
  Middle LSJ:-
  
  latrios 1 of a servant or service, Pind.; paradidonai tina latrion to give him into slavery, id=Pind. [from latris]*
  
  *[Evangelion's note: latreios is the verb form of latrios.]
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latreiô:-
  
  latr-eiô, render as offering, Di SIG9 (Pass., Olympia, vi B.C.):--also latr-aiô , prob. in Inscr.Olymp. 1.7. (Both Elean for latreuô, from -êW-yô.)
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latreuma:-
  
  latr-euma, atos, to, in pl., service for hire, ponôn latreumata painful service, S.Tr.357.
  
  2. service paid to the gods, worship, E.IT1275 (lyr.).
  
  II. = latris, slave, Id.Tr.1106 (lyr.).
  
  
  Middle LSJ:-
  
  latreuma 1
  
  I. in pl. service for hire, ponôn latreumata painful service, Soph.
  
  2. service paid to the gods, worship, Eur.
  
  II. = latris, a slave, id=Eur.
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latreus:-
  
  latr-eus, eôs, ho, hired servant, Lyc.393.
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latreusis:-
  
  latr-eusis, eôs, hê, servitude, Gloss.
  
  
  
  
• LSJ on Latreutikos:-
  
  latr-eutikos, ê, on, servile, Ptol.Tetr. 160, Vett.Val.335.34, al.

You can see for yourself that these words are not perfectly equivalent. Their meaning changes, even as their form changes. In contrast to your concordance (a rather and imprecise crude tool, quite unsuitable for this kind of delicate work), they are treated by LSJ as separate words.

Now A. T. Robertson on Romans 1:8, from his Word Pictures of the New Testament:

Rom 1:9 - I serve (latreuō).
Old verb from latron, hire, and latris, hireling, so to serve for hire, then to serve in general gods or men, whether sacred services (Heb_9:9; Heb_10:2) or spiritual service as here. Cf. Rom_12:1; Phi_3:3.

Unceasingly (adialeiptōs).
Late adverb for which see note on 1Th_1:3. Also see 1Th_2:13; 1Th_5:17, only other N.T. examples.

Always (pantote).
One might think that Paul prayed for no others, but he uses both adverbs in 1Th_1:2. He seems to have had prayer lists. He never omitted the Romans.

Robertson affirms: "To serve in general gods or men." This gives a ringing endorsement to one of my earlier points:

____________________

Now let's see how Thayer defines the Greek word latreuo - the word which is never used of Christ:

1) To serve for hire.

2) To serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen.
2a) In the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship.
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship.
2b1) Of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office.

You can see that although Thayer acknowledges that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, in the NT it is used only for religious service or homage.

____________________

Again: I acknowledge that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, but in the NT, it is used only for religious service or homage.

In. The. NT.

BTW, when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?

Now one of my previous citations:

v37
latreuousa (latreuw) "worshiped" - serve, minister ....... often of service to God. This word is regularly confused with "adoration to God" or as we would commonly say, "worship." Yet, it is a ministry word, and in Anna's case, ministry to God in the temple, most often in prayer and fasting. She was regularly in the temple, or constantly in the temple, but probably not sleeping in it.
Full text available here.

Now from a former Professor of Bible and Ministry at Ohio Valley College:

Latreuo and related forms.
Rom. 12:1 is the most familiar occurrence of this word. This word signifies service for a reward, work, labor, or in devotion and worship. The verb is found 90 times in Greek translation of Old Testament (Septuagint).

"It is not enough to say that latreuein has religious significance. One must say that it has ceremonial significance....it means more precisely to serve or worship in the cult, especially by sacrifice" (TDNT, IV, 60).

In the NT, the noun occurs five times (John 16:2; Rom. 9:4; 12:1; Heb. 9:1,6). The verbal form occurs 21 times (Matt. 4:10; Luke 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Acts. 7:7,42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom. 1:9,25; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 8:5; 9:9,14; 10:2; 12:28; 13:10; Rev. 7:15; 22:3). It implies adoration (Mt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8; Rev. 7:15; 22:3). It is unceasing and relentless in character (Luke 2:37; Acts 26:7). It refers to the sacrificial duties of the OT priests at the tabernacle or temple in the book of Hebrews. Most often the NT uses the word to communicate the whole conduct of believers toward God.

Notice the relationship to life: Luke 1:74; Acts 24:14; 27:23; Rom. 1:9; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 9:14; 12:28-29. This term is also never applied to the Christian assembly. This worship is not distinct from life.

"The service which Christians are to offer consists in the fashioning of their inner lives and their outward physical conduct in a way which plainly distinguishes them from the world and which corresponds to the will of God (TDNT, IV, 65).
Full text available here.

Now from another helpful mainstream Christian who supports my argument with breathtaking precision - right down to the very argument that I myself have presented:

latreuw (latreuo - 3000)

To serve, to render religious service or homage, is translated ‘worship’ in Philippians 3:3, “(who) worship (by the Spirit of God)” (RV, AV), “(which) worship (God in the Spirit);” the RV renders it ‘to serve’ (for AV, ‘to worship’)

(Acts 7:42) “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven…”

(Acts 24:14) “…they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers…”

(Heb.10:2), pres. part. “(the) worshippers, lit. (the ones) worshipping” (See serve) (VINE)


latreuw and latreia in the LXX

1. latreuw

a. Occurrence, Hebrew and Basic Character.
The word occurs a round 90 times in the LXX. The distribution is remarkably uneven. For 70 of these instances are in Exodus (17), Deuteronomy (25), Joshua (19) and Judges (9). The word does not occur at all in the prophets (apart from Ez.20:32), Psalms, Samuel (apart from II Sam.15:8). This is connected with the method of translation. With a few unimportant exceptions latreuw is always used for the Hebrew abad (5647). It is twice used for sharath (8334), in Num.16:9; Ezk.20:32). But this word is also very frequently rendered douleuein.

It is to be noted that the books which frequently have latreuein use it mostly when abad has a religious significance (cf. Ex.3:12; 4:23; 7:16,26; 8:16; 9:1,13; 10:3,7-8,24,26; 20:5; 23:24-25; Dt.4:19,28; 5:9;6:13; 7:4,16; Josh.22:27; 24:14-24,31). When the reference is to human relations, the rendering is always douleuein (cf. Ex.14:5,12; 21:2,6; Dt.15:12,18; Judg.3:8,14; 9:28,38); and consistently in Genesis. In these writings douleuein is used in the religious sense only at Ex.23:33, Dt.13:5; 28:64; Judg.2:7; 10:6,10,13,16. Conversely, latreuein is always used in these writings in the religious sense. The translators of these books thus attempted to show even by their choice of words that the relation of service in religion is something apart from other relations of service.

In the other writings, where the term latreuein hardly occurs at all, there is no such concern. Here douleuein is used almost uniformly for abad, no matter whether the relation is religious or secular. Nevertheless, latreuein is distinctively religious not only in the books where it is chiefly found but wherever it appears in the LXX. The only exception is Deut.28:48. But this proves the rule. For here there is a play on words. Because Israel was not willing to “serve” the Lord, Who sought only its good, it must “serve” its enemies, who destroy it (a second exception is Dan.7:14 “The Son of Man latreuousa”).
Full text available here.

So, what do we find here, Capt. Levi?

What we find is that this Trinitarian scholar:

• Makes no argument for the deity of Christ from the use of latreuousa in the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14. (In fact, Sam Shamoun is the only Trinitarian I have ever come across who has ever attempted this futile exercise.)
  
• Insists that this use of the word in Deuteronomy 28:48 & Daniel 7:14 is exceptional, thereby proving the rule that everywhere else, it is used in a religious sense. (In fact, these two instances are probably just bad translations. But the range of latreuo gives us sufficient flexibility here.)
  
• Lists every occurrance of latreuo in the NT, none of which refer to Christ (as I have already told you myself.)

All of which supports my argument perfectly, and leaves absolutely no room for yours.

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Nor have you told me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT.

Oh, and remember one of my previous comments at CWS?

____________________

Finally, Jesus' response to the tempter in Luke 4 is taken from Deuteronomy 6:13:

Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Your argument requires the Hebrew word for "serve" to be pelach - but it is not. Instead, the word עבד (‛âbad) has been used.

____________________

The significance of עבד (‛âbad) has already been highlighted by my helpful Trinitarian:

With a few unimportant exceptions latreuw is always used for the Hebrew abad (5647). It is twice used for sharath (8334), in Num.16:9; Ezk.20:32). But this word is also very frequently rendered douleuein.

It is to be noted that the books which frequently have latreuein use it mostly when abad has a religious significance (cf. Ex.3:12; 4:23; 7:16,26; 8:16; 9:1,13; 10:3,7-8,24,26; 20:5; 23:24-25; Dt.4:19,28; 5:9;6:13; 7:4,16; Josh.22:27; 24:14-24,31).

This is the word that your argument requires in the Hebrew version of Daniel 7:14. But unfortunately for you, it just isn't there!

[quote]Read:

Hbr 13:10 'We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve <3000> the tabernacle.'

So do you believe [now] that 'latreuo' carries no religous connotations? [/quote]

*snip*

Straw man.

That was never my claim.

But just in passing - when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?

[quote]Hey, how about:

Brown, Driver, Briggs (BDB):

Verb. Pay reverence to, serve (deity).
1. Pay reverence to deity, Dan 3:28, 7:14, 27
2. Plural construction as noun, Ezr 7:24, servants of the house of God (+priests, Nethinim, etc.)[/quote]

*snip*

Well, you haven't even told us what this word is so I don't know what you're expecting to prove by it!

