Jason: Before I begin sharing some important matters of the Bible, I would first like to get some things out on the table. Let me say, first,
that there are many things about Jehovah’s Witnesses that I admire. Your zeal and involvement in your organization are unequaled by most other religious groups. Also your interest in the Bible is commendable. I know that most Jehovah’s witnesses spend several hours each week studying the Bible. Also you and I have many things in common. I and other Christians share your concern about religious apostasy in much of Christendom, your teaching against evolution, and your belief in the coming battle of Armageddon, when God will destroy the forces of Satan and then establish on earth His kingdom in which there will be universal peace and righteousness. But Rather than discussing many different teachings, I would like suggest that we consider what is the most important issue; the heart of the matter, He being the person of Christ.
You and I both believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect man and that He is a distinct person from God the Father. However, you teach
that before His earthly life, Christ was a spirit creature, Michael the archangel, who was created by God and became the Messiah at His baptism. According to the Watchtower publication Let God Be True(p.33), Jesus is “a mighty one, although not almighty as Jehovah God is.” According to John 1:1 in the The New World Translation, Christ is “a god” but not “the God.” So in other words, you teach that Jesus “was and is and always will be beneath Jehovah” and that “Christ and God are not coequal” (The Watchtower, 15 April 1957)
Dose the Bible teach these statements, or dose it teach the Christ is God? This, and I assume that you agree, is an extremely important question.
I would like to bring to your attention the following points for you to consider and pray about.

1. Several Bible verses specifically affirm the deity ( deity means to be God) of Christ. In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” When Thomas touched the wounds of the risen Lord, he said, “My Lord and my God!”(John 20:28). There is no basis whatsoever for saying, as some Jehovah’s Witnesses say, that Thomas was referring to Jesus when he said “my Lord” but was referring to God the Father when he said “my God.” Instead, Thomas called Christ his Lord and his God, and interestingly Christ did not correct him.

Reply: If the statement "my Lord and my God" was indeed referring to the Father, then there is no need for correction, is there?
John 20:28 reads, O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU. The KURIOS/Lord here is in the nominative form, while the vocative form KURIE is used mainly in direct address. Yes, there is such a thing as the "Nominative for the Vocative," but as Edwin Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar puts it:
"The Egyptian Papyri use KURIE freely, but never, so far as alleged, hO KURIOS vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended, KURIE would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'" 94 sec., 2049
Let us find some of these occurences of the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU (using primarily Brenton's LXX:
Judges 4:18 "And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me, fear not."
1 Samuel (1 Kings LXX) 25:24 "And she fell before David...even to his feet, and said, On me, my lord, be my wrong"
2 Samuel (2 Kings LXX) 7:18, 19, "And king David came in, and sat before the Lord, and said, Who am I, O Lord, my Lord, and what is my house, that thou hast loved me hitherto? Whereas I was very little before thee, O Lord, my Lord"
see also 2 Samuel 7:20, 22, 25, 28, 29; 14:19, 19; 1 Kings 1:13, 17, and many others.
The question needs to be asked, since the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU was not uncommon in direct address, it seems odd NOT to employ it at John 20:28. The argument is strong that Jesus was NOT being addressed here, especially as the vocative KURIE was also used in the Gospel of John at 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 6:34, 68; 9:36, 38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22; 20:15; 21:15, 16, 20, 21.
[There is another subcategory not usually mentioned, the Nominative of Exclamation, which according to Daniel Wallace, "will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax." see Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 59, 60]

Would we even be discussing this if someone else was thus addressed?
Consider 1 Samuel 20:12 "And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel." KJV, Douay, Revised Webster
or "And Jonathan said unto David, OYahweh Elohim of Israel" (Restored Name KJV).
No one would ever argue that David was God, but if ever there was a movement to think so, this verse would be used as a proof-text.
I have already dealt with this argument in depth already at 50 Questions and 65 Questions, so I will try another liine of reasoning here. Officially, Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with Jesus being the "God" referred to in this Scripture, and we can see that looking at their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures:

"There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God," if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus' own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as "gods." (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god." (See also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as "Mighty God," but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus' being described as "a god," or "divine," at John 1:1 (NW, AT).
The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus' death, Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending . . . to my God and your God." (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself "the only true God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (Joh 20 vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (Joh 20 vs. 31)."

"It is as if Moses would be a god, or God, to Aaron, giving him the words to say, inspiring him as God would inspire a prophet. The whole process had now been removed one step. Instead of God speaking to Moses and Moses telling the people, Aaron would be the speaker for a while. But God was still going to work through Moses." NET Bible

Dake's Annotated Bible here says "Elohim is thus used of men who were to act in God's place before men."

Bullinger adds in his Companion Bible, "Elohim=one appointed by oath. Elohim is thus used of those so given and appointed."

