Should Christ be worshipped?

POST ONE OF FIVE

[FONT=&quot]1) ErikErik[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] states in post #95 that : “You are in agreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses in blaming the nicene fathers for concocting the Trinity. Therefore, it makes your entire premise false. A faulty foundation leads to more falsehood.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Your base premise on this point is incorrect (I will try to explain some principles regarding the genesis of the Nicene theory later). However, I do agree that an incorrect base premise creates errors in subsequent conclusions. [/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]2) ErikErik stated in post #95 “Judeo-christianity is just another name for Judaism.” And “There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian as the two religions are diametrically opposed.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]These are silly and historically, illogical, and erroneous statements. The earliest Christians were Jewish. Jesus, was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish AND they were Christians.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Judeo-Christian texts”, in this context, are texts used by Jews and Christians. The “old testament” is JEWISH in origin yet it is held sacred and used by CHRISTIANS as well as Jews. It is a “judeo-christian” text. “Judeo-Christian doctrines” are, similarly, doctrines believed by both Jews and Christians. Both religions believed in the 10 commandments; both believed in prophetic revelation; both believed in redemption through a messiah, etc. Early Jewish Literature existed BEFORE the New Testament, thus we find the 12 apostles; apostolic Fathers and others quoting from Jewish literature. When you are reading Christian New Testament, you ARE reading some quotes from Jewish literature as well. You just didn’t have enough historical acumen to realize it. This is a good example of an incorrect premise causing illogical and erroneous conclusions.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]3) ErikErik said in post #95 : “I can give quotes from the PRE nicene fathers about subjects such as the Trinity and Jesus being God, but that would be a waste of time. “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have already demonstrated that the Earliest Judeo-Christians described, in their own words, according to their own interpretations, that they believe in a trinity of three unequal individuals.

ErikErik, If you actually have ANY DATA originating from the earliest Judeo-Christian texts that describe their interpretation showing otherwise, I would appreciate being able to see it and examine it.

While the earliest texts from the prophetic era clearly described a trinity as unequal individuals, often non historians try to offer data from the later era of the theologians to “demonstrate” earlier beliefs in a poor attempt at a historical “bait and switch”. Please ErikErik, if you have appropriate data, I’d like to see it. However, If you simply want to engage in a historical “bait and switch” that I described, that will simply leave a bad taste in everyones’ mouth.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]

4) ErikErik stated in post # 95 “You do not say if you are a Christian, but by your unqualified statements, attempts at intellectualism and not going to the Holy Bible as your source, one can deduce that you are not. Therefore, you and I will remain diametrically opposed.“[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is yet another example where your erroneous base premise is causing you to come to erroneous conclusions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Firstly, there is nothing wrong with christians being educated and intellectually aware of historical data. Your situation of not being burdened with facts has NOT worked to your advantage.

I certainly am a Christian and honor and worship Jesus and look to him alone for redemption. If it comes down to comparing "the size of our premises", I believe I will have generated and written much more data in forum and text as to why Jesus is worthy of honor than you have.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]5) ErikErik said in post # 95 “I have used the Holy Scriptures to back up my statements. You have not done so.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
ErikErik, this is yet another incorrect premise causing you to make incorrect conclusions. I am not sure why you make this incorrect claim. I DID refer to scriptural texts in demonstrating the early worldview regarding the original early Judeo-Christian trinity as individuals where Jesus was NOT an equal, but he was a divine servant of the Lord God, his father and where the Holy Ghost also, was NOT equal to the Lord God, but served in a subservient capacity as they all three were united to accomplish the Lord Gods Plan.

I will re-post a portion of my original data and will highlight biblical texts in GREEN. Look for the green and you will see references to scriptures.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THE FOLLOWING ARE EXERPTS FROM POSTS #78-82 – REFERENCES TO THEIR SCRIPTURES ARE IN GREEN[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear said : [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Historically, the best way to determine what the ancient Judao-Christians believed is to study their own descriptions of what they said they believed.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] Early Judao-christians left us a great deal of sacred and profane texts, diaries, mishnas, hymns, etc. that describe the early Christian trinity as three separate individuals rather than as all being the same individual AND importantly, there are profound reasons, why Jesus is worthy of any superlative honor we offer to him.