[quote]Here's an interesting note from the Expositor's Bible Commentary:[/quote]

*snip*

Interesting? No, it was merely inaccurate. That's not interesting. I get inaccurate statements from you on a regular basis. What makes you think I want to see another one?

These two words are not equivalent, which is precisely why they have been translated in different ways by the men who gave us the LXX.

Thus, from Bob Deffinbaugh of the Biblical Studies Foundation:

Service.
The third pair of terms employed for worship in the Bible emphasize service. The Hebrew term, abad, and its Greek counterpart, latreuo…, denotes the idea ‘to work, to labor, or to serve.’ In the Old Testament this service was most often priestly service. In the New Testament we are told that we are all priests of God (1 Peter 2:5,9), so that this term does not apply only to the service of the few, but of the entire congregation of believers in Christ.

In addition, service and worship were often linked in the Old Testament. It is no surprise, then, when we find Satan tempting our Lord to worship him (Luke 4:7). Satan was not asking our Lord simply to fall to the ground before him. He was asking the Lord to acknowledge him as sovereign and to surrender to him in service. This is why our Lord responded, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only’” (Luke 4:8).

Worship and service cannot be isolated, but rather they must be integrated, if it is to be true worship.
Full text available here.

If pelach is equivalent to עבד (‛âbad), why didn't the translators of the LXX use latreuo for both words? I shall tell you why. It is because they are not equivalent. It is because the "service" and "reverence" of pelach is not exclusive to God. Remember, pelach is an Aramaic word, which explains why it occurs only 10 times in the entire OT - and even then, only in the literature of the exiles!

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Incidentally, when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?

Here, I'll help you. Let's ask Jesus to tell us what kind of service he expects from his followers:

John 12:26.
If any man serve1247 me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve1247 me, him will my Father honor.

Here Jesus requires us to διακονέω (diakoneō) him.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines diakoneō in the following way:

1) To be a servant, attendant, domestic, to serve, wait upon.
1a) To minister to one, render ministering offices to.
1a1) To be served, ministered unto.

1b) To wait at a table and offer food and drink to the guests.
1b1) Of women preparing food.

1c) To minister, i.e. supply food and necessities of life.
1c1) To relieve one’s necessities (e.g. by collecting alms), to provide take care of, distribute, the things necessary to sustain life.
1c2) To take care of the poor and the sick, who administer the office of a deacon.
1c3) In Christian churches to serve as deacons.

1d) To minister.
1d1) To attend to anything, that may serve another’s interests.
1d2) To minister a thing to one, to serve one or by supplying any thing.

Interestingly enough, the same word is used here:

Matthew 20:28.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto [diakoneō], but to minister [diakoneō], and to give his life a ransom for many.

How strange that Christ does not use latreuo!

Again, when Paul makes reference to Christian service of Christ, which word does he use?

Romans 16:18.
For they that are such serve [douleuō] not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

He uses douleuō, which is defined by Thayer's Greek Lexicon in the following way:

δουλος

doulos

1) A slave, bondman, man of servile condition.
1a) A slave.
1b) Metaphorically, one who gives himself up to another’s will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men.
1c) Devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests.

2) A servant, attendant.

How strange that Paul does not use latreuo!

So tell me, Capt. Levi - why does Christ never require latreuo from his followers, and why do the inspired apostles never apply it to him? Wouldn't this be the ideal way to affirm that Christ is God...?

Indeed it would! And yet... it is never actually done!

[quote]In conclusion for now, I'll leave with another excerpt from Sam's article:

It is little wonder that the Apostolic Father Polycarp could write that all creation gives latreuo to Christ:
“Therefore prepare for action and serve (douleusate) God in fear” and truth, leaving behind the empty and meaningless talk and the error of the crowd, and “believing in him who raised” our Lord Jesus Christ “from the dead and gave him glory” and a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in heaven and on earth were subjected, WHOM EVERY BREATHING CREATURE SERVES (latreuei), who is coming as “Judge of the living and the dead,” for whose blood God will hold responsible those who disobey him… (The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts And English Translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1999], pp. 207, 209; bold and capital emphasis ours)[/quote]

How does this prove that Polycarp believed in the deity of Christ?

Remember Robertson...?

Rom 1:9 - I serve (latreuō).
Old verb from latron, hire, and latris, hireling, so to serve for hire, then to serve in general gods or men, whether sacred services (Heb_9:9; Heb_10:2) or spiritual service as here. Cf. Rom_12:1; Phi_3:3.

Remember Thayer?

1) To serve for hire.

2) To serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen.
2a) In the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship.
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship.
2b1) Of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office.

You can see that although Thayer acknowledges that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, in the NT it is used only for religious service or homage.

So, once again you have resorted to your "pick and mix" tactics.

Observe:

• You find a word used in the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14, and claim that the application of this word to Christ in the Christian LXX somehow "proves" that Christ is God.
  
• You find a word used in a letter from Polycarp, and claim that the application of this word to Christ somehow "proves" that Polycarp believed Christ to be God.

But you offer no consistent evidence from Scripture, and no consistent evidence from Polycarp. Instead, you're just playing word games; picking and hunting through the text in order to locate one single word among millions, and attempting to rest an entire doctrine upon it!

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Indeed, you can't even explain to me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT!

Capt. Levi -



Sure, I see no problem with it. What seems to be the trouble?

Oh, and did you notice that the Lexicon takes care to point out that this meaning...



...is peculiar to the NT? (Where of course, as we already know, it is never used in reference to Christ!)

Ooops. Another potential Trinitarian argument goes down the gurgler. B)

Anastasis -



Actually, it's not "church tradition" at all. I think you might have misunderstood me. I know that Capt. Levi certainly has.

What I have done here, is to point out that although it would be appropriate for Christ to receive latreuo, this is never done in the New Testament.

And why not? Because the inspired New Testament writers wanted to preserve a clear and distinct separation between the service and veneration of Christ, and the service, veneration and worship of Yahweh.

This has been achieved by ensuring that latreuo is never applied to Christ throughout the entire NT - a beautiful piece of Biblical consistency against which Trinitarians are utterly powerless.

As we have already seen.

Evangelion,

I said:

"Thus we see that the idea that latreuo can only be shown God (if that be the case) is nothing but church tradition.

Those of us that know the very wide and varied use of shacach and proskuneo in the Bible, from bowing to men to worshipping God, can well imagine that the NT writers a few places wanted to use a word that was generally considered a bit stronger."


I think if you read this again, you will see that you got me wrong.

You're right, Anastasis - I was reading you wrong.

Sorry about that.

No problem Evangelion .

Hello Evangion and GOD BLESS YOU-

[quote]
Speak consistently, or not at all.[/quote]

Well wasn't that rather 'righteous and pious'. Gee, by this reasoning, you had better relinquish that pastor's position, eh Ev?

[quote]
You made two false statements which are thus:  1.] 'latreuo' is not in the Old Greek.


False. I made no such claim. [/quote]

True. You certainly implied such when you stated:

"A one-verse argument is no argument at all, and in this case, Shamoun (from whom you have plagiarised this argument) has taken his citation from Brenton's LXX, which is a translation of the Christian LXX (not the Jewish original.) Remember, this version (the Christian LXX) also contained the Apocrypha. (The legitimacy of which I doubt you will accept.)
So you have shot yourself in the foot with this one."

http://www.christianwebsite.com/talk/showt...15&pagenumber=6

Therefore, by emphasizing that the quotation was taken from the CLXX and not the "Jewish original" only serves to imply that the word 'latrueo' was not actually there. What other relevant point could you have been making with this contrast?

[quote]
This is what I had said:[/quote]

Not in relation to the above, you didn't, but I'll address it anyway.

[quote]
Now let's see how Thayer defines the Greek word latreuo - the word which is never used of Christ:[/quote]

Or the Father according to Ev's line of argumentation. I'll point this out later.

[quote]
1) To serve for hire.

2) To serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen.
2a) In the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship.
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship.
2b1) Of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office.

You can see that although Thayer acknowledges that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, in the NT it is used only for religious service or homage. [/quote]

Of course the reference to men would be Deut28:48 (Duh Ev! ). Considering that it IS technically applied to these men [in the OT], it is listed as applicable to men. That's what a lexicon does Ev, lists applications and their meaning. See even your below quote as to what this means:

"The only exception is Deut.28:48. But this proves the rule. For here there is a play on words. Because Israel was not willing to “serve” the Lord, Who sought only its good, it must “serve” its enemies, who destroy it"

'Latreuo' here is used in it's sense of 'exclusive service as to that of YHWH', but only in a "figurative" sense. In fact this is the ONLY occurence listed in the TDNT as an "exception".

I'll handle the above a bit more below.

[quote]
____________________

So here I acknowledge that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, but in the NT, it is used only for religious service or homage.

In. The. NT. [/quote]

LOL! NOW you do. NOW that you were pressed against a wall with the facts.

Won't help you much Ev.

[quote]

Now you can tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT.[/quote]

Sam's argument. Challenge to Ev: Respond to Sam Shamoun's article in full without one iota of *snip* as is your habit. Can you do it? No. Nevermind.

