Replies

Thank you for sharing your views - we will however remain in disagreement on what we spiritually discern in those two passages.

Again, for the record, the Spiritual emphasis I have received in the first passage is as follows:

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. - Revelation 3:9

In other words, it is the will of God not man at work here. His will is that those He has chosen to reject because they said they were Jews and were not - will be made by Him to worship before the feet of those He loves. God rejects their worship of Him and forces them to worship those He loves.

That is not a carte blanche for any man ever to willfully worship before the feet of another being, whether alive in the flesh or not. That behavior is expressly forbidden.

The first passage is therefore perfectly consistent with this passage from the same book:

And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. - Revelation 22:8-9

The difference between the two passages is clear to me. But if it isn't to you, then so be it.

To God be the glory, not man, never man!

You are much more the scholar on such things than I.

The phrase COME AND WORSHIP BEFORE YOUR FEET . . .

Is it crystal clear that the worship focus is the men?

Or merely that the position of worship is prostrated before the men?

Is the meaning, emphasis on the focus of the worship

or is the core meaning and emphasis on the

prostration as punishment—in a posture, physical attitude demonstrative of worship of those the guilty would ever least like to be prostrated in front of???

I think an overarching point is that, at least from my pov I see a series of blanket statements concluded from statements in the Bible where "all" or "none" are used. In my opinion this is reading back into the Bible a kind of set-theory logical rigor which is not necessarily to be found there.

And, of course, arguments have to be built a step at a time. So we are told it is NEVER EVER right for one man to kneel to another creature, and yet we have an example where it SEEMS that God says it is his will that one set of men kneel to another.

So now, if that step is accomplished, then we revise the proposition to accommodate that resolution and take the next step. Patience is our friend.

And in a responsible conversation, the self-indulgence of the blanket proclamation about it's never ever being right would be abandoned.

It is fair to note that the NEVER EVER language was wrong. It is not fair to make too much of that. But SOMETHING can be made of it.