My examples of the early Judeo-christians and their references and descriptions of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as individuals follow in posts 2 through five) For examples :[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
IN EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN JESUS WAS SEPARATE FROM THE FATHER AND JESUS WAS WORTHY OF HONOR ("WORSHIP")

The discourse on abbaton (Archbishop Timothy - jerusalem) has the resurrected Jesus teaching the apostles concerning the pre-eden time period when the LORD GOD had formed Adams body from clay but had not yet put Adams' spirit into the body. Jesus described "And He [the LORD God, his Father] took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, "If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains."

The discomforting difficulty referred to the Fathers knowledge that Adam and many of his children would fall from moral purity and much evil and much suffering would occur as the Fathers plan of mankinds’ mortality and the moral education is carried out.

There had to be a way to morally purify the repentant among mankind and bring them back into a primordial moral state in order to allow adam (and the rest of us) BACK into a morally pure heaven. Without that mechanism, the spirits of mankind that were sent to earth to gain a moral education to prepare them to live in a morally perfect heaven could never return to a “primal” moral state of moral cleanliness and thus enter a morally clean heaven. A redeemer was necessary.

IN THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW - JESUS VOLUNTEERED TO SACRIFICE AND REDEEM MANKIND IN SUPPORT OF THE FATHERS PLAN – (thus he was immensely worthy of honor and respect)

Speaking of this time period, the prophet Enoch spoke of this controversy tells us both of the angels who voiced reservation to this plan and God's plan to redeem mankind. Which was accomplished by Jesus’ voluntary resolution of the controversy by his volunteering to be a redeemer. Enoch described this event : “They [the angels] said before the Holy One, blessed be he, 'Lord of the Universe, did not the primeval ones give you good advice when they said, Do not create man!' The Holy One, blessed be he, replied, 'I have made and will sustain him; I will carry and deliver him.' (3rd Enoch 4:6-7)

Jesus, in reference to this event, Jesus describes volunteering to be a redeemer for mankind, relating his discussion with God the Father, saying : " I said unto My Father, "Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him." And My Father said unto Me, "If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state." And I said unto My Father, "Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command."(abbaton)



POST TWO OF FIVE FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

POST TWO OF FIVE

[FONT=&quot]It was in reference to Jesus’ premortal voluntary offer to make the sacrifice as a redeemer of mankind that it was said : "It was not only when he appeared that he voluntarily laid down his life, but he voluntarily laid down his life from the very day the world came into being. Then he came forth in order to take it, since it had been given as a pledge. It fell into the hands of robbers and was taken captive, but he saved it. He redeemed the good people in the world as well as the evil." (The gospel of Phillip)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In these early Judao-Christian traditions, the choosing of the pre-mortal Jesus as a redeemer and savior was to settle the controversy and allow the plan to succeed. Jesus was chosen by the Father and thus he WAS “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world”. The prophet Enoch, in describing the Choosing of Jesus said :

At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time (Lit "before the beginning [or "head"] of days,"), 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6 For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. 7 And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life." 1st Enoch 48:1-7 The pre-mortal Jesus is given a name and commission by his Father. He is also chosen by God the Father.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The Biblical references to this time period of Jesus being chosen as the Lord Gods’ servant are clear : “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. (Matthew 12:36)

“… the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. (John 5:36-37)

“… I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. (John 8:16-18)


It is partly because of such incomparable love and intelligence and desires to accomplish the Father's plan, that the Father chose Jesus as the redeemer; endowed Jesus with authority and then sent Jesus to be the savior and redeemer of mankind. For these and other reasons, I very much agree with you that Jesus is perfectly deserving of the unrestrained honor that the Father commands all to give Jesus, our savior and redeemer.

Not only was Jesus worthy of the honor given him in this world, but he was worthy of the honor and worship shown him in this pre-creation time period “when all the sons of God shouted for Joy” and of the joy of the spirits there when the Father gave him his commission (i.e. he was given the “charge”) to be the redeemer, saying : “The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits." (The second treatise of the Great Seth)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clement, who was the colleague and pupil of the Apostle Peter refers to the Father having chosen Jesus as the redeemer, saying : “… may the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through him to be his own special people.. (1 Clement 64:1)

Not only is Jesus chosen and sent to earth to be the redeemer by the Lord God, he is given sufficient authority by his Father both to offer salvation to mankind and to carry out the fathers plan even unto the end, including the gathering of Israel, thus Christian Apocalypse of Abraham makes clear saying : "…I will send my chosen one, having in him one measure of all my power, and he will summon my people, humiliated by the heathen. The Apocalypse of Abraham 31:1 It is in this context that the concept of Jesus being “sent” is woven throughout the New Testament text as well. Jesus does not send himself, but he is sent by his Father to descend to the earth to carry out his mission to redeem mankind.