[quote]  

2.] 'latreuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo'


True. It is a deritative in the sense of being another form of the word. Furthermore, this form is not equivalent to the verb form (latreuo), as I have already shown.[/quote]

'Latreuousa' is not "derived from" 'latreuo'. You didn't get it right the first time, I don't expect you to get it right as of present. You certainly can't go about redefining what you "really" meant. Your statement remains...False.

Secondly, Ev, it'll be news to grammarians everywhere that a present active participle isn't a verb!!

You would do better to inquire of someone who actually knows what they are doing.

[quote]  

Each of the above was thoroughly demonstrated to be highly incorrect.


False.[/quote]

True.

[quote]

Then you had the nerve to call me an "idiot" and a "liar" despite this!


*snip*

You bring these things upon yourself.

If you wish to avoid them, I suggest you change both your attitude and your tactics.[/quote]

Gee, Ev, "changing my tactics" would mean "letting you win".

[quote]

There is hardly a necessity to "cite a source" as this is merely a simple *fact*, not the copyrighted work of scholar.


*snip*

Ignoring the fallacy of equivocation which follows, I repeat: you must reference your sources.

If you do not, I shall ban you.[/quote]

Here ya go, from CWS!

Latreuousa is the present active participle (Feminine, singular,
nominative) of latreuw.

gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00...G.mlxx%09%09%2B

Here's the pertinent parsing, directly from the CCAT ASCII file:

Dan 7:14
LATREU/OUSA V1 PAPNSF LATREU/W



[quote]

In fact you should have no qualms as I *did* cite this as being an excerpt from Robert Hommel's email back at CWS.


Where? I've had you on "Ignore" at CWS for the last week. Surely you didn't "forget"?[/quote]

Surely I wasn't "told" therefore how could I "forget"?

[quote]

And if you quoted it from Hommel, then it is somebody else's work (whether copyright or not - that's irrelevant), and you should reference it.[/quote]
Here ya go again!:

Latreuousa is the present active participle (Feminine, singular,
nominative) of latreuw.

gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00...G.mlxx%09%09%2B

Here's the pertinent parsing, directly from the CCAT ASCII file:

Dan 7:14
LATREU/OUSA V1 PAPNSF LATREU/W



[quote]


I will in turn ask your source when you claimed [incorrectly] that 'latreuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo'


I used no "source." I simply made a legitimate observation about the word itself.[/quote]

Which in turn was not legitimate. It was a wild guess. And yet you pawned it off as if it was fact without taking five minutes to check it out for yourself.

Tsk..Tsk..

[quote]
Incidentally, here's a Trinitarian scholar on the same subject:

The relationship of servant to master is expressed in the Greek latreuo and its derivatives. Though sometimes translated "worship," it is more often rendered as "service" and is used to describe "the carrying out of religious duties." Worship and service are responses and responsibilities of the Christian, the first carrying a greater connotation of praise, the second of action. Jesus reminded us of this twofold accountability in Matthew 4:10: "Thou shalt worship (proskuneo) the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve (latreuo).

Latreuo carries the idea of a way of life, of activity. It sometimes refers to the religious rituals of the old covenant. Paul recognized that the latreuo of the Jew involved sacrifices, and he internalized the concept in Romans 12:1: "I beseech you . . . that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice . . . your logiken latreia. That is, we give ourselves to God as a mental act of service, a reasonable ritual. Christian service involves acts of obedience which result from a person's total dedication to God as a freewill offering. Obedience without mental assent is not a part of the new covenant.

In a similar manner, Jesus demands that Christian worship be mentally directed and not done simply as a matter of form. In speaking to the Samaritan woman He asserted that conditions of place and time which had formerly been considered necessary would soon be superseded by the mental attitude of the worshipper: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship (proskuneo) the Father in spirit and truth." (John 4:23.) Under the new terms, form is less important than commitment. . . .

[...]

Latreuo is translated "worship" in Acts 7:42, Acts 24:14, Philippians 3:3, and Hebrews 10:2 in KJV and NIV; in NAS it is so translated only in the last two of these passages. In each of these references, as well as in those in which it is translated "service," it means a way of life rather than an act of homage.
From Worship, Service, And the Christian Assembly (Part I), by Clifton Ganus III, reprinted by his permission in the Christian journal Principally PROSKUNEO - a worship-related digest publication.[/quote]

Now I suspect from the "smilie" that there was supposed to be a "point" to the above. My only guess can only be that you are trying to downplay the meaning of "latreuo" from being a "religous service" word to merely a word that denotes "a religous way of life" and that this could possibly be attributed to Christ with no biblical conflict. Hmm.. That's interesting as your following statement:

"So here I acknowledge that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, but in the NT, it is used only for religious service or homage.
In. The. NT."

...contradicts this. We seem to have the same old "whatever works at the time", considering if this was your motive.

[quote]
Looks fine to me. [/quote]

Me too!

[quote]

or where the source of your information was when you claimed [incorrectly] that 'latreuo' was *not* in the Old Greek of Dan7:14?


It isn't. Latreuo is the verb form, and the verb form does not appear in the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14. It is latreuousa that is found here.[/quote]

*sigh* And the "form" does not mean that the meaning of the word changes! Do you easily forget that ALL the occurences I cited within the NT were in different forms! Do *they* no longer mean the same as 'latreuo', Ev? Read again from my previous post on CWS:
Let's educate Evangelion a little further. Read carefully:

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 'All this I will give you,' he said, 'if you will bow down and worship me.' Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only (kai auto mono latreuseis)."'" Matthew 4:8-10 cf. Luke 4:8

Here the word is 'latreuseis', *gasp* NOT 'latreuo'!!

"The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve (latreuousin) at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: 'See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.'" Hebrews 8:1-5

Here the word is 'latreuousin', *gasp* NOT 'latreuo'!!

"When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper (latreuonta). They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings-external regulations applying until the time of the new order." Hebrews 9:6-10

Here the word is 'latreuonta', *gasp* NOT 'latreuo'!!

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve (latreusousin) him. They will see his face (to prosopon autou), and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever." Revelation 22:1-5

Here the word is 'latreusousin' *gasp* NOT 'latreuo'!!

“I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, [one] coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him. And to him was given the dominion, and the honour, and the kingdom; and all nations, tribes, and languages, shall serve him (auto latreuousa): his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14

Here the word is 'latreuousa' *gasp* NOT 'latreuo'!!

Therefore by Ev's standard of judgement, not a single one of the above words mean the same thing as the Greek word 'latreuo'!

Now tell me what is wrong with the above statement. What's that? Oh yes-

THEY ARE ALL THE SAME WORD, 'LATREUO' IN DIFFERENT FORMS!! If you would simply inquire of ANY Greek professor, we could get past this one stupid hurdle.

[quote]

If you will not listen to me, perhaps you will listen to a Catholic scholar:[/quote]

Of course I won't listen to you, but I'll point out your folly in the below:

[quote]

Second, the LXX uses the Greek latria, latreutos and latreuo a total of 107 times. Latria is used only in Ex 12:25, 26; 13:5; Jos 22;27; 1Chr 28:13. In each case it refers to worship or service to God. Latreutos is used in Ex 12:16; Lev 23:7, 8, 21, 25, 35, 36; Num 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 12, 35. In each case it refers to a holy convocation to the Lord. Latreuo contains the other 88 times. It refers either to worship of the Lord, or worship of a false god, but never to a human being.

Those that refer to God are: Ex 3;12; 4:23; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7, 8, 11, 24, 26; 12:31; 20:5; 23:25; Num 16:9; Dt 4:28; 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 28:47; Jos 22:27; 24:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29; Jug 10:16; 2 Sam 15:8; Dan 3:17, 28; 6:16, 20.

Those that refer to a false god are: Ex 23:24; Lev 18:21; Dt 4:19; 5:9; 7:4, 16; 8:19; 11:16, 28; 12:2; 13:2, 6, 13; 17:3; 28:14, 36, 48; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:20; Jos 23:7, 16; 24:2, 14, 15, 16, 20; Jug 2:11, 13, 19; 3:6-7; 10:6, 10, 13; 2 Kings 17:12, 16, 33, 35; 21:21; 2 Chr 7:19; Ezk 20:32; Dan 3:12, 14, 18, 28.
Sungenis, Robert (2002), Answers to James White's The Roman Catholic Controversy and Eric Svendsen's Evangelical Answers on Prayer to Mary and the Saints.

You will notice that Sungenis does not include Daniel 7:14 as an occurrance of latreuo. (Which is, of course, just what I've been saying all along[/quote]

LOL! I'm asking YOU why he didn't include it! You can't simply cite a guy who failed to list an occurence of 'latreuo', EV. That doesn't mean it isn't there! Check it out yourself!:

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/27_007.htm

Did it ever occur to you Ev that he's probably using Theodotian's (200AD) which *doesn't* have 'latrueo' in Dan7?

[quote]

And I addressed this in my posts at CWS!


*snip*

But you are on "Ignore" at CWS, remember? Wait - don't tell me that you didn't know...?! Oh dear. [/quote]

I wouldn't expect you to tell me. You were losing pretty bad, remember?

[quote]
This means that you've posted about 26 rebuttals in the past few days, only to find that I haven't read any of them! What a complete waste of time...[/quote]

It would have been a complete waste of time HAD you read them .
It appears that your last post preceded mine in which I corrected you on the subject of 'forms'. Right after that, Jes1994 took up the err..."slack", and I've been corresponding with him ever since.