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "Moses was given divine authority over Pharoah"

"he was to act in this business as God's representative, to act and speak in His name and to perform things beyond the ordinary course of nature. The Orientals familiarly say of a man who is eminently great or wise, 'he is a god' among men."  Jamieson, Fausset, Brown's Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible

"I have made thee a god to Pharaoh - That is, my representative in this affair, as magistrates are called gods, because they are God's vicegerents. He was authorized to speak and act in God's name, and endued with a divine power, to do that which is above the ordinary course of nature." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible

"The word ‘elohim is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:2), and always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth. The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh with such authority, giving him commands." NET Bible

"For that he was "made a god to Pharaoh," means that he was furnished with supreme authority and power, whereby he should cast down the tyrant's pride. Nor did God take away anything from Himself in order to transfer it to Moses; since He so communicates to His servants what is peculiar to Himself as to remain Himself in His completeness. Nay, whenever He seems to resign a part of His glory to His ministers, He only teaches that the virtue and efficacy of His Spirit will be joined with their labors, that they may not be fruitless. Moses, therefore, was a god to Pharaoh; because in him God exerted His power, that he should be superior to the greatness of the king. It is a common figure of the Hebrews, to give the title of God to all things excellent, since He alone reigns over heaven and earth, and exalts or casts down angels, as well as men, according to His will." Calvin's Commentary

"The word Elohim, as the Hebrews remark, whether applied to God, or to men, or to angels, signifies judicial power." -- Grotius in ­Pol. Syn. (as quoted In Calvin's Commentary)

Note on Exodus 18:15: "As a judge Moses is speaking for God; but as the servant of Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as “gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law."

Exodus 21:6, "then his master shall bring him unto God ["judges" New International Version]"

"Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see C. Gordon, “<yhla in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935): 134-44; and A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” JBL 76 (1957): 216-24." NET Bible

"gods--a word which is several times in this chapter rendered "judges" or magistrates." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown's Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Dake's Annotated Bible, says regarding the judges at Ex. 22:8: "Heb. ha-elohim, the gods. Here it stands for men who represent God in judgment and executing justice according to his own law given to Moses. Such men
represent Him and acts in His stead, according to Rom.13:1-6. This meaning should be given to the term
*judges* in [Ex] 18:15-19; 21:6; 22:8; Cp. Ps 82:1, 6; Jn 10:34-36.

"Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to the bibliography listed earlier, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Allis (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 225-41." NET Bible

NAB Footnote: or perhaps "the gods," in the sense of "the judges," as the parallel with a prince of your people suggests.

NBV Footnote: Again the name Elohim is used, which usually stands for God, but balanced, Hebrew fashion, with "rulers" in the next clause, it must denote judges as it did previously.

"The word ‘elohim is “gods” or “God.” If taken as the simple plural, it could refer to the human judges, as it has in the section of laws; this would match the parallelism in the verse. If it was taken to refer to God, then the idea of cursing God would be more along the line of blasphemy. Jacob says that the word refers to functioning judges, and that would indirectly mean God, for they represented the religious authority, and the prince the civil authority (p. 708)." NET Bible

"That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even men could be called 'gods',  without according them this status in the stric sense. [Ps. Clem. Recogn. ii, 42]" The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 140 by Martin Werner

Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne [King Solomon], O God ["the Messianic king", Brown Driver &Briggs], is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

The NASB Zondervan Study Bible (see also NIV Study Bible) has this footnote:

"O God. Probably the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king (the LORD's anointed 2 Sam. 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Is 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8,9). (The pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes addressed as 'my god' by their vassal kings in Canaan, as evidenced by the Amarna letters...Such was the language used with respect to kings (see note 21:4). It here gains added significance in the light of God's covenant with David (see 89:4, 29, 36; 132:12; 2 Sam 7:16). In Christ the Son of David, it is fulfilled."

 "The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."

"In the ancient world kings were commonly accorded divine titles as viceregents of deity or as belonging to a superhuman class."

"O God. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there). Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa. 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself."
See also http://biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv

"Psalm 45 was a poem addressed to a king, not to God.The king, whom God had blessed, was urged to gird on his sword in glory and ride victoriously (Ps.45:3-4). His enemies were destined to fall before his sharp arrows (Ps.45:5). In the Psalm the king was also addressed with reference to his throne and his scepter, but the words could be understood as addressed to God. Since the author of Hebrews wanted to use this royal Psalm, he had to deal with this difficulty in some way, just as commentators do today. He seems to have handled the problem by speaking in reference to the Son, just as he had spoken in reference to the angels (1:7) just before. Then, in reference to the Son he spoke of God's throne and the Son's kingdom. Next, in the following verse, he continued to deal with the Son in direct address as indicated by the Psalm quotation. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews sensed a difficulty here than he intentionally confused the Son with God. For the author, the Son was the first-born,the apostle of God,the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature(1:3,6), but he was not God himself."

"The text is in disorder in a number of places, hence the different renderings by modern Eng. versions, The meaning of v. 6 has been hotly debated. The most natural way of taking the Hebrew is as NRSV, with the king addressed as God. Because this would be unique in the OT (although the future king of Isa 9:6 is called 'mighty god'), alternative ways of interpreting the Hebrew have been sought. The NRSV marg. is one possibility, another is 'Your throne is everlasting like that of God'."