Thus Isaiah describes in his ascension literature that “… I heard the angel who led me, and he said to me, "this is the Most High of the high ones, who dwells in the holy world, who rests among the holy ones, who will be called by the Holy Spirit in the mouth of the righteous the Father of the Lord." And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, "Go out and descend through all the heavens[…] “

And after Jesus accomplishes man’s redemption, Jesus is supremely worthy of the great honor to be bestowed upon him for what he has accomplished for the salvation of mankind. Thus Isaiah tells us that the Father said to Jesus : “ And afterwards you shall ascend from the gods of death to your place, and you shall not be transformed in each of the heavens, but in glory you shall ascend and sit at my right hand, and then the princes and the powers of that world will worship you. 16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord." (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)

Bartholomew also witnesses to this early Judao-Christian doctrine. Referring to Jesus, that he is the redeemer “ who at the command of the Father gave up your life above and completed your work, who changed the dejection of Adam into joy and overcame the sorrow of Eve with gracious countenance..." The Gospel of Bartholomew chap IV

Jesus himself confirms and speaks of his profound and ambitious mission given him by his father : "Jesus said to him: " Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life, everyone who came to me. And he called me Jesus, that I might heal every sin of the ignorant and give to men the truth of God. The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

Thus the biblical text not only has Jesus tell us that “…that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.” But Jesus also, in speaking to the Father, tells His Father : “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” John 17:4


Katzpur is correct in her claim that Jesus is supremely worthy of our honor as the early Christians in their prayers and psalms and odes understood and KJW is correct that the earliest Christianity described them as separate individuals. For examples :

In the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #3:1, 18,24-27, this forgoing history was part of the Christian prayer, saying : “…the goal of the creative work - the rational living creature, the world citizen - having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, "let us make man according to our image and likeness"... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, 26 having put (him) to sleep for a little (while), by an oath you have called (him forth) to new birth. 27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(see : aposCon 7.34.1-8)

POST THREE OF FIVE FOLLOWS

[/FONT]

POST THREE OF FIVE

The odes of Solomon repeats the witness that Jesus was given his honor and exaltation by the Lord God, saying : “ he who knew and exalted me is the Most High in all his perfection. 8 And he glorified me by his kindness, and raised my understanding to the height of truth. 9 And from there he gave me the way of his paths, and I opened the doors which were closed. 10 And I shattered the bars of iron,....11 And nothing appeared closed to me, because I was the opening of everything. 12 And I went toward all my bondsmen in order to loose them; that I might not abandon anyone bound or binding. 13 And I gave my knowledge generously, and my resurrection through my love. 14 And I sowed my fruits in hearts, and transformed them through myself. 15 then they received my blessing and lived, and they were gathered to me and were saved. (Odes of Solomon #17:3,6-15)


God the Father tells the prophet enoch that, after jesus accomplish the decensus and “ Sheol will return all the deposits which she had received and hell will give back all that which it owes.” i.e. the souls in the spirit world between death and judgement are resurrected, then he “shall choose the righteous and the holy ones from among (the risen dead), for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived. 3 In those days, (the Elect one) shall sit on my throne,and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him. 4 ...And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen. 5 And the earth shall rejoice; and the righteous ones shall dwell upon her and the elect ones shall walk upon her. (1st Enoch 51:1-5)

Not only did the pre-mortal redeemer pass the Fathers judgment as the one who would be the redeemer, but he was appointed as God the Fathers son, and will be made the ruler (the God) of the Heavens, placed there by the Lord God. Thus Jewish 4q, referring to the Lord God, and referring to the redeemer, said : “ You tested Your good judgments for him to [.] in everlasting light, and You appointed him as Your firstborn son. There is none like him, as a prince and ruler in all Your inhabited world [.] the crown of the heavens and glory of the clouds You have placed on him [.] and the angel of Your peace in his congregation. .You gave him righteous statutes, as a father gives a son..."THE INHERITANCE OF THE FIRSTBORN, THE MESSIAH OF DAVID 4q369 Frag.1 Col. 1

[FONT=&quot]
So, if we considered in the early Judao-christian context, of the creation of Adam and in inauguration of God’s plan for mortality in the Garden of eden it makes sense that Jesus describes these principles to his apostles :

1) Jesus explained to his apostles, that, after he volunteered to be the redeemer, Adam was created saying :And he [the Father] put breath in to him [Adam] in this way: He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life three times, saying, “Live! Live! Live! According to the type of my Divinity” And the man lived straightway, and became a living soul, according to the image and likeness of God. And when Adam had risen up he cast himself down before [My] Father, saying, “My Lord and my God! Though hast made me to come into being [from a state in which] I did not exist.”