[quote]
ROTFL!
[/quote]

You put me on 'Ignore' without informing me. That form of cowardance IS hilarious! *sigh*

[quote]
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the above explanation "serve, minister"


Oh, really? What, even this part...?

latreuousa (latreuw) "worshiped" - serve, minister ....... often of service to God. This word is regularly confused with "adoration to God" or as we would commonly say, "worship." Yet, it is a ministry word, and in Anna's case, ministry to God in the temple, most often in prayer and fasting.[/quote]

Look at the actual word being defined for crying out loud!

Yes, Ev, even that part. Not unless I think there is something wrong with "praying to Jesus" . What does "ministry to God in the temple" entail to you? You're not providing an argument you're merely 'exhaling'.

[quote]

There's "nothing wrong" with that, eh Capt. Levi? Despite the fact that it totally destroys your entire argument. Well then. Looks like I've changed your mind with a single post.[/quote]

Now explain "how" it "demolishes my entire argument". How? By defining 'latreuo'?

[quote]

That was easy.
[/quote]

It's much easier to fall into a hole than to pull yourself back out.

[quote]
although I am curious as to what they are citing.


They are citing Luke 2:37, as they clearly state.

Did you actually read the commentary?[/quote]

You know what I meant. Where did they get the lexical information for the word? Which lexicon did they use? Really Ev, you jump me for citing Robert Hommel without citing HIS source, now you expect me to simply take "their" word. Typical.

[quote]

Seems to me like you are trying to flip-flop


Nope.

Seems to me that I've done far more research than you have. [/quote]

And all that "Google" research will eventually lead you to reject your former position on the word 'latreuo'. It's alreadly happening with Jes1994 . Oops! wait a minute! It already is!

"What I have done here, is to point out that although it would be appropriate for Christ to receive latreuo, this is never done in the New Testament. "

LOL! That's classic! This one's going to bite.

[quote]

and belittle the meaning of 'latreuo'.


LOL! There's no "belittling" here. [/quote]

LOL! Yes there is. You've restricted yourself to "just the NT" and even contradict yourself with your own methodology there as well! Now all one has to do is see the above "slack" you've given the word. A complete 180 in the works!

[quote]
But as they say, "The results may surprise you"... [/quote]

From you?....not as of late.

That is precisely what you said. "Address it properly"? It's nothing more than one of your typical rants. When we get past this ONE simple verse (that you can't seem to get past) then we can go on elsewhere.



I've had many debates with you in the past, Ev, and with a good deal of them you have simply walked out when the facts starting getting in the way. The above is merely a desperate ploy to get off this one passage with which you cannot deal honestly.



ROTFL! Because by your asinine reasoing of "form = different word" it isn't ever applied to the Father either! Classic Evangelion blunder!



False. I concentrate on one verse because I've come to the conclusion that you simply can't handle even that! This has got to be the greatest example of biased flip-flopping I have ever seen from an anti-Trinitarian!



How about Dan7:14........after you do some honest research.



And you.....your hypocrisy and double-standard.



False. The following was wholly refuted back at CF. You're merely regurgitating it because you think I won't link back to it. See below:



This was handled with ease.



Dito. With the BADG, TDNT, etc,.



Poor scholarship. What we've cited is much more credible.



Completely false. I invite all to view the following thread where you can see the above (and much more!) thoroughly refuted with credible sources:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/29124.html

See, *I* don't have anything to hide.



Watch for blunders ahead



Stopping here for a moment, I just wanted to point out the following:



Evangelion can't tell the difference between a 'form' and a 'derivative', and yet is now able to distinguish 'verb forms'? Me thinks Ev has finally inquired of some help (for once). Fort? Hope not for his sake as you've still goofed!

Continuing:..



Can anyone tell me why not a SINGLE one of the following forms of latreuo cited in Sam's argument appears in the above? Evangelion, can you tell me? Why? The answer below:

• latreuseis
  
• latreuein
  
• latreusate
  
• latreusete
  
• latreusomen
  
• latreuousin
  
• latreuonta
  
• latreusousin
  
• latreuousa

LOL! They are NOT forms of 'latreuo'! What Ev has done is cited examples of derivatives, probably from latris. They ARE different words. What Ev needs to do is tell us why 'latreuousa' is not mentioned amongst all these so-called "forms". If it's a 'derivative' then where is it? What Ev needs to do is tell us why he can't find a single lexicon that that proves that 'latrueuousa' is a derivative of 'latreuo' with it's own meaning. And he needs to do it *quick*. ONE!



Isn't Robertson parsing the New Testament, Ev? How about one better, the

BADG:

BADG:
Serve, in our lit[erature], only of the carrying out of relig[ious] duties, esp. of a cultic nature, by human beings.

-- Each of the following examples demonstrate that service is rendered to God (or inappropriately, to Satan or idols).

Louw & Nida:
to perform religious rites as a part of worship.

--In a footnote, we find: "In the NT, LEITOURGEW and LEITOURGIA are less specifically religious in connotation than LATREUW and LATREIA.



You mean "...the word which is never used of Christ, but if it WAS it would be "okay"". Is that the word, Ev? I've never seen such a blatant example of "covering your tail" in my forum life!

[quote]
1) To serve for hire.

2) To serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen.
2a) In the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship.
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship.
2b1) Of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office.

You can see that although Thayer acknowledges that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, in the NT it is used only for religious service or homage.

____________________

Again: I acknowledge that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, but in the NT, it is used only for religious service or homage.

In. The. NT.

BTW, when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?

Now one of my previous citations:

v37
latreuousa (latreuw) "worshiped" - serve, minister ....... often of service to God. This word is regularly confused with "adoration to God" or as we would commonly say, "worship." Yet, it is a ministry word, and in Anna's case, ministry to God in the temple, most often in prayer and fasting. She was regularly in the temple, or constantly in the temple, but probably not sleeping in it.
Full text available here.
[/quote]

What we see in the above is one of Ev's tactics of "repeat it in order to make it look 'bigger'". However, by using your [size] function, you can make it look rather small .

[quote]

Now from a former Professor of Bible and Ministry at Ohio Valley College:

Latreuo and related forms.
Rom. 12:1 is the most familiar occurrence of this word. This word signifies service for a reward, work, labor, or in devotion and worship. The verb is found 90 times in Greek translation of Old Testament (Septuagint).

"It is not enough to say that latreuein has religious significance. One must say that it has ceremonial significance....it means more precisely to serve or worship in the cult, especially by sacrifice" (TDNT, IV, 60).

In the NT, the noun occurs five times (John 16:2; Rom. 9:4; 12:1; Heb. 9:1,6). The verbal form occurs 21 times (Matt. 4:10; Luke 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Acts. 7:7,42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom. 1:9,25; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 8:5; 9:9,14; 10:2; 12:28; 13:10; Rev. 7:15; 22:3). It implies adoration (Mt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8; Rev. 7:15; 22:3). It is unceasing and relentless in character (Luke 2:37; Acts 26:7). It refers to the sacrificial duties of the OT priests at the tabernacle or temple in the book of Hebrews. Most often the NT uses the word to communicate the whole conduct of believers toward God.

Notice the relationship to life: Luke 1:74; Acts 24:14; 27:23; Rom. 1:9; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 9:14; 12:28-29. This term is also never applied to the Christian assembly. This worship is not distinct from life.

"The service which Christians are to offer consists in the fashioning of their inner lives and their outward physical conduct in a way which plainly distinguishes them from the world and which corresponds to the will of God (TDNT, IV, 65).
Full text available here. [/quote]

And your pertinent point being? You've managed to cite a source that lists the occurences of verbs and nouns. Good. Rev22:3 is a 'verb'. So is 'latreuousa'. What do you do now, genius?

[quote]

Now from another helpful mainstream Christian who supports my argument with breathtaking precision - right down to the very argument that I myself have presented:

latreuw (latreuo - 3000)

To serve, to render religious service or homage, is translated ‘worship’ in Philippians 3:3, “(who) worship (by the Spirit of God)” (RV, AV), “(which) worship (God in the Spirit);” the RV renders it ‘to serve’ (for AV, ‘to worship’)

(Acts 7:42) “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven…”

(Acts 24:14) “…they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers…”

(Heb.10:2), pres. part. “(the) worshippers, lit. (the ones) worshipping” (See serve) (VINE)


latreuw and latreia in the LXX

1. latreuw

a. Occurrence, Hebrew and Basic Character.
The word occurs a round 90 times in the LXX. The distribution is remarkably uneven. For 70 of these instances are in Exodus (17), Deuteronomy (25), Joshua (19) and Judges (9). The word does not occur at all in the prophets (apart from Ez.20:32), Psalms, Samuel (apart from II Sam.15:8). This is connected with the method of translation. With a few unimportant exceptions latreuw is always used for the Hebrew abad (5647). It is twice used for sharath (8334), in Num.16:9; Ezk.20:32). But this word is also very frequently rendered douleuein.

It is to be noted that the books which frequently have latreuein use it mostly when abad has a religious significance (cf. Ex.3:12; 4:23; 7:16,26; 8:16; 9:1,13; 10:3,7-8,24,26; 20:5; 23:24-25; Dt.4:19,28; 5:9;6:13; 7:4,16; Josh.22:27; 24:14-24,31). When the reference is to human relations, the rendering is always douleuein (cf. Ex.14:5,12; 21:2,6; Dt.15:12,18; Judg.3:8,14; 9:28,38); and consistently in Genesis. In these writings douleuein is used in the religious sense only at Ex.23:33, Dt.13:5; 28:64; Judg.2:7; 10:6,10,13,16. Conversely, latreuein is always used in these writings in the religious sense. The translators of these books thus attempted to show even by their choice of words that the relation of service in religion is something apart from other relations of service.