Psalm 58:1 "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?" King James
"Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men?" New American Standard

Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods."
Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between Psalm 82:1 and the human judges in Exodus:
The Interpreters Bible Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; 1 Sam 2:25
New American Standard Bible-Zondervan Study Bible Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28
NASB Reference Edition Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28
Dake's Annotated Study Bible KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "Heb. elohim, Gods. It is used of earthly judges who represent him.")
New International Version Study Bible ftn, Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8
Companion Bible KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "gods, Elohim: used of earthly judges as representing Him...Hence Moses is so spoken.")

What does all this mean for John 20:28?

"Thomas, unlike Judas, had come to recognize the one who was to be the "God" of the Coming Age, replacing Satan, the "God" of this present age (2 Cor. 4:4). Thomas had not suddenly arrived at a revolutionary new belief that Jesus was ,'very God of very God." There was nothing in the Old Testament concerning Jesus' Messiahship which predicted that an eternal immortal being was to become a human person as the promised King of Israel. Nevertheless the human king could on rare occasions be addressed as "God" as in Psalm 45:6, where he is also given the title "lord" (v. 11). Both "Lord" and "God" are Messianic titles, and appropriately used by John who wrote his whole book to convince us to believe that Jesus was the Messiah (John 20:3 1).
Reality struck home to the skeptic Thomas when he recognized that it was the resurrected Jesus through whom God was going to restore the fortunes of Israel. Thus Jesus became "God" to Thomas in a way parallel to the sense in which Moses had enjoyed the status of "God" in the presence of Pharaoh: "The Lord [had] said to Moses, 'See, I make you God to Pharaoh"' (Exod. 7: 1). These titles of high honor bestowed on God's human instruments did not infringe upon the strict monotheism of the Old Testament." The Doctrine of the Trinity, Anthony Buzzard, p. 86

"But let me give another view. Karl Rahner, the eminent Roman Catholic theologian,considers that there are reliable applications of "theos" to Christ in six texts (Romans ix.5f; John i.1,18,xx.28; 1 John v.20; and Titus ii.13). Rahner, however, immediately goes on the say that in none of these instances is "theos" used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as "ho Theos", that is, the Supreme God.
Now obviously the very few New Testament passages-possibly only one-which without question call Jesus "God" outright do not exhaust the linguistic evidence. Notwithstanding, and in comparison with the frequency with which this form of christological confession is still required in the christian churches, is not it's rarity in the New Testament surprising? Would it, in fact, be unfair to press the point with the following query? If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as "God", is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable? JESUS AS "THEOS" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT G.H.BOOBYER (THE JOHN RYLANDS BULLETIN.VOL50.1967/8)

www.yourdictionary.com has:
1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

This is why even the Unitarian New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, taken over by the
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] also uses "deity" at this verse.
By these definitions, the humans as gods mentioned can be considered deity, as well as the angels:
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 97:7; 138:1.]
Consider the deity of Moses in the following article Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God By Michael S. Heiser:

"First, the presumed (traditional) argument actually does nothing to advance Jesus’ claim for deity, laid down earlier in verse 30 (“I and my Father are one”), for it amounts to Jesus claiming “I can call myself the son of God just like other men had the title
Elohim.” The point here is that the alleged humans in Psalm 82:1b and 6a were still men, despite their designation as Elohim . One wonders where the power is in such an equation. Was Jesus merely arguing for a non-ontological title? This is hardly what He was asserting. This is no more an argument for the deity of Jesus than one could make for the deity of Moses from Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, where he is called an Elohim."

"Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8, 10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies-the kings of Samaria and Damascus-will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732 b.c.). The birth of a boy who would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us." The prophet was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was "with" his people just as he had promised to be with them constantly. In Numbers 14:9 Joshua and Caleb had urged the Israelites to acknowledge that the Lord was with them and to begin the conquest of Canaan, but just like Ahaz the people chose the path of unbelief with its tragic consequences. An earlier king of Judah, Abijah, believed that God was with his people as they faced the numerically superior army of Jeroboam. Abijah's faith was honored as the Lord gave him a resounding victory (2 Chron 13:12-15)." -- Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/BakerEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T366. 1997.

