The problem with bringing in any other text is that anybody can present the Jewish texts and present a new idea that Jesus was a charlatan and
a son of a whore. Or they could use an atheistic text and dismisses the entire idea of divinity. This would be detrimental to the discussion which is
very specific to the Bible.
Why is that a problem? To this very day, there is controversy about who Jesus was, even among those who accept that he lived at all. There are
Jewish texts that call him... unkind names. The question is "Was Jesus worshipped as God?" Yes. Not by everybody. So what? Critical texts can help
us to understand what behavior was being criticized.
If we are discussing Christian subjects, such as whether or not Jesus was worshiped as God, its best if we go by the Bible.
As I said, if you're using dictionaries and thesauruses, then we're already past "going by the Bible." Further, if we are discussing Christian
subjects, a lot of relevant early Chrisitan writing isn't canonical. 1 Clement
, for example, is very instructive and nicely placed near the
turn of the Second Century. Clement is the bishop of Rome, so certainly his comments on what Christians believed and how they worshipped are relevant
to the question you asked.
Protestantism is (partly) sola scriptura
. There are no Protestants for more than 1000 years after Nicea, by which point Jesus was definitely
being worshipped as God, and had been for a while. If you want to look before Nicea, then you need to lose the pretense that Protestantism is
identical with Christianity. It is the minority now, and didn't exist at the time we're discussing.
So, too, "The Bible," which also didn't exist as the canon we know today at the time of Nicea, nor before then, either.
Jesus himself declares that only God is to be worshiped.
Your question was "Was Jesus worshipped as God?" He was or he wasn't worshipped. Turns out that he was worshipped, from the outset. If he had an
objection to that, then doctrine (both Christian and Islamic) is that he will have an opportunity to raise the matter at the end of days. Meanwhile,
what you asked about has already happened.
The scripture also says Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshiped Daniel.
is a fictional, apocalyptic work. In any case, Nebbie "fell prostrate" to Daniel. Perhaps that is a pagan worship posture. Jews, whose
book this is is, worship on their feet.
If your point is that it is impossible, simply by looking at posture, to tell whether a person is worshipping, showing deference, proposing marriage,
or being made a British knight, then I can only agree. So what? Pliny was kind enough to tell us what he found out, and Paul is clear, too. Look at
, since I gather you haven't, it's a lot like Pliny.
There is no book in the canonical Bible called "Revelations." At one time, I thought you meant Revelation
, but obviously you mean something
else. Beats me what that is. Please give the correct cite, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
But you are trying to keep the meaning of the word in question... out of this discussion.
Say what? How is what Pliny described not worship; both
what he described as appropriate for his gods, and what he described as offered to
Jesus by Christians?