2) Jesus explained to his apostles, the power of and effect of his redemption for Adam (and the rest of us), when Jesus describes the Father telling the fallen Adam of his redeemer. Speaking to Adam, God the Father said : : “He [Jesus] shall rise from the dead on the third day. He shall go down into Amente. He shall shatter the gate of brass, and break in pieces the bolts of iron, and shall bring thee up therefrom together with all those who shall be held there in captivity with thee. For thy sake, O Adam, the son of God shall suffer these things until He hath redeemed thee, and restored thee to Paradise, unto the place whence thou didst come, for He made Himself to be thy advocate, when thou wast clay, before He put spirit into thee.”

3) Jesus finally tells the apostles of the power of his redemption to protect them from the effects of a pure and just judgment if it were not modified by the mercy made possible by the redemption of Jesus : Jesus said to the apostles, regarding the Judgement “ I shall look upon all my clay, and when I see that he is going to destruction I shall cry out to My Father, saying “My Father, what profit is there in My Blood if he goeth to destruction?” And straightway the voice of my Father shall come unto Me from the seventh heaven, and none shall hear it except myself for I and my Father are one, saying “Power belongeth unto Thee, O My Son, to do whatsoever thou pleaseth with thy clay.

In this early theological model Jesus is NOT the Father, but is a separate individual who co-operates with his Father in the Fathers plan and Jesus is chosen and then co-missioned by God the Father to carry out the redemption of mankind. Though Jesus was a different individual than the Father in this early Judao-christian worldview, Jesus is perfectly deserving of the honor and worship the Father commands us to give Jesus and that the early Christian worldview also taught this as well.

In THIS early Judao-christian context, the individuality of God the Father and Jesus is highlighted in even simple early references. As further examples, Ignatius speaks of a christian named Crocus who had “refreshed” him and says “...may the Father of Jesus Christ likewise refresh him” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:1) Bishop Ignatius is referring to the Father as an individual. Polycarp uses the same context :

“ Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness...” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

Not only do they teach of them as individuals, but place them on different levels, it is clear that it is the Father who raised Jesus (jesus does NOT “raise himself).

“ ...may he give to you a share and a place among his saints,...and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

These are Bishops and orthodox teachers in period of the early apostolic fathers. Even the earlier sacred texts make it clear that The Father is separate from the Son. Enoch, speaking of his vision of pre-earth “heaven” makes this clear.

“ 1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (A euphamism for God the Father). And his head was white like wool, andthere was with him another individualwhose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me,“This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

It is not just clear that they were individuals but it is also clear that they were not equals. The Father was always the LORD God, over all other, including the son. Consider the principle of Authority and knowledge of the Father versus the authority and knowledge of Jesus.

POST FOUR OF FIVE FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

POST FOUR OF FIVE


THE DIFFERENCE OF AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN JESUS AND GOD THE FATHER

JESUS HAS LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER

When Jesus' disciples asked Jesus to allow them to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father :

...Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23)

37 T hey said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. [...] 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. (Mark 10:37,40)

Jesus does NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “ Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, NEVER THE OPPOSITE. [FONT=&quot]'

“But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.( John 15:31)

The ancient christians understood that God the Father delegates to Jesus, what level of authority he will and they understood this principle. “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)


It is NOT Jesus who “raised up himself”, but God the Father raises him :

“And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Cor 6:14

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1

“...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.1 Thess 1:9-10

Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “ It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys.

: ...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor 11:3

Not only does Jesus have less authority than his Father, but he has less knowledge than his Father as well. In speaking of the future, Jesus admits : “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 19:32) The father knows, but Jesus does not.


ALL SUCH REFERENCES ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY THE LATER NICENE THEORY ASSUMING THAT JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF ONE RETAINS THE EARLY DOCTRINE THAT JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.


Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities.

“Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They spoke of the Father as “the creatorof the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.

...2 At that hour,that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)

When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :

“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used but is less usable by the later Nicene theory.