In the other writings, where the term latreuein hardly occurs at all, there is no such concern. Here douleuein is used almost uniformly for abad, no matter whether the relation is religious or secular. Nevertheless, latreuein is distinctively religious not only in the books where it is chiefly found but wherever it appears in the LXX. The only exception is Deut.28:48. But this proves the rule. For here there is a play on words. Because Israel was not willing to “serve” the Lord, Who sought only its good, it must “serve” its enemies, who destroy it (a second exception is Dan.7:14 “The Son of Man latreuousa”).
Full text available here.

So, what do we find here, Capt. Levi? [/quote]

Not anything impressive. Now can you name HIS sources, Ev? On what basis does he include 7:14 as an "exception". How about this much more reputable source:


TDNT:
In the LXX
The Hebrew original is abad, which is usually rendered DOULEUEIN when human relations are at issue and LATREUEIN when the reference is to divine service. LATREUEIN always has a religious sense except in the play on words in Dt 24:48.

Comparison with Nonbiblical Usage: The LXX focuses on the cultic sense but with no restriction to priestly ministry. Secular Greek prefers THERAPEUEIN fo rcultic worship, but the LXX usually has this for healing or cherishing, and it reserves DOULEUEIN for service in a general sense....

In the NT
b. LXX influence. The service denoted by the verb is always rendered to God (or to the gods) (cf. Rom 1:25; Acts 7:42).

So what can we grasp from the above?

1.] This "exclusion" of Dan7:14 finds no mention in the above (and much more reputable) source.

2.] There's even a reference on how it influenced NT usage.

[quote]

What we find is that this Trinitarian scholar:
Makes no argument for the deity of Christ from the use of latreuousa in the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14. (In fact, Sam Shamoun is the only Trinitarian I have ever come across who has ever attempted this futile exercise.)[/quote]

It doesn't surprise me that you didn't see it. The episode where you cited the Isa passage "There are no Gods with me" in (get this) *refutation* of the Trinity, only compounded my conviction that you don't "get out much".

[quote]
Insists that this use of the word in Deuteronomy 28:48 & Daniel 7:14 is exceptional, thereby proving the rule that everywhere else, it is used in a religious sense.[/quote]

So how come mine doesn't?

[quote]
(In fact, these two instances are probably just bad translations. But the range of latreuo gives us sufficient flexibility here.)[/quote]

Oh, well, of course.

[quote]

Lists every occurrance of latreuo in the NT, none of which refer to Christ (as I have already told you myself.)[/quote]

...but have yet to prove. Evangelion, please refrain from confusing me. You assert that 'latreuo' is not used of Christ, but that it wouldn't matter if it was. Well aren't you looking rather pathetic right now?

[quote]

All of which supports my argument perfectly, and leaves absolutely no room for yours. [/quote]

Fluff statement. Handle the Greek honestly and maybe we can take statements as such seriously.

[quote]

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Nor have you told me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT.[/quote]

You rely on "repeats" because you don't actually have much argument as it is. I'm stuck addressing more ad homiens and repeats than I am arguments! Either you are too lazy and ignorant to come up with something productive or Fortigurn is writing your posts (which wouldn't surprise me!)

[quote]
Oh, and remember one of my previous comments at CWS?[/quote]

Of course, I refuted them.

[quote]

____________________

Finally, Jesus' response to the tempter in Luke 4 is taken from Deuteronomy 6:13:

Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Your argument requires the Hebrew word for "serve" to be pelach - but it is not. Instead, the word עבד (‛âbad) has been used.[/quote]

'Pelach' is not a 'Hebrew word', but Aramic, so BIG argument you had there!

Again I quote the following:

Here's an interesting note from the Expositor's Bible Commentary:

"The universality of the rule of the Son of Man is emphasized in v. 14: “He was given authority [soltan], glory [yeqar] and sovereign power [malku]; all the peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.” Christ is to be the supreme source of political power on earth after his earthly kingdom is established; and all humans, whatever their race, nationality, ethnic origin, or language, will worship and serve him (leh yiplehun), pelah being equivalent to the cultic use of the Heb. abad)" (EBC, Dan 7:23-25, Parson's Electronic Text).

This is from the TWOT definition of Pelach:

serve, worship, revere, minister for

The original meaning of the root was "to cleave [open]" or "divide in two." From this meaning was derived the idea of cultivating a field and ultimately of cultivating (i.e., working hard at) the worship of a deity, hence the idea of service or worship of a deity. In Biblical Hebrew, the root is used only in the sense of cleave or split, and apparently did not develop into a term for religious service, as is the case in Aramaic." (Theological Wordbook of the OT, p. 1059).

And of course the relevant part of the-

TDNT:

In the LXX
The Hebrew original is abad, which is usually rendered DOULEUEIN when human relations are at issue and LATREUEIN when the reference is to divine service. LATREUEIN always has a religious sense except in the play on words in Dt 24:48.[/b]
So from the three reputable sources I have cited we see that:
1.] 'Pelach' [Aramic] is perfectly interchangeable with 'abad' [Hebrew]
2.] The 'Aramic' denotes 'religous service'
3.] The Hebrew 'abad' is rendered as 'Latreuo' when in reference to 'divine service'

That's suffices for me.

[quote]

____________________

The significance of עבד (‛âbad) has already been highlighted by my helpful Trinitarian:

With a few unimportant exceptions latreuw is always used for the Hebrew abad (5647). It is twice used for sharath (8334), in Num.16:9; Ezk.20:32). But this word is also very frequently rendered douleuein.

It is to be noted that the books which frequently have latreuein use it mostly when abad has a religious significance (cf. Ex.3:12; 4:23; 7:16,26; 8:16; 9:1,13; 10:3,7-8,24,26; 20:5; 23:24-25; Dt.4:19,28; 5:9;6:13; 7:4,16; Josh.22:27; 24:14-24,31).

This is the word that your argument requires in the Hebrew version of Daniel 7:14. But unfortunately for you, it just isn't there![/quote]

Gee, Ev I wonder why? Could it be because there is no "Hebrew version of Daniel"!! See what I'm dealing with here?
And as I have demonstrated in the above, 'abad' and 'pelach' are interchangeable.

[quote]

Read:  Hbr 13:10 'We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve <3000> the tabernacle.'   So do you believe [now] that 'latreuo' carries no religous connotations?  


*snip*

Straw man.

That was never my claim.[/quote]

Blatant dodge. See your own arguement on Ezr7:24. In the above we apparently see (through Ev goggles) the application of 'latreuo' to a 'building'. This nullifies your highly fallacious argument.

[quote]

But just in passing - when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?[/quote]

Hey, I never noticed that "..in the NT" before you changed your position. Silly

[quote]

Hey, how about:  Brown, Driver, Briggs (BDB):  Verb. Pay reverence to, serve (deity). 1. Pay reverence to deity, Dan 3:28, 7:14, 27 2. Plural construction as noun, Ezr 7:24, servants of the house of God (+priests, Nethinim, etc.)


*snip*

Well, you haven't even told us what this word is so I don't know what you're expecting to prove by it! [/quote]

That would be for 'Pelach'.

Hey, just in passing, did you know the JWs once taught that it was okay to worship Christ?

[quote]

Here's an interesting note from the Expositor's Bible Commentary:


*snip*

Interesting? No, it was merely inaccurate. That's not interesting. I get inaccurate statements from you on a regular basis. What makes you think I want to see another one?[/quote]

This reeks of 'Fortigurn'. You didn't even write this, did you Ev?

[quote]

These two words are not equivalent, which is precisely why they have been translated in different ways by the men who gave us the LXX.

Thus, from Bob Deffinbaugh of the Biblical Studies Foundation:

Service.
The third pair of terms employed for worship in the Bible emphasize service. The Hebrew term, abad, and its Greek counterpart, latreuo…, denotes the idea ‘to work, to labor, or to serve.’ In the Old Testament this service was most often priestly service. In the New Testament we are told that we are all priests of God (1 Peter 2:5,9), so that this term does not apply only to the service of the few, but of the entire congregation of believers in Christ.

In addition, service and worship were often linked in the Old Testament. It is no surprise, then, when we find Satan tempting our Lord to worship him (Luke 4:7). Satan was not asking our Lord simply to fall to the ground before him. He was asking the Lord to acknowledge him as sovereign and to surrender to him in service. This is why our Lord responded, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only’” (Luke 4:8).

Worship and service cannot be isolated, but rather they must be integrated, if it is to be true worship.
Full text available here.

If pelach is equivalent to עבד (‛âbad), why didn't the translators of the LXX use latreuo for both words? I shall tell you why. It is because they are not equivalent. It is because the "service" and "reverence" of pelach is not exclusive to God. Remember, pelach is an Aramaic word, which explains why it occurs only 10 times in the entire OT - and even then, only in the literature of the exiles![/quote]

Wow. Talk about a dodge! Dan7:14 uses 'latreuo'. Luke4:8 uses 'latreuo'. Deut10:12 [LXX] uses 'latreuo'. It has no bearing on whether it is 'Aramic' or 'Hebrew', the LXX translators were putting both into GREEK. And they chose 'latreuo' for both!