"Matthew 1:23 is the first of Matthew's "formula citations" and reflects the LXX version of Isaiah 7:14, to which the evangelist has added O ESTIN KTL. The issue is whether MEQ HMWN O QEOS should be translated "God with us" or "God is with us," that is, whether MEQ HMWN is attributive and functions as an adjective or is predicative and functions as an adverb. It should be observed immediately that both of the above translations are feasible, for in both Hebrew (GKC §141f) and Greek (N. Turner, Syntax 294-98, 309-10) the copula may be omitted.
That Matthew attaches special significance to the name EMMANOUHL is incontestable: he has included in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 a line (KAI KALESOUSIN...EMMANOUHL) which was not directly germane to his purpose of showing that the virginal conception and the birth of Jesus were the fulfillment of Scripture; in addition, he has added a translation of the Hebrew expression El Imanuw-'el that the LXX had simply transliterated.
In arguing in favor of the translation "God with us," J. C. Fenton notes the inclusio in Matthew 1:23 and Matthew 28:20 (MEQ hHMWV hO QEOS-EGW MEQ hUMWN EIMI) and equates the EGW of 28:20 with the hO QEOS of 1:23: "Matthew is saying that Jesus is God" (81). But one may recognize the presence of inclusio without drawing Fenton's conclusion. The Messiah Jesus is now always with his obedient disciples (28:20) because God once deigned to visit his people in this Messiah (1:23). Is it likely that Matthew, whose favorite designation for Jesus is hUIOS QEOU would preface his Gospel with hO QEOS as a christological title?
Fenton also emphasizes that in Matthew META + the genitive almost always means "in the company of" rather than "in favor of" and therefore is more readily applicable to the Son than the Father (81). In the nature of the case, most uses of META in the Gospels denote a literal "being with," but one should not overlook its figurative use "of aid or help be with someone, stand by, help someone of God's help" (BAGD 509a, citing [with a "cf."] Matt. 1:23). Perhaps the closest verbal parallel in the NT to MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS is found in 2 Corinthians 13:11: hO QEOS ... ESTAI MEQ hUMWN. In both texts (EINAI) META denotes divine aid and favor.
Whereas the MT of Isaiah 7:14 reads the third-person singular qara (referring to the child's mother) and the LXX the second-person singular KALESEIS (referring to Ahaz), Matthew has the impersonal third-person plural KALESOUSIN "they (= people) will call him (Immanuel)." If these people are the followers of Jesus, "Immanuel" could here be portrayed as the post-Easter christological confession of the church, comparable to Thomas's confession, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) . It is unnecessary, however, to restrict this confession to a post-Easter setting when QEOS became an occasional title of Jesus. For when, during the public ministry of Jesus, people glorified God that he had intervened in human history to bring physical or spiritual healing through Jesus, they were in effect giving Jesus the name "Immanuel"-in the person of Jesus "God is with us" to save. For
instance, the crowd at Nain who had witnessed Jesus' raising of the widow's son "glorified God" with the words "God has visited his people" (Luke 7:16), which is equivalent to saying "Jesus is Immanuel" (cf. also Luke 1:68-69).
In favor of the translation "God is with us," it is true that the translation of El Imanuw-'el that Matthew supplies, MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS simply reproduces the word order of the Hebrew, but if hO QEOS were in fact a title of Jesus, one might have expected the translation to be either hO MEQ hHMWN QEOS or hO QEOS MEQ hHMWN (or the more correct Greek hO QEOS hO MEQ HMWN). That is, word order suggests that MEQ hHMWN is predicative rather than attributive, functioning as an adverb rather than as an adjective.
There are only three occurrences of El Imanuw-'el in the OT, all in Isaiah. Twice the LXX translates the expression by (KURIOS) hO QEOS (Isa. 8:8, 10), and once it transliterates the phrase (Isa. 7:14). Matthew cites the transliteration found in Isaiah 7:14, but when he chooses to add a translation he uses the rendering found in Isaiah 8:8, 10 where, according to BDB 769a, El Imanuw-'el is a "declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!" That is, the meaning of MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS seems almost indistinguishable from hO QEOS -hUPER hHMWN (cf. Rom. 8:31).
There are therefore strong reasons for believing that in Matthew 1:23 MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS signifies that in Jesus God is present, to bring salvation to his people rather than that Jesus, as hO QEOS is personally present with his people. Matthew is not saying, "Someone who is 'God' is now physically with us," but "God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus."" pp. 257, 258 Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris

2. In Colossians 2:9 it clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”
Now in looking at The New World Translation, you’ll find that it renders Colossains 2:9 “In Him all the fullness of the Devine Quality dwells bodily” Now according to Greek scholars,“Divine Quality” is an incorrect translation. “Divine Quality” would be a correct translation of the Greek word theiotes. But the Greek word that was used in this verse is actually the genitive form of theotes, a stronger word that means “deity divinity” (Bauer-Ardnt-Gingrich-Danker, Greek-English lexicon, p. 358) or as Thayer’s (a well known Greek scholar) older Greek-English lexicon rightly says, “the state of being God, Godhead.”(p.288) So what the apostle Paul is stating to the Colossians is not merely God’s Quality but God’s very Nature, God Himself, dwells in Jesus. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and
forever.(Hebrews 13:8)

