In Hebrews 1:3 -- again, the context is talking about Jesus' superiority over the angels. Hebrews 1 declares that the Son is YHWH. Jesus is the exact representation of the Father because Jesus is God's full revelation to humanity. Jesus is YHWH just as the Father is YHWH.
2 Corinthians is talking about sanctification. We are being sanctified and being made more like the Father through our faith in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, as other Scripture points to. It is the whole triune God in action.
Again your reasoning makes no sense my friend, if Heb 1:3 is showing Jesus is the YHWH because he's "reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being" then by that same logic he should also be the Father, why would you assume that simply because he's his reflection that that means he too should have the name YHWH. If I was the reflection of my twin (and I am a twin btw) would that imply I should share his name? Nope, likewise If Jesus is the reflection of the Father should he share the same name YHWH? Nope again. It's illogical reasoning friend.
And who makes the call whether or not it was true worship or merely homage? What if the NWT were wrong? They translated it that way because they assumed that Jesus was just a king who was not God Himself. But what if they were in error, and have thus led many readers into error by this rendering?
I know you could say the same about Trinitarian translators. However, it is clear that the early Christians worshiped Jesus as God. The fact that Jesus was worshiped as God was part of the debates at Nicea. One of the arguments against Arius' position was that if Jesus was not YHWH, then it would be wrong for Christians to worship Him. But a statement like that couldn't be made unless Jesus was already being worshiped.
That's the question you should be asking Awren, who can make that call whether Jesus should be worshiped, should the proskyneo given to Jesus be translated worship or obeisance? Well for one, to claim it should be rendered worship for the reason that Jesus was worshiped is circular reasoning. And second, the fact that nowhere in scripture (no not even in Revelation as I'll show you) does it say to worship Jesus should be another reason as to why it's wrong by context to say that proskyneo to Jesus was Godly worship.
Now you want to use the term "only" as part of your argument because you think that it benefits your point of view, but you discount it when it does not fit your view....
As I said before only in scripture can mean only, but when it conflicts with another verse is when we need to dig deeper. Worship "only" been given to the Father doesn't conflict with scripture since nowhere else is Jesus or the Holy Spirit given Godly worship.
Matthew 4:8-10 (NASB)
Jesus doesn't deny His own deity here, nor does He say that only the Father should be worshiped. What He did say is that only God should be worshiped. We can't assume here that Jesus was only talking about the Father. We can assume that He was referring to YHWH here. This verse doesn't prove anything.
I didn't claim Jesus denied his divinity, I said that Jesus said to only worship YHWH
Matthew 6:9 (NASB)
Again, Jesus didn't say here, "only pray to the Father and not Me." If it said that, you would have a case. But it does not. Jesus is simply talking about praying to the Father, which is, of course legitimate. The Father is YHWH. But that doesn't mean that Jesus forbids us from praying to Him or to the Holy Spirit or to the whole triune God. So, this verse proves nothing.
I guess that since the verse also doesn't read that we can't pray to Mary, the Apostles, Angels or even people who have died that it means we can in fact pray to them, does it? No, plain and simply Jesus taught us how to pray, did he direct prayer to the Holy Spirit? No, well did he direct prayer to himself? Again No, but he
only direct prayer to his Father, therefore it was not wrong of me to claim Jesus said to
only pray to the Father, show me otherwise.
John 4:23 (NASB)
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
Once again, this verse doesn't make the "Father only" claim that you think it does. It is simply talking about worshiping the Father. That doesn't mean that Jesus is saying that He and the Holy Spirit should not be worshiped and glorified along with the Father. Once again, this proves nothing.
Again, by you reasoning I could claim the same things as I just said above! but the fact remains, true worship isn't going to be restored to Jesus nor to the HS, but by this verse
onlyto the Father
Now, the NWT might have translated the worship passages in the Gospels as being obeisance instead of worship....but is it consist of that where Jesus and the Father are both worshiped in heaven as God? Jesus and the Father are both worshiped as God there, even in the NWT....
Let's look at this one again:
Revelation 5:11-14 (NASB)
“To the One sitting on the throne+ and to the Lamb+ be the blessing and the honor+ and the glory and the might forever and ever.”+ 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.
Let for arguments sake say Jesus should of been worshiped as God, and picture him walking down a road to whatever village you can think of, and he was walking along with his apostle Peter, now if scripture said
"the men upon seeing Jesus and his apostle became overwhelmed ran and worshiped" would you logically conclude they must of been worshiping Peter along with Jesus? Or would your biblically trained mind be able to understand that since the Bible never states that Peter was ever to be given Godly worship, that the verse was not linking the "worship" to him but rather Jesus.
Now try to understand the above and realize that the verse doesn't say they worshiped Jesus along with the Father, all its says is that the Father was on his throne and Jesus was with him, and they "worshiped. Another thing to note is that they were before the one sitting on the throne (the Father), Jesus wasn't depicted as on the throne with him, so the logical thing to assume is that any type of worship (Godly worship) given was to the one on the throne and not to Jesus. The same was that if a king was sitting on the throne and his son was along him, if someone came to pay homage in front of them, you wouldn't assume that they were paying homage to the son,
but the one on the throne, the King! Thirdly the word for worship cannot even be proved as Godly worship but could simply be sign as paying homage. The verse simply cannot be used as proof as godly worship given to Jesus.