[quote]

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.[/quote]

What you need here, is to learn Greek or at least inquire of somone who has. You've managed to work yourself into a corner, and now you've even opened up the possiblity that Christ CAN be served! LOL! You're willing to change position within a days time just so you won't lose. OS will have a coronary!

[quote]

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Incidentally, when are you going to tell me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT?[/quote]

If I did, you would just say "okay".... At least you're good for passing time...

[quote]

Here, I'll help you. Let's ask Jesus to tell us what kind of service he expects from his followers:

John 12:26.
If any man serve1247 me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve1247 me, him will my Father honor.

Here Jesus requires us to διακονέω (diakoneō) him.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines diakoneō in the following way:

1) To be a servant, attendant, domestic, to serve, wait upon.
1a) To minister to one, render ministering offices to.
1a1) To be served, ministered unto.

1b) To wait at a table and offer food and drink to the guests.
1b1) Of women preparing food.

1c) To minister, i.e. supply food and necessities of life.
1c1) To relieve one’s necessities (e.g. by collecting alms), to provide take care of, distribute, the things necessary to sustain life.
1c2) To take care of the poor and the sick, who administer the office of a deacon.
1c3) In Christian churches to serve as deacons.

1d) To minister.
1d1) To attend to anything, that may serve another’s interests.
1d2) To minister a thing to one, to serve one or by supplying any thing.[/quote]

Wow! What great ammo!

And so if I find this word in reference to the Father, that means that 'latreuo' is not applicable to Him? Smashing argument!

[quote]
Interestingly enough, the same word is used here:

Matthew 20:28.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto [diakoneō], but to minister [diakoneō], and to give his life a ransom for many.

How strange that Christ does not use latreuo! [/quote]

LOL! Not at all, Ev. If Christ used 'latreuo' in this verse then He would in turn be giving 'latreuo' to US! Think boy.

[quote]

Again, when Paul makes reference to Christian service of Christ, which word does he use?

Romans 16:18.
For they that are such serve [douleuō] not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.[/quote]

Because it's a parallel between one's self and Christ. This isn't the *context* for strict religious worship. Do they burn insence to their own stomachs, Ev? Think..think.. 'Latreuo' is not appropriate here.

[quote]

He uses douleuō, which is defined by Thayer's Greek Lexicon in the following way:

δουλος

doulos

1) A slave, bondman, man of servile condition.
1a) A slave.
1b) Metaphorically, one who gives himself up to another’s will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men.
1c) Devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests.

2) A servant, attendant.

How strange that Paul does not use latreuo! [/quote]

How strange Jesus doesn't use latrueo!

Mat 6:24 No man3762 can1410 serve1398 two1417 masters:2962 for1063 either2228 he will hate3404 the3588 one,1520 and2532 love25 the3588 other;2087 or2228 else he will hold472 to the one,1520 and2532 despise2706 the3588 other.2087 Ye cannot1410, 3756 serve1398 God2316 and2532 mammon.3126

B)

[quote]

So tell me, Capt. Levi - why does Christ never require latreuo from his followers, and why do the inspired apostles never apply it to him? Wouldn't this be the ideal way to affirm that Christ is God...?

Indeed it would! And yet... it is never actually done! [/quote]

Why do you assert what you have yet to prove? When you quit making so many mistakes out of deperation, I'll begin to take you seriously. Till then.....
btw, putting an >!;)

[quote]

You can see that although Thayer acknowledges that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, in the NT it is used only for religious service or homage.[/quote]

LOL! Ev, Polycarp was a Christian! This would obviously entail that he *knew* the so-called "NT only application of 'latreuo'" Haha, you just nailed yourself with that one!

[quote]

So, once again you have resorted to your "pick and mix" tactics.

Observe:
You find a word used in the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14, and claim that the application of this word to Christ in the Christian LXX somehow "proves" that Christ is God.[/quote]

Old Greek, Ev, Old Greek. And yes, it does.

[quote]

You find a word used in a letter from Polycarp, and claim that the application of this word to Christ somehow "proves" that Polycarp believed Christ to be God.[/quote]

Which is obvious even from your own made up "rule".

[quote]

But you offer no consistent evidence from Scripture, and no consistent evidence from Polycarp. Instead, you're just playing word games; picking and hunting through the text in order to locate one single word among millions, and attempting to rest an entire doctrine upon it!

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Indeed, you can't even explain to me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT! [/quote]

Hahah. Stammer, Ev, stammer!

[quote]
Ooops. Another potential Trinitarian argument goes down the gurgler.[/quote]

Haha! And just look at the means through which you "accomplished" this, EV. Twisting Greek. Not impressive.

[quote]What I have done here, is to point out that although it would be appropriate for Christ to receive latreuo, this is never done in the New Testament.

And why not? Because the inspired New Testament writers wanted to preserve a clear and distinct separation between the service and veneration of Christ, and the service, veneration and worship of Yahweh.

This has been achieved by ensuring that latreuo is never applied to Christ throughout the entire NT - a beautiful piece of Biblical consistency against which Trinitarians are utterly powerless.

As we have already seen.
[/quote]

LOL! This one gets forwarded!

Now read this:

"But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" Mark 14:61-62

I'll add this to Sam's citation:

Mar 14:63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

Note how the High Priest accused Him of "blasphemy" immediately after His allusion to Dan7.

“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’” Acts 7:55-56

The interesting fact here, is that Stephen quotes the LXX elsewhere within this very speech in Acts! This would natrually entail that He [Stephen] recieved his own allusion to Dan7 from the LXX. Note again how immediately after the reference to Dan7, he is accused of blasphemy and stoned. Read:

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of
God. But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him...'

Additionally:

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen." Revelation 1:7
So much for a "clear and distinct separation"!

-God bless-

Robertson and Thayer are the two upon which your entire argument lies. I've not only matched those and beat them, but will go into further detail upon pending research later.

Oh, Evangelion has problems alright.

Capt. Levi -

[quote]Gee, by this reasoning, you had better relinquish that pastor's position, eh Ev?[/quote]

No, why would I do that? I'm not the hypocrite here, remember?

You're the one who says "God bless you", and then goes on to insult me...

[quote]My only guess can only be that you are trying to downplay the meaning of "latreuo" from being a "religous service" word to merely a word that denotes "a religous way of life" and that this could possibly be attributed to Christ with no biblical conflict.[/quote]

No, not at all. As you can see, the definition of the word remains abundantly clear - and yes, it can be applied to men.

But it never is, throughout the entire course of the NT.

[quote] Hmm.. That's interesting as your following statement:

"So here I acknowledge that the word was used in Greek society in reference to the service of exalted men, but in the NT, it is used only for religious service or homage.
In. The. NT."

...contradicts this.[/quote]

*snip*

Yes, the Trinitarian author whose work I quoted, does indeed contradict my statement when he writes...

Latreuo is translated "worship" in Acts 7:42, Acts 24:14, Philippians 3:3, and Hebrews 10:2 in KJV and NIV; in NAS it is so translated only in the last two of these passages. In each of these references, as well as in those in which it is translated "service," it means a way of life rather than an act of homage.

Here we see that he is drawing on the broader definition of latreuo. But that's OK, because I simply disagree with him on this point. :)

Remember, the same guy also wrote this...

The relationship of servant to master is expressed in the Greek latreuo and its derivatives. Though sometimes translated "worship," it is more often rendered as "service" and is used to describe "the carrying out of religious duties."

...with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Now, looking through your post for examples of NT passages where latreuo is ascribed to Christ...

[quote]Where did they get the lexical information for the word? Which lexicon did they use?[/quote]

*snip*

No, that doesn't show me an example of an NT passage where latreuo is ascribed to Christ. Try again. :)

Oh, and since I have no idea which source he used for "the lexical information for the word", why not simply contact the author of the article itself?

Thus:

Mail:
Pumpkin Cottage Ministry Resources
PO Box 58. Helensburgh, Sydney
N.S.W. 2508 Australia

Mobile: 0414 793 167

Email: fin@wollongong.apana.org.au

Could I possibly be any more helpful? :)

[quote]You've restricted yourself to "just the NT"[/quote]

*snip*

Of course! As I have already demonstrated in my previous posts, I had always restricted myself to "just the NT." This has always been my argument, and I have never deviated from it. And you'll be delighted to know that my Trinitarian friend at Studies of New Testament Words agrees with me!

Thus:

• 2999 LATREIA (5): religious service, contextually always service for God in the FCM (NT). This can be seen in Jn.16.2: "... They will exclude you+ from the assemblies; but an hour is coming for everyone who is slaying you+ to suppose he is offering service (latreia) to God." Similarly Rom.12.1 shows that the service is to God, "...present your bodies to God, a living sacrifice, your rational [godly] service (latreia)." Also Heb.9.6: "Now when these things had been prepared, the priests always went into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the [godly] services."
  
  Latreia refers to service to or for God whereas diakonia (1248) is a Greek word used to describe "service" in general. Using the word "godly" along with the word "service" in translating latreia ("[godly] service") helps distinguish it from "service" in general.
  
  See "offer [godly] service" (3000 latreuo) for discussion.
  
  Recommended translation:
  
  [GODLY] SERVICE Rom.9.4; 12.1. Heb.9.1,6.
  SERVICE Jn.16.2.
  
  
• 3000 LATREUO (21): usually translated "serve," or "worship." However, its usage in God's FCM (NT) shows that it means to perform religious service, usually to God. Latreuo is used in context with other words that are sometimes translated "worship," showing that each word has a different meaning and both cannot mean "worship." See "show submission" (proskuneo) for discussion.
  