Reply: It is not that Greek scholars universally reject "divine quality" (they don't), but more to the truth, it is that YOUR Greek apologists reject it.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1999-06/31691.html
"deity" ought NOT, I think, to be categorized as a proper noun here, EVEN if one holds monotheistic assumptions; -THS nouns in Greek, like -TAS nouns in Latin, are abstracts based upon an adjective and refer to
quality rather than entity; thus QEOTHS should be understood to mean "what it is be be a god" or "the quality of being a god." One may then  go on, if one wishes, and apply that in monotheistic terms, as "what it  is to be God" or "the quality of being God"--but it is still erroneous, in my opinion, to equate this with QEOS or KURIOS in the sense of a name. We tend in English to use the term "the Deity" as an equivalent of "God." I simply do not think that, even with the article, hH QEOTHS is used like that in Greek. Consequently I think that in Col 2:9 the
meaning is rather that "in him dwells bodily the entire fullness of 'what it is to be a god.'" One may then, if one
chooses, understand that monotheistically, but even so, I think, one ought to realize that the Greek text is not talking about a divine person as a divine person but about the quality of being a god.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University

The following works also have some interesting comments regarding Colossians 2:9:

"1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated as " divinity, divine nature. " In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theoteta ="for religious reasons." The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhead" (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting them to "redefine" the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit "without measure," and God him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins, etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the "divine nature" dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet. 1:4).

2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in someway providing Christ with "fullness." What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" (Col. 1: 19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom God has speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit."

3. The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God does not make him God. Ephesians says that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God," and no one believes would make each Christian God.

4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by of God's great and precious promises we "may participate in the divine nature." Having "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on I Peter in the NIV Study Bible is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it states: " We are, indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit" (we would say "holy spirit, referring to God's gift. Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had the fullness of "Deity."), dwelling in him.

5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15-20 above). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were danger of turning to "hollow and deceptive philosophy" rather than being focused on Christ. What could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all fullness of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing Paul is writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. , Christ himself had said he was "the Way" and "the Truth, " and that " no man comes to the Father, except through me." pp. 513, 514
One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John E. Less and John W. Schoenheit.

"Trinitarians believe this verse means God came down and dwelled in a body, that is, Christ's body. The Twentieth Century New Testament says, "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Does Paul mean what these translations appear to say? Notice the next words from The Twentieth Century New Testament: "and, by your union with him, you also are filled with it." (Colossians 2:10) So we can see that, yes, the 'Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate' in Christ, but we also were filled with it too! Does this mean we are God in bodily form? The New World Translation reads "because it is in him that all the Fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" signifying that it is not God that dwells in Christ but God's qualities. Jesus could then say, "he that has seen me has seen the Father " (See John 14:9.)
The reader might find it interesting to note this is not the first time Paul said someone was filled with 'all the fullness of God.' Notice Ephesians 3:19:
"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James Version
"and so be filled to the full with God himself"-Twentieth Century New Testament
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-The New American Standard Bible
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"-New International Version
'And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself" -The Living Bible
Inasmuch as no one would argue Paul was saying we are God since 'all the fullness of God dwells in us,' why say Christ is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him? It seems Paul was stating Christ was full of God's divine qualities, of which he tells us we should be too.
The context around this verse, besides the fact verse 10 says Christians will also be filled with the fullness of God, also confirms this verse is not saying Jesus is God. For instance, Colossians 1:19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Christ)." Was Paul saying all of the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God (note: a separate person from Christ) to have His fullness dwell in Christ? The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" His fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we see all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased the Father to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God. Touted by some as the strongest evidence for Jesus being God, we find it is quite flimsy. This verse is not saying Christ is God." pp. 97, 98

"These holy pages will sum up the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your eyes."

Jason: Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance of a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross.
Philipians 2:5-8 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in him Colossians 1:9

Reply: This has already been dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm
No need to repeat it here, but I will add the following from Martin Werner, D.D. Professor Ordinarius of the University of Bern:

"The Pauline portrait of Christ corresponds to the apocalyptic concept of the heavenly Messiah as Prince of the Angels and an angelic being. The eternity of the unchanging being of God was not attributed to Christ by Paul. The pre-existent Christ also, as a creature, 'had come into being', and could, accordingly, be set forth as the Second Adam on analogy with the First Adam, who had been created (1 Cor. xv, 45). The preexistent Christ did indeed exist in 'divine form'; but Paul himself had expressly denied that, despite this, 'equality with God', in the strict sense, could be asserted, i.e. an equality which would render the Christ essentially different from all other creatures, not only from men, but also from the angels (Phil. ii, 6). Paul attributed the 'image of God', not only to Christ (2 Cor. iv, 4), but also to man (1 Cor. xi, 7). This Christ had, as man had, in common with Adam in the creation narrative of Gen. i, 27. Paul in naming Christ, as did others in the New Testament, the 'Son of God , did not exceed the late Jewish doctrine of angels. In Enoch vi, 2 the angels are designated 'sons of heaven', as they are in many places in the Old Testament. It was not only in the statement of 1 Cor. viii, 6, that 'through him' all things exist, that Christ, according to the contemporary mode of thought, was exalted essentially as God over the angels. The conception of Christ as the agent of creation paralleled in a certain manner the other statements of Paul in which, in conformity with late Jewish thought, the direction and government of the world were ascribed to certain angelic-powers and the Law of Sinai given to the people of Israel, not by God, but by angels. The exaltation of the Heavenly Christ to cosmic significance here was clearly related to that late Jewish speculation which increasingly assigned divine functions to mediators of a celestial kind. This tendency, to render God completely transcendental, established itself firmly in the doctrine of angels which was so comprehensively developed in late Judaism." p. 122 The Formation of Christian Dogma