The decensus doctrine and its vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs’ descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

The early christian disciples understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." (The gospel of Phillip)

POST FIVE OF FIVE FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

POST FIVE OF FIVE

You may retain your own worldviews and theories ErikErik, but you are not correct in assuming that your modern theories were shared by early Judeo-Christians. The early Judeo-Christians had their own worldviews; their own interpretations of scriptures; and their own doctrines. As I have shown, the early Judao-Christians described and believed in a trinity of separate individuals and, as one considers the early Judeo-Christian pre-creation histories, such vast early Judeo-Christian literature not only describes very clearly the early trinity as individuals, but this vast literature provides us with yet more justification as to why Jesus is worthy of our most profound, heart-felt honor and of our deepest love and our obedience not only as our savior and redeemer as Katzpur claimed, but also we should honor Jesus for his superlative character and actions in the pre-creation time periods as described by the early judeo-Christian traditions and texts.

ErikErik , I wish you the best of luck in your spiritual journey and in your entry into the world of early Judeo-Christian history should you ever become interested in it.





ErikErik, as you review my statements in my posts # 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82, and look for those statement highlighted in GREEN, you will find that they refer to scriptural references (I even included some that would have been scriptural to the ancient judeo-christians themselves in the earliest periods (e.g. first two centuries).

The great advantage of referring to the earliest texts is that one can see how the earliest judeo-christians THEMSELVES described their version of the trinity as unequal individuals, IN THEIR OWN WORDS and GIVEN THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS, rather than a modern, non-historian giving their interpretation of what the earliest judeo-christians should have believed.

SINCE YOUR PREMISE REGARDING MY BELIEF ABOUT HOW THE NICENE THEORY ORIGINATED, WAS INCORRECT, I WILL TAKE SOME TIME TODAY AND WRITE DOWN SOME THOUGHTS REGARDING THE NICENE THEORYS' ORIGIN . Now that I am back at home after some traveling, I will have to do this later this evening, though I will get to it.

Erik Erik; I realize that early Christian history is a bit complicated and even disappointing when it doesn’t match ones doctrinal expectations. I hope you do not become discouraged or disappointed or disinterested in early Judeo-christian history and their beliefs and their texts. I wish you the very best of experiences and luck as you consider early Christians and their beliefs and texts as they differ from your own.

Clear
setzvision

Christ never asked for worship. In the prayer he taught us, he did not include worship to himself.

That said, he did accept worship. In my honest opinion:

Should Christ be worshiped?

Yes, by those who feel inspired to do so.

Me Myself said:

Christ never asked for worship. In the prayer he taught us, he did not include worship to himself.

That said, he did accept worship. In my honest opinion:

Should Christ be worshiped?

Yes, by those who feel inspired to do so.

Click to expand...

The greek word proskenaeu--had 4 meanings at minimum--1)worship to God 2) obesiance to a king--The Messiah was foretold to be a king, not God--they were looking to the messiah to be a mighty king to stand in their behalf. So in the case of the son of God,Jesus-Obesiance is the correct usage of translating proskenaeu from greek to english--the trinity translators erred to fit council teachings. They erred in many things misleading mankind into breaking Gods #1 commandment on a daily basis, by the will of satan.

THE FIVE EGOTISTICAL STATES AS UNDERSTOOD IN PSYCHOLOGY:

I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is Idolatrous Love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation is one in which the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from ’Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine’, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9

[FONT=&quot]Erikerik, katzpur, others :
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I apologize that I did not post as I intended. I simply had less time than I thought and didn’t get to open the books I wanted. I have considered a few historical issues concerning the Nicene theory which I think are important and enlightening in regards to why the theologians created it and why I would claim that this theory created as many difficulties as the theologians had hoped to solve by creating it.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I have not had time to do more than think abot an outline, which I will fill with historical data. But this will give you some reassurance that I have, indeed thought about my claim and am in the process of creating a post to secure my claims even further. Roughly, These are the points I want to make and fill in with data (they may change more as I think about them: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]FIRST : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CREEDS themselves, do not settle theological issues. Creeds do not have authority of scripture. Creeds of theologians innovate beyond scripture and the creed of the various theologians conflict with each other. The Nicene theory of “homoousios” is not found within New Testament theology and earliest Judeo-Christians were subordinationists in the main. The Nicene theory is a later innovation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]SECONDLY :
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I want to discuss the suggested origin of the creeds by scholars who have studied it’s origin (my interest is in early judeo-christianity and not in the creeds of the evolving Christianities of later centuries). There was social, societal and theological pressure to explain and clarify the Christian position to the Hellenistic society in which Christianity found itself. The theologians observed the multiple competing doctrines with Christian circles and there was a pressure to avert theological divisions. In the case of Nicea, Constantine was aware of and wanted to settle the quarrelling in his own right and called the gathering of bishops to settle arguments.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THIRDLY :
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I had claimed that “The Nicene Theory creates and causes illogical and difficult problems."
ErikErik responsed in post # 95, that : “This also tells me that you are not a born again believer because the Trinity is not difficult to understand and makes perfect sense to the Christian who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. “