  Comparison of latreuo to:
  
  1) Proskuneo (4352, show submission) is used in context with latreuo in Mt.4.10, Lk.4.8, and Act.7.42-43. In Mt.4.9-10 Jesus told the adversary (devil), "You are to show submission (proskuneo) to your Master, God, to him only will you 'offer [godly] service (latreuo).'" The fact that proskuneo and latreuo are used in the same sentence shows that these two words have different meanings and cannot both mean "worship."
  
  2) Sebomai (4576 "show devotion") is used with latreuo in Rom.1.25, where the usage shows wrongful devotion and service: "...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and showed devotion (sebomai) and offered [godly] service (latreuo) to the thing created rather than to the one having created..." These two words are very different in meaning and cannot both mean "worship."
  
  3) Diakoneo (1247 "serve") is never translated "worship" in the FCR. It is akin to latreuo in that it means "to serve," but in a broad sense, rather than the restricted sense in which latreuo means "to serve God". Note that in Act.7.42 the latreuo "serving" is misdirected to idols.
  
  OFFER [GODLY] SERVICE (17) Mt.4.10. Lk.1.74; 2.37; 4.8. Act.7.7,42; 24.14; 26.7. Rom.1.9,25. 2Ti.1.3. Heb.9.9,14; 10.2; 12.28. Rev.7.15; 22.3.
  DO [GODLY] SERVICE (4) Act.27.23. Php.3.3. Heb.8.5; 13.10.

Now, if you could just show me an example of an NT passage where latreuo is ascribed to Christ...?

[quote]What Ev has done is cited examples of derivatives, probably from latris. They ARE different words.[/quote]

*snip*

Ooops! Goodness gracious, you're right! Yep, you've got a perfectly valid point here, Capt. Levi, and I was clearly wrong about the etymology of latreuo. I freely admit it. (Of course, this doesn't actually advance your argument about the alleged deity of Christ, but that's OK. I don't mind.) :)

Oh, and just in passing - do you have an example of an NT passage where latreuo is ascribed to Christ...?

[quote]Now can you name HIS sources, Ev?[/quote]

Dear me. Am I honestly expected to know the sources of every Trinitarian exegete on the Internet? Why, the very idea is utterly preposterous!

[quote]On what basis does he include 7:14 as an "exception".[/quote]

Why don't you ask him? His "About me" page (see here) contains a clickable email address (etraut@gdi.net.)

FWIW, I would suggest that he considers Daniel 7:14 to be an exception because latreuo is used here as a translation of pelach - and therefore carries no inherent religious significance in this context.

[quote]How about this much more reputable source:[/quote]

LOL, "Much more reputable"? You haven't even proved that mine is disreputable in the first place! (Remember Sungenis...?) ;) Not only that, but all of my sources are in complete harmony, so it's not simply a case of "prove this guy wrong and everything will be OK" - you have to prove all of them wrong! (And since two of my sources are LSJ & Thayer's, you don't really have a chance!)

[quote]TDNT:
In the LXX
The Hebrew original is abad, which is usually rendered DOULEUEIN when human relations are at issue and LATREUEIN when the reference is to divine service. LATREUEIN always has a religious sense except in the play on words in Dt 24:48.

Comparison with Nonbiblical Usage: The LXX focuses on the cultic sense but with no restriction to priestly ministry. Secular Greek prefers THERAPEUEIN fo rcultic worship, but the LXX usually has this for healing or cherishing, and it reserves DOULEUEIN for service in a general sense....[/quote]

Well, it agrees that Deuteronomy 24:48 is an exception, so that's a promising start! But where is the proof that Daniel 7:14 signifies religious worship of Christ? It just isn't there!

Meanwhile, we know that Daniel 7:14 must be an exception because latreuo is used here as a translation of pelach - and therefore carries no religious significance in this context.

[quote]In the NT
b. LXX influence. The service denoted by the verb is always rendered to God (or to the gods) (cf. Rom 1:25; Acts 7:42).[/quote]

*snip*

...which is exactly what I have said! Namely, that latreuo is only ever ascribed to God in the NT!

Thanks for supporting my argument again, Capt. Levi!

Oh, and you didn't explain to me why "reputable" (to use your word) Trinitarian scholars (I'm thinking of men like James White and Rodney Decker) don't use the LXX rendition of Daniel 7:14 as a proof text for the deity of Christ. (Could it be that the argument just isn't there...?)

Think about it.

[quote]You rely on "repeats"[/quote]

*snip*

I don't "rely" on them - I simply insist upon them. And why? Because I never get any answers!

So here it is again:

What you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Nor have you told me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT. So all you have here, is a single, isolated word in a single, isolated verse - without even so much as a single application of the same word to Christ in the NT to support your argument!

BTW, Fortigurn is overseas - and has been for the past 3 weeks. That's why his activity here has been sporadic at best.

[quote]Again I quote the following:[/quote]

*snip*

Your citation from the EBC merely asserts (without actually proving) that Christ receives literal religious worship in Daniel 7:14, and your citation from the TWOT is contradicted by (1) my Trinitarian scholars, and (2) the Biblical use of pelach as opposed to ‛âbad.

So I see no reason to change my mind on this point. :)

[quote]Could it be because there is no "Hebrew version of Daniel"!![/quote]

*snip*

*sigh* Daniel is written in two languages - Hebrew and Aramaic. The book contains a mixture of the two. When I refer to "the Hebrew version of Daniel", I obviously refer to the pre-LXX version.

[quote]That would be for 'Pelach'.[/quote]

Really? That's odd, because my version of BDB says this:

ôÌìç (Aramaic)
pelach

1) To serve, worship, revere, minister for, pay reverence to.

1a) (Peal.)
1a1) to pay reverence to.
1a2) to serve.

For ‛âbad, the entry is far more extensive. And why? Because this word is far more flexible than pelach. The two words cannot be equated at all.

Observe:

עבד
‛âbad

1) To work, serve.

1a) (Qal.)
1a1) to labour, work, do work.
1a2) to work for another, serve another by labour.
1a3) to serve as subjects.
1a4) to serve (God.)
1a5) to serve (with Levitical service.)
1b) (Niphal.)
1b1) to be worked, be tilled (of land.)
1b2) to make oneself a servant.
1c) (Pual) to be worked.
1d) (Hiphil.)
1d1) to compel to labour or work, cause to labour, cause to serve.
1d2) to cause to serve as subjects.
1e) (Hophal) to be led or enticed to serve.

The precise meaning of the word does vary with context, of course.

Thus:

• Genesis 2:15.
  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
  
• Genesis 14:4.
  Twelve, years they served [‛âbad] Chedorlaomer [a pagan king], and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
  
• Genesis 29:15.
  And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve [‛âbad] me for naught? tell me, what shall thy wages be?
  
• Exodus 9:13.
  And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve [‛âbad] me.
  
• Deuteronomy 6:13.
  Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve [‛âbad] him, and shalt swear by his name.

So you see, it doesn't really do anything for your argument at all. :)

Meanwhile, let's take a look at the Hebrew word which is interchangeable with the Aramaic pelach:

פּלח
pâlach

1) To cleave, slice.

1a) (Qal) to cleave, plow.
1b) (Piel.)
1b1) to cleave open or through.
1b2) to cause to cleave open.
1b3) to slice, pierce.

Well, well, well, just what do we have here? We have a precise correlation - an exact Hebrew equivalent.

Now let's ask ourselves which of the following two words is equivalent to and therefore interchangeable with the Aramaic word pelach:

• ‛âbad
  
• pâlach.

No prize for guessing! :D

[quote]Hey, just in passing, did you know the JWs once taught that it was okay to worship Christ?[/quote]

*snip*

Yes, I did. You'll find a mention of it in some of their old literature.

[quote]QUOTE  

Interestingly enough, the same word is used here:

Matthew 20:28.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto [diakoneō], but to minister [diakoneō], and to give his life a ransom for many.

How strange that Christ does not use latreuo!  


LOL! Not at all, Ev. If Christ used 'latreuo' in this verse then He would in turn be giving 'latreuo' to US![/quote]

*snip*

Oh dear. Seems you deliberately ignored the part where he said "not to be ministered unto [diakoneō]", which is precisely where latreuo should have been inserted.

In which case, the verse would have looked like this...

Even as the Son of man came not to be served [latreuo], but to minister [diakoneō], and to give his life a ransom for many.

...which would have given you at least one application of latreuo to Christ in the NT...

So I have another dodge from you, and still no answer to that very simple request... please show me an example of an NT passage where latreuo is ascribed to Christ. :) (You'll see that I've been generous enough to snip out most of the other times where you fail to answer the question. Yes, I can be nice sometimes.)

[quote]QUOTE

How does this prove that Polycarp believed in the deity of Christ?


Common sense. A lack of desperation on my part. Various factors.[/quote]

That is not an answer. That is a dodge. Try again.

And this time, answer the question.

Remember Robertson...?

Rom 1:9 - I serve (latreuō).
Old verb from latron, hire, and latris, hireling, so to serve for hire, then to serve in general gods or men, whether sacred services (Heb_9:9; Heb_10:2) or spiritual service as here. Cf. Rom_12:1; Phi_3:3.

Remember Thayer?

1) To serve for hire.

2) To serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen.
2a) In the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship.
2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship.
2b1) Of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office.