Reply: The above information is not really correct. All manuscripts of the Septuagint contained the Divine Name right up to the middle of the 2nd century AD. ALL OF THEM. In fact, there is a picture of one at http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/requests/3522.htm
ALL extant copies up to the middle of the 2nd century CE contained the Divine Name.
Here is a list of LXX mss that contain the Divine Name:

1) 4Q LXX Lev (b)
2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266
3) LXX VTS 10b
4) LXX VTS 10a
5) LXX IBJ 12
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007

and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date).
You see, there are limitations to Jesus being "Lord", as he was made "Lord."
"God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:36
Also, from Phillipians 2:9-11:
"every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Jesus is "Lord" only insofar as he was made such by someone higher than he (John 14:28).
We confess Jesus as "Lord" only insofar as this gives glory to someone higher than him.

Again, Professor Werner has something to add regarding the use of "Lord."

"A peculiar situation in this connection is constituted by the use by Paul and the Primitive Christians of the Christological title of Kyrios. This title had long been considered, without proper evidence, simply as a transference of the Septuagint name for God to Christ. It was accordingly, overlooked that while Paul did indeed apply sayings of the Septuagint concerning the Kyrios to Christ, there is not one instance of his having done this where the saying referred to God (ho theos), an exception which cannot be accidental. The truth is that the invocation and designation of Christ by Kyrios prove themselves to be a particular instance of the general, but too-long-neglected, fact that late Judaism and Primitive Christianity designated and invoked the angels as kyrioi.
The transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels is already evident in the designation of God as the 'Lord of Lords', i.e. of the Kyrioi. In 4 Ezra 'Lord' is 'the term repeatedly used for the angels. On the other hand, the Apocalyptist, in converse with the angel of revelation, calls himself his 'servant , as Paul did himself in relation to Christ.,
In the Christian apocalyptic literature this transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels was preserved, as is seen in the Shepherd of Hermas,  the Ascensio Jesaiae, the Apocalypse of Sophonias 5 and the Apocalypse of Abrahams
In this connection certain clear examples from the New Testament may be cited. In Acts x, 3 f. Cornelius addresses the angel which appears to him as Kyrie, and with the same address Peter answers the anonymous voice from heaven in Acts x, 13 f, Particularly notable is the passage of Acts ix, 5. Herein Paul does not at first recognise the glorified Jesus, who appears to him on the way to Damascus, and he has to ask, 'Who art thou?' However, he addresses the heavenly appearance,  which was still unknown to him, without further ado with Kyrie. It was clear to him from the first that he had to do with a heavenly being (and certainly not with God himself, who never thus appeared in late Judaism). To such a being appertained in any case the address of Kyrie. Thus certain New Testament evidence is provided of the fact that the title of Kyrios had become a designation for
a particular class of angels in the in the heavenly hierarchy. The title in this sense is frequently met in the New Testament
'Kyriotes', e.g. Eph. i, 21; Col- i, 16; Jude 8; 2 pet. ii, 10. In the New Testament this expression generally does not designate any other than a class of angels. In these terms 1 Con viii, 5 is to be understood, this being a passage in which Paul speaks of the many Kyrioi. These were in fact closely related to the many gods, over against whom Paul set Christ as the one Kyrios, with whom the faithful ought naturally alone to seek to deal. This passage, accordingly, provides effective evidence of the connection between the late Jewish and primitive Christian teaching about the Christ and the apocalyptic doctrine of angels. Among the many Kyrioi-angels was one who was marked out in a peculiar manner by God as the 'Chosen' for the office of the Christ and the world-ruler of the final epoch. Within the range of his own late-Jewish apocalyptic thought, Paul meant nothing different from that which incidentally appears in other forms in the late Jewish Apocalypse of Enoch and, later with variations, in the Christian Ascensio Jesaiae. In Enoch lxi, 10 the Christ is ranked, without qualification, among the hosts of angels, and he is, primarily, named together with the angels of lordship' (angeloi tes kyriotetos); but he is also 'the Chosen', who will ascend the Throne of God as the judge of the World, and is entitled to worship. Finally, reference must also be made to a peculiar instance in the speech of Stephen in Acts vii, 30 ff. Herein the angel (angelos), which appeared to Moses on Sinai, is identified with the Kyrios as the pre-existing Christ. The ascription of the title of Kyrios to Christ thus constitutes a remarkable piece of evidence indicative of the fact that, in terms of the Primitive Christian conception, related as it was to the apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah, Christ was a high heavenly being of angelic kind." pp. 123, 124, The Formation of Christian Dogma

Reply: John 12:38 refers to the "arm of Jehovah" at Isaiah 53:1. Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his Father, Jehovah. In fact, at Isaiah 53:10, it says,
"Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief."
Bruise who? Himself? Please! We can look at Jesus and see God's glory, because it was given to him.
"And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one." John 17:22
We should also reflect God's glory, as we are to be "imitators of God." (Eph 5:1)

Jason: In Exdous 34:14 it is clear that we are to worship no one but Jehovah. But in Hebrews 1:6 the angels worship Christ.