I wanted to point out that even some signers of the creed did not understand what they had created and they expressed regrets regarding synods thereafter.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Early Christian churches did not have detailed data on all theological questions that were being asked, even some basic issues had not been settled upon the death of Jesus and the apostles. The Nicene theory became a creed, partly as a means of excluding Arianism. The Nicene theory did not simplify theological thought, it was not understood by nor believed by all of those who signed the creed itself. (Some signers did not understand nor believe in it) The experience and result of the Nicene synod turned theologians, including anastasius and Hilary and sozomen (etc, etc) against the speculations and actions within synods. The discord following the Nicene creed resulted from it’s recognition that it represented an innovation, rather than being “biblical”. The creed, that was to settle discord, caused more discord of a different type.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]I'll try to get to the post later as I have time. thanks for the patience.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clear
seeitztwkn
[/FONT]

Clearly claimed in post # 109 that " CREEDS themselves, do not settle theological issues. Creeds do not have authority of scripture. Creeds of theologians innovate beyond scripture and the creed of the various theologians conflict with each other. The Nicene theory of “homoousios” is not found within New Testament theology and earliest Judeo-Christians were subordinationists in the main. The Nicene theory is a later innovation. "


ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC THEOLOGY of early periods compared to THEOLOGIAN DERIVED THEOLOGY of later centuries

Prophetic theology characterized by revelation of relatively pure and complete theology differs from Theologians “doing theology” by theorizing upon their data and synthesizing theology as best as they can. In doing so, whether singly or in councils, the theologians often erred in their personal opinions just as the rest of us err in our opinions.

IF councils and creeds create doctrines not found in the New Testament, we are under no obligation to accept these doctrines. However, if theologians simply summarize biblical doctrines, then we are not obligated to accept their opinions in addition to the New Testament. Christians subconsciously use council theories as primary sources of Christian doctrine and scriptures as secondary sources.


COUNCILS OF THEOLOGIANS
This principle of the theologians, theorizing and innovating by councils is complicated by the fact that there have been many, many councils, many which conflict with each other. For example, the western Nicene Creeds theory was simply trumped by the Eastern Churches’ creed and its opposing theology. In such cases, Which councils does one accept? Do we pick three, or four creeds to believe as some churches do, or must one accept the more than twenty western councils in toto? Or does one believe the equally authoritative eastern councils (which disagree with the western councils).

It becomes very complicated if one is going to claim all councils of theologians have theological authority. If one admits they do not have special authority to create theology, then it becomes clear that councils are simply legislating their opinion.



INCREASING HISTORICAL AND SCHOLARLY CLARITY REGARDING THE NICENE THEORY
Though average Christians may have grown up with a Nicene Theory, modern theologians and historians have recognized the difficulty of viewing the Nicene Theory as biblical. Increasing numbers of Christian historians and scholars recognize the change in context when one speaks of the “christian trinity”. For example, an increasing number of qualifications must be considered when speaking of trinitarianism when historians and scholars speak of it at all. Also, historians increasingly recognize that when one speaks of unqualified trinitarianism, the context has changed from early Christian periods to period beyond the third century.

The increasing number of early Judeo-Christian texts that have been discovered and analyzed by scholars has given us much greater clarity as we look at the nature of the earliest periods of the Christian movement. For example, when one looks at the biblical text with pre-nicene eyes, one notes that the early texts, diaries, mishnas, psalms and other early Christian texts describe a God that conflicts with the Nicene Theory. It is partly the wonderful multitude of early textual discoveries that have clarified the early concepts regarding God.

For example, .” J.N.D. Kelly tell us that this doctrine did not exist in his study of the New Testament text and era, saying “Of a doctrine of the trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church’s triadic formula left its mark everywhere.” He reminds us that “The church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople (381) WAS THE FORMULA OF ONE God existing in three coequal persons formally ratified.”.