In. The. NT. Which is precisely what I have always said.

So tell me, Capt. Levi - when can I see an example of an NT passage where latreuo is ascribed to Christ? :)

[quote]Ev, Polycarp was a Christian! This would obviously entail that he *knew* the so-called "NT only application of 'latreuo'"[/quote]

*snip*

...and also knew that it has a wider application, which he has clearly used. :)

Is Polycarp inspired? No. Is Polycarp required to write in exactly the same way as the inspired apostles? No. Does Polycarp give us any indication in his writings, that he does worship Jesus as God? No. Does Polycarp give us any indication in his writings, that he believes Jesus to be God, at all? No. Does the word latreuo carry a breadth of meaning that is perfectly compatible with the way Polycarp consistently refers to Christ? Yes.

So my questions for you, are these:

• Where in that epistle, does Polycarp proclaim the deity of Christ?
  
• Where in the NT, is latreuo ascribed to Christ?

As before, I shall repeat my questions until they are answered.

Again: what you actually need here, is a series of clear, consistent, and utterly unambiguous passages in which Christ is worshipped and served as Almighty God. Now, we have a veritable plethora of examples where such worship and service is ascribed to the Father, but none for the Son. Jumping on a tiny little verse and attempting to wrench it into the shape that your Christology requires, is nothing short of eisegesis. You need consistency. You need clarity. You need fulfilled typology. You need prophecy.

All of these must point directly to the Son as Almighty God, before you can even begin to form an argument on the basis of your verse. And why? Because the onus is on you to show that this verse is an essential part of a greater whole. But this you have failed to do...

Indeed, you can't even explain to me why latreuo is never applied to Christ in the NT!

[quote]Now read this:

"But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" Mark 14:61-62[/quote]

Yes, Jesus claimed to be the "Son of Man" (Daniel 7), and the High Priest cried "Blasphemy!"

Just what is this intended to prove, may I ask?

[quote]I'll add this to Sam's citation:

Mar 14:63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

Note how the High Priest accused Him of "blasphemy" immediately after His allusion to Dan7.[/quote]

Relevance?

[quote]“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’” Acts 7:55-56

The interesting fact here, is that Stephen quotes the LXX elsewhere within this very speech in Acts! This would natrually entail that He [Stephen] recieved his own allusion to Dan7 from the LXX.[/quote]

Yes, that's right. He's using the LXX.

[quote]Note again how immediately after the reference to Dan7, he is accused of blasphemy and stoned.[/quote]

Yes, that's right. He's accused of blasphemy and stoned for preaching that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (the Son of Man.)

[quote]Read:

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of
God. But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him...'[/quote]

Very interesting. :) Err... where's the proof that Jesus is God, BTW?

I guess I must have missed it. ;)

[quote]Additionally:

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen." Revelation 1:7

So much for a "clear and distinct separation"![/quote]

Well, yeah, that is a clear and distinct separation, Capt. Levi. God is clearly distinguished from Christ in Revelation 1:4-7. :)

Thus:

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Here we have...

him which is, and which was, and which is to come

...identified as (1) God, and (2) the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We also have...

the faithful witness and the firstbegotten from the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth... him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood and hath made us kings and priests

...identified as the Lord Jesus Christ.

It could not possibly get any more clear and distinct than this! B)

I have asked repeatedly for an example of an NT passage where latreuo is ascribed to Christ. To date, my question has been consistently avoided. Even now, it remains unanswered.

I have also asked:

• Why Jesus never requested latreuo.
  
• Why this word is never used of Christ throughout the entire New Testament record.
  
• Why Jesus never instructed his followers to show latreuo to him (as they did to God.)
  
• For proof that Polycarp believed that Jesus is God.

It will be interesting to see how many times these questions are also ignored. B)

I think this discussion is silly. Neither latreou or proskuneo mean what the trinitarians want it to mean anyway.

We'll have to "agree to disagree" on that one, Anastasis. I personally believe that this discussion is a very important one.

Remember, what I have done here, is to point out that although it would be appropriate for Christ to receive latreuo, this is never done in the New Testament.

And why not? Because the inspired New Testament writers wanted to preserve a clear and distinct separation between the service and veneration of Christ, and the service, veneration and worship of Yahweh.

This has been achieved by ensuring that latreuo is never applied to Christ throughout the entire NT - a beautiful piece of Biblical consistency against which Trinitarians are utterly powerless.

As we have seen. B)

It is indeed a valid point you make there Evangelion, concerning the NT writers use of latreou.

God Bless

Cheers mate. B)

In any case, I think it is a grossly over simplistic and false view of Daniel 7 to think that the “one like the son of man” in verse 13 is simply Jesus. This is not born out by the explanation in the rest of the chapter. The chapter interprets itself. The first part of the chapter gives the vision. Then starting at verse 16, Daniel is given the interpretation of the vision, which is the rest of the chapter.

Verses 22 and 27 interpret who this “one like the son of man”is:

Verse 22: “judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

Verse 27: “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”

So this “son of man” is not Messiah alone, but the entire body of the saints. It is the “people of the saints of the most High.”

One cannot then logically contend that this “service” that is offered to that body is something that is uniquely offered to God, nor could you argue that those receiving it must also be God, unless you wished to assert that the entire “body of Christ” is also God.

Jesus is indeed referred to as the “Son of man” in the New Testament, however the phrase as used in the Old Testament refers not only to Messiah, but to any man who represents the human race – our representative – our “son.” So the same phrase is used in the Daniel 8:17 of Daniel himself. If there was any claim about the phrase being used of a “person of the Godhead,” Numbers 23:19 should conclusively disprove this: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:”

Hello Evangelion and God bless-



Read that back to yourself a few times and tell me what you think, Ev? So I am to assume that it is "okay" to be a 'pastor' and yet insult others relentlessly without being a hypocrite in the process? Your comments on Sam Shamoun are just one glaring example!



It "can" be applied to 'men'? Please, Ev, cite some biblical examples. Of course one must read the following:

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by his name.

Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

1Sa 7:3 And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto Jehovah with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you, and direct your hearts unto Jehovah, and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.

According to the scriptures, 'latreuo' is only allowable to YHWH, Ev. That is why the significance of the word is to be emphasized. When you say "It is okay to perform 'latreuo' to Christ" you are condoning idolatry plain and simple. Just because Thayer's defines 'latreuo' as being able to be applied to men, doesn't mean it is *allowed* to be applied to men. Therein lies your oversight. Your willing to contradict scripture in order to support your own bias.



Or rather because you are, as always, highly inconsistent with your citations. If you believe him to be incorrect in one area, how do you expect us to take him seriously in the area in which you emphasize? You downplay his crediblilty with your own objections regarding his skills as far as things go lexically in one area, then expect us to take him as an overall authority!



And if you had an inkling of sense about you, you would understand what "religous duties" entails. Re-read Ex; Lev; Num; Deut; and then proceed to tell me the "religous duties" of the priests of YHWH are. What do these include? Sacrifices, offerings, prayer, etc,.TO God. Are you implying that it is "okay" to 'pray' to Jesus? Are you trying to get across the idea that it is "okay" to sacrifice offerings TO Jesus? You'll be a Trinitarian yet!



I think I'll stick to your original (and broader) argument (for now) ie. "Latreuo is never applied to Christ". The argument which you have now conceded.

This will be one of the last times I answer one of these spam tactics till I educate you as far as Daniel goes. It's nothing more than an attempt to get off Dan7, but it won't work. Secondly, you've already covered yourself by stating that *had* Christ recieved 'latreuo' it would be "okay". This is merely covering both ends and serves only to show that if I went around with you on this, it wouldn't prove fruitful. I'm just thrilled to see that I caused you to change your position.

My primary focus rests on Dan7:14. I've come to the conclusion that if you are to misrepresent the Greek (either through blatant lies, or out of laziness and ignorance one) to the degree you have here, there is no point in broadening the horizons till we wrap up our discussion on this particular verse. Afterwards, I intend to discuss elsewhere. I'm alreadly wasting my time with you, but as long as things are kept relatively simplistic, at least I can enjoy seeing you stammer.



Hey, there's a distraction that won't work. Answer the question.



Hahah! There's some true authoritative citations for you! "I have no idea which source he used..but, hey, I'll pawn it off nonetheless!"



From here on out, this will be the same method I will use in "citing my sources". Rather hypocritical of you, eh? Or if anything, just all out lazy. But of course that doesn't surprise me. B)



Incorrect. Let's quote you:



This is what I gathered from your argument on CWS. As you can see, there is not a single reference to "NT only" in the above. In fact, let's quote you further from this very thread:

"What I have done here, is to point out that although it would be appropriate for Christ to receive latreuo, this is never done in the New Testament. "

Compare this with the below statement from CWS:



Typical. B)


What does <2999> have to do with our discussion on <3000>, Ev?


What exactly did you intend to do here, Evangelion? I'm beginning to see a consistent string of this type of citation in your posts, and can only gather three conclusions.

1.] Your are continuing your attempt to belittle the meaning and exclusiveness of 'latreuo' despite your attempts to deny this. (And despite the fact that your very cite confirms this exclusiveness)

2.] Your attempting to convey the idea that there truly is no word to express the idea of 'worship' or even a 'service that is only allowable to YHWH' (a 180 on your part)

3.] You still can't grasp the meage implications of what "religous service" means, and somehow intend to make an argument from it, for reasons we cannot explain.