Reply: Let us take a look at how the word for "worship" at Exodus 34:14, which is shachah (Strong's 7812), is used elsewhere, according to the KJV:
Ge 23:7    And Abraham stood up, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.
Ge 23:12    And Abraham bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down himself before the people of the land.
Ge 42:6  And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down themselves before him with their faces to the earth.
Ge 43:28    And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down their heads, and made obeisance.
Ge 47:31    And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself upon the bed's head.
Ge 48:12    And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself with his face to the earth.
Ex 18:7    And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14], and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent.
Ru 2:10    Then she (Ruth) fell on her face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself to the ground (to Boaz).
1Sa 25:23    And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself to the ground,
1Sa 25:41    And she arose, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.
2Sa 1:2    It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14].
2Sa 9:6    Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, was come unto David, he fell on his face, and did reverence [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold thy servant!
2Sa 9:8    And he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?
2Sa 14:4    And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14], and said, Help, O king.
2Sa 14:22    And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself, and thanked the king: and Joab said, To day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant.
2Sa 14:33    So Joab came to the king, and told him: and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself on his face to the ground before the king: and the king kissed Absalom.
2Sa 15:5    And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14], he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him.
2Sa 18:21    Then said Joab to Cushi, Go tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself unto Joab, and ran.
2Sa 18:28    And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well. And he fell [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the LORD thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king.
2Sa 24:20    And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him: and Araunah went out, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself before the king on his face upon the ground.
1Ki 1:16    And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?
1Ki 1:23    And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet. And when he was come in before the king, he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself before the king with his face to the ground.
1Ki 1:31    Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever.
1Ki 1:47    And moreover the king's servants came to bless our lord king David, saying, God make the name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself upon the bed.
1Ki 1:53    So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to king Solomon: and Solomon said unto him, Go to thine house.
1Ki 2:19    Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.
2Ki 2:15    And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] themselves to the ground before him.
2Ki 4:37    Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.
1Ch 21:21    And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshingfloor, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to David with his face to the ground.
1Ch 29:20    And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] the LORD, and the king.
2Ch 24:17    Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them.
Pr 12:25    Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]: but a good word maketh it glad.
Even using another word for worship does not lessen the impact of my point:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel"
My point is cemented when we realize that the Septuagint used the Greek word PROSKUNEW here, the same word used at Hebrews 1:6.
This is why many Bibles do not even use the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6. For example:
"Let all the angels of God pay him homage." New Jerusalem Bible
"And may all the angels of God pay homage to him." God's New Covenant, Heinz Cassirer
"Let all God's angels pay him homage." Revised English Bible
"And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God" Young's Literal Translation
"And let all the angels of God adore him." Douay
"And let all the angels of Elohim do homage to him." Urim-Thummim Version
"And all the angels of God must now kneel before Him." Power New Testament
"Let all God's angels pay him homage." Schonfield's The Original New Testament
"And let all God's angels bow before him." Goodspeed's An American Translation
"Now let all the messengers of God honour him." The Complete Bible, Ferrar Fenton
"Let all God's angels pay him homage." New English Bible
"And let all the angels of God adore him." Confraternity Version
"Prostrate yourself before him, all you angels." 21st Century New Testament
"Before him shall bow all messengers of God." Unvarnished New Testament
"Let all the angels of God bow down before him." 20th Century New Testament
"And let all God's angels adore him." Kleist & Lilly New Testament
"And let all the messengers of God pay homage to him." Newcome's Corrected Version

"PROSKUNEW-to kiss, to do reverence or homage by kissing the hand; in NT to do reverence or homage by prostration,...to pay divine homage, worship, adore." The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Wesley J. Perschbacher

"from <4314> and a probable derivative of <2965> (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); ; v
AV-worship 60; 60
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
3a1) to the Jewish high priests
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons" Thayer's Greek Lexicon (who is NOT an Unitarian)

Jason: In Isaiah 44:6 Jehovah is called the first and the last, but in Revelation 22:13 Christ is the first and the last. Since there can not be two firsts or two lasts, is it not clear that Jehovah and Christ must both be God?

Reply: I have already dealt with this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm

Jason: Attributes of Christ show that he is God. Jesus Christ knows all things(John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17) He is eternal(Micah5:2), all-powerful(Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:3) sinless(John 8:46) and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8) Since only God possesses attributes, this indicates that Christ possesses deity.