Edmund Fortman, the wonderful Jesuit Scholar, also reminds us that the “classical” doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t a part of Christianity in the apostolic period or in the early second either. Referring to the apostolic Fathers he tells us “There is in them, of course, no Trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a Trinitarian problem

If you look back at the early Judeo-christian textual references I’ve given, it will be clear why there was no early doctrinal disputations regarding the nature of the Godhead as three unequal individuals. The texts were so clear so as to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding. (read the examples I gave in posts #78 – 82)

Even the early apologists were, in the main, subordinationists in their descriptions of the Father and the Son. Johannes Quasten describes Justin Martyrs conception of Christ as “a second God, second numerically but not in will….Justin tends to subordinationism as far as the relation between the Logos and the Father is concerned.” Thus it was said that, “until Origen, the apologists understood the Logos (Christ) to have become the Son only after his expression from the Father”, contrary to the Nicene Theory, “they did not clearly distinguish between the Logos and the Holy Ghost.”

Thus, neither the early Apostolic Fathers nor the Greek apologists taught the Nicene Theory. This is why the historians and scholars texts tell us that “the …doctrine of the trinity as defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT(New Testament)” (Harper’s bible dictionary – New York, harper and row, 1985)

While earlier prophets and apostles declared the revelations given them and the earliest Judeo-Christians wrote their interpretations of what the apostles and prophets said to them, it is not up to 4th century influential philosopher-theologians left to theorize on what early Judeo-Christians should have believed and then stamp their theory with the approval of a body of Christians to become the new orthodoxy.




If I can find enough time tomorrow, I’d like to offer some thoughts about the context and origin of the Nicene theory, the theological and societal pressures which resulted in its creation and adoption.

Clearly
seeieiseif

POST ONE OF THREE




The fact that the early Judeo-Christian worldview of the Trinity as three unequal individuals was abandoned in the Nicene type of theories is well established. What is less obvious is the reasons underlying the adoption of any of the Nicene type theories. I mentioned that I wanted to touch on some of the principle as to what motivated the theologians to abandon the early Judeo-Christian worldview (described by the early Judeo-Christians in their own words and texts in posts 78-82) and to create and adopt a different theory. My historical interest is not in the later Nicene era Christianity or in any of the later creeds, but rather in the earliest judeo-christianity worldviews, texts and doctrines. Thus I will have to refer to other historians and their theories as the principles underlying the Nicene theory that became popular in the later centuries.


THEORIES OF MOTIVES FOR ABANDONING THE EARLY WORLDVIEW AND FOR DEVELOPING AND ADOPTING THE NICENE THEORY

Period historians describe the theological pressures placed upon the early Christian movement, to explain and clarify the Christian position to the Hellenistic and Oriental societies in which Christianity found itself. The theologians observed the multiple competing doctrines within Christian circles and there was a pressure to avert theological divisions. In the case of Nicea, Constantine wanted to settle the quarrelling and called the gathering of bishops to settle arguments.

I have mentioned the simplistic but powerful motives for Christians coming under societal and theological pressures to avoid the criticism of frank polytheism heaped upon them by critics of Christianity, (who often mischaracterized its teachings to combat its growing influence). I mentioned that I thought this was only one of many motives. Perhaps we can discuss another mechanism.

Scholars have discussed the earliest expression of simple creeds as a required declaration of faith, in order for a proselyte to be baptized and become Christian. They suggest that the concept grew out of interpretations of certain declarations made by the Apostles, and the need of confirming a definite conception of God as a basis for a point of unity of Christian faith and membership in a congregation. An example used by proponents of this theory is the confession of St. Peter. "Whom do ye say that I am?" inquired Jesus of the Apostles. "And Simon Peter answered and said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Whereupon Jesus declared that the Father had revealed this truth to Peter and that upon this principle, Jesus would build His Church. (Matt. xvi, 13-21). Peter’s declaration regarding Christ is, according to them, a simple form of Christian creed of belief.

Proponents of this origin, point to Phillips instruction of Queen Candaces’ Eunuch. The Eunuch asked Phillip —"What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Phillip replied : "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.(εξεστιν)" And the eunuch answered—"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The chariot was halted, and the baptism performed. (Acts. viii). While many bibles lack vs 37 (since it is not IN most original biblical texts), even its addition to later later bible texts indicates an evolution toward a declaration of a specific, defined belief being required to become a baptized Christian. Also, one must point out that the word εξεστιν is not simply “mayest” as rendered in the A.V but G. Ricker correctly points out is better translated “Lawful”, implying a nuance of a “requirement” set by a standard.

Even the “Apostolic Creed” as a formulaic creed, was used for a time as a basic statement of belief (or a simple creed). While this formula may be of dubious origin, still, it belongs to the Patristic era. The Creed reads : "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, arose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father; whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit; the holy church; the remission of sins; and the resurrection of the body."