Reply: We can exclude John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64, since neither one of these says anything about Jesus knowing all. John 16:30, for instance, is a good one:
"Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God."
Jesus' knowledge was evidence that he came FROM God:
"This is why we believe that you came from God." John 16:30 Simple English Bible
Jesus "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing" (John 5:19), as the Father GIVES him knowledge and revelation (Rev 1:1).
But Jesus was even then, limited in the knowledge given to him:
"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." Matthew 24:36
"But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 13:32
If Jesus was one third of God, and the Father was another third of God, how is it possible that Jesus was ignorant of what another part of his Godhead was doing. If Jesus was simply ignorant in his "human nature," then how can he, according to you (see John 20:28 above) be Almighty God in his human nature at the same time? How can he, according to the creeds, be "fully God and fully man" at the same time and still not know any more than the angels? Is it perhaps that he was NOT God, but a representative of God who was simply given the power of agency?
Does Micah 5:2 prove that he is eternal? The Hebrew, which uses the same words here for mere humans, does not bear this out. That is why many Bibles do not render this in the extreme as the King James Version does:
"whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old." New Jerusalem Bible
"someone whose family goes back to ancient times." Contemporary English Version
"whose family line goes back to ancient times." Good News Bible
"His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago." God's Word
"whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time." Rotherham
"his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity." YLT
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Revised Standard Version
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" New International Version and English Standard Version
"one whose origins are from the distant past." New Living Translation
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient times." New American Bible
"whose roots are back in the past, in days gone by." New English Bible
etc.
I have more on this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/email.htm

Do Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 1:3 say that Jesus is "all-powerful?"
"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." Matthew 28:18
Here Jesus is GIVEN all authority. Someone who is "all-powerful" does not need to be given anything.
"who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
If this Scripture is indeed saying that Jesus is "all-powerful", it is interesting that he only gets to sit on God's right hand, instead of in his stead.
The angels sit at God's right hand (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron 18:18), and it is often a position of favor (1 Kings 2:19; Psalm 45:9) for royalty, but not one that is the ultimate power.

Is sinlessness an indicator of deity? You quoted John 13:8, but it does not say here that only God cannot sin.
In fact, it is the human ideal to one day be sinless: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him." 1 John 3:6
Does this mean we are also God?

Does Hebrews 13:8 prove that Jesus is God?: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever."
But yet, Hebrews 5:8 states, "though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered."
How can Jesus LEARN anything if he was always the same? If Jesus was MADE Lord (Acts 2:36) then that implies a time when he wasn't. If Jesus was GIVEN authority (Matt 28:18), then that implies a time when he did not have it. If Jesus was GIVEN a name (Php 2:9-11), then that implies a time when he did not have it.
If we look at Hebrews 13:8 as a proof-text for his deity, then it falls flat. If we look at it from a proper perspective, then the meaning becomes clear.

"No doubt the old teachers believed in the unchangeableness of Jesus Christ; but that fact is not represented as the subject of their faith, which would be irrelevant and somewhat flat. The emphatic point of the statement is Christ. They lived and died in the faith that Jesus is The Christ - the Messiah. The readers were tempted to surrender this faith and to return to Judaism which denied Jesus's messiahship (comp. Heb_10:29). Hence the writer says, “hold fast and imitate their faith in Jesus as the Christ. He is ever the same. He must be to you, today, what he was to them, yesterday, and will be forever to the heavenly hosts - Christ. Rend. therefore “Jesus is Christ.” Observe that our writer rarely uses the formula Jesus Christ. In Heb_10:10 it occurs in a passage in which the messianic mission of Jesus is emphasized (see Heb_10:5, Heb_10:9), and in Heb_13:21, in a liturgical formula. The temptation to forsake Jesus as Messiah is treated in the next verse." Vincent's Word Study

Jason: Certain Works of Christ show that he is God. Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sins(Mark 2:5-7; Ephesians 1:7) control nature (Matthew 8:26) give eternal life(John 10:28; 17:2) and judge the world(John 5:22, 27). Since only God can do these things, dose it not follow that Christ is God?

Reply: I see that you are working under the assumption that God does not or either cannot delegate authority.
John 5:22, 27 says, "Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge...And he has given the Son the right to judge" TEV
Since Jesus was GIVEN the right to judge, this indicates a transfer of power which the Son did not previously have.
When Jesus forgave a man of his sins, the people understood that this was a transfer of power.
"When the people saw it, they were afraid, and praised God for giving such authority to people." Matt 9:8 TEV
Then Jesus passed on this authority to forgive sins to his apostles (John 20:22, 23). It does not make them God.

Jason: Christ received worship. Christ is worshiped by angels(Hebrews 1:6)and by man(Matthew 14:33) and yet only Jehovah is to be worshiped (Exodus 34:14). Christ Himself said that worship is due to God alone(Matthew 4:10) and yet he accepted worship. If Christ in his preexistent state were the archangel Michael, how could He have received worship, since angels are not allowed to receive worship(Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9)? If Christ were not God, then worship of him would be idolatrous.

Reply: I have answered the "worship" angle above, and the worship of angels has already been handled by me at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm
See also http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm

More to on page 2...........