IF this “creed” or statement of belief is genuine, still, it is so basic that it does not explain the complicated questions confronting Christianity by theological investigations. Not only did the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit need affirmation, but questions regarding the nature of their existence, and their relationship, encountered scrutiny by those asking what Christians believed about these points. Once a creed is stated, it’s inevitable that it will undergo further scrutiny as individuals seek for further definition and justification; for harmonies and for disagreements.



THE CONTAMINATION OF PURE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES BY HELLENISTIC INFLUENCES

Thus comparisons of Christianity to other religions and cultures, such as the oriental and greek cultures required Judeo-Christians to use other languages and other symbol sets. However, even this simple necessity of Christian having to use the language of the pagan philosophers to explain Christian doctrines to the hellenists caused doctrinal contamination.

For example, the Logos notion was "a prominent concept in the prevailing Neo-Platonic philosophy of the time and so provided the theologians with a means of correlating the Christian revelation not only with the Old Testament but also with the insights of the classical philosophers." Such interactions; harmonizations, and antagonisms resulted in contamination of multiple concepts over time. The Judeo-Christian concept of “logos” (as the Word, the son, the messiah/Christ) merged to some extent, with the Greek “logos”, (as "the intelligence or rational thought" of God). As symbology merged, Jesus became, a metaphorical son of God, since accepting Jesus as a literal Son of God would intimate God was a personal being and that would require them to accept the language of the scriptures to mean what they say. (e.g. This would then suggest that God actually appeared to the prophets of the Old Testament and conversed with them as one man converses with another. ) Such evolving doctrines and discussions regarding the various definitions of God and Jesus form part of the historical context for the Arian controversy divided the Christian world.

"Arius’ [c. 250-c. 336] disagreement was partly with the teaching of Alexander the bishop of Alexandria, who taught “the eternal generation of the Son," meaning that "'there never was a time when He was not.'" Arius felt logically that, "as a father must exist before his son, therefore the Son of God did not exist eternally with the Father"; rather, "He was created [by the Father], but before time began.

[FONT=&quot]The opening address at Nicea was given by either Eusebius (who signed but did not believe in the creed) or by Euthathius and then the Emperor Constantine addressed the Council and thanked God “. . . Who has accorded me the grace . . . of convoking you all here…” During his opening address, Constantine explained the reason for bring the bishops together regarding “ . . . The intestine divisions of the Church seem to me more serious and more dangerous than wars and other conflicts . . . It is necessary then that your hearts be united and that peace be seen to reign among you.” The emperor wanted the divisions and infighting among the religionists to stop.

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

kjw47 said:

The greek word proskenaeu--had 4 meanings at minimum--1)worship to God 2) obesiance to a king--The Messiah was foretold to be a king, not God--they were looking to the messiah to be a mighty king to stand in their behalf. So in the case of the son of God,Jesus-Obesiance is the correct usage of translating proskenaeu from greek to english--............................

Click to expand...

Interesting point ^ above ^ about Messiah being foretold to be a King, not God.
Jesus is king of ' God's Kingdom ', which he returns to his God at the end of his 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth.
- 1 Corinthians 15:24-26

Me Myself said:

Christ never asked for worship. In the prayer he taught us, he did not include worship to himself.
That said, he did accept worship. In my honest opinion:
Should Christ be worshiped?
Yes, by those who feel inspired to do so.

Click to expand...

How did Jesus think about those who feel inspired to worship him, but rather Jesus directed worship to his God and Father - John 4:23-24

Yes Man said:

A while ago, I was reading something on the Jehovah's Witnesses and I found out that they do not worship Jesus. They believe that God should only be worshipped. People who believe in the Trinity of Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit probably worship Jesus. However what of people who do not believe in the Trinity? I was wondering about how some of you thought about this. Thank you for your input. :bow:

Click to expand...

Only God should be worshiped but Jesus is part of the Trinity and Son of God form eternity and as the Bible says is 'worthy of blessing and honor and glory and praise" the world was made not only 'by Jesus' but "for Jesus" according to the New Testament

As I mentioned in the Psalms Psalm 68 is about the Ark which represents God. It has precious gold as well as ordinary wood and represents Jesus two natures: fully God fully man In Ephesians Psalm 68 is used of Jesus and the ascension

The Super Epic Psalms book 5 ( coming home, Psalms 107, 109, 118, 11…