-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Worshiping Jesus
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
I worship the Father, not the son. We "become" sons as Jesus was. John 4:23
InChrist
Free4ever
According to the scriptures, the Son who existed eternally, as one with God, and is God took on human flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. So to worship Jesus is to worship God the Creator.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16
beginning is not eternally. eternally doesn't have a beginning, or end. god is not a contrast. god is both male and female; which is the image of God. god is both potential and actual. god is both alpha and omega. jesus isn't. i am is.
You know my friend, most modern translations are based on more accurate, earlier manuscripts (discovered after the KJV was printed), and most don't say 'God' there:
He appeared in a body (NIV)
He who was manifested in the flesh (ASV)
He who was revealed in the flesh (NASB)
Who was manifested in the flesh (NAB)
He was manifested in the flesh (RSV)
He was revealed in flesh (NRSV)
Which was manifested in the flesh (Douey-Rheims)
He was revealed in the flesh (NET)
He was manifested in the flesh (ESV)
Who was manifested in the flesh (NAB)
Really, how could it say, 'God was manifested in the flesh', when the Apostle John wrote that 'No one has seen God at any time', at John 1:18? Interpreting 1 Timothy 3:16 to say God (not He), would make a contradiction of John 1:18.
Further evidence that earlier manuscripts never said "God was manifested in the flesh," is that the passage was never used during the 4th - 5th cent. debates over Christ's deity.
John 1:1 is an interesting topic to debate, as it involves the grammar of Koine Greek (the writer's language)....I'll get into it later.
Take care.
InChrist
Free4ever
If you feel there is a contradiction, you may take it up with Jesus in prayer. I find no contradiction.
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated,
“God with us.” Matthew 1:22-23
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
I see it this way way as well. Jesus would have never said that the Father is greater than him if he meant that he was God himself. John says that Jesus "gave us the power" to be "sons" as he was the son. He worshiped the Father as we are to worship the Father. You don't worship the "image" of God, but what produced the "image".
John 1:1 is equating Word with "truth", which Jesus said he was. Man received the "truth" for the first time by Jesus speaking as Christ (by the Holy Spirit). The orthodox believe the truth came by the fathers (Jews) before him. But the Word is the only truth. John 10:8
Jesus is the image of the door to truth, as John 10 explains, and no one gets to or knows the Father who doesn't open "that" door. The Jews (OT) never had it. But the orthodox follow them anyways.
Last edited:
It depends on what worshiping means. Bible has also this interesting scripture:
Pure religion [religious worship] and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
James 1:27
If that is pure worshiping of God, I think it would be reasonable thing to do.
Was Jesus really the Father? Is that what He was saying? Because, that view contradicts the Trinity Doctrine, that Jesus and the Father are separate.
Didn’t Jesus pray to His Father? And state “the Father is greater than I am”? They are not the same Person.
Wouldn’t it more likely be that Jesus meant that He was the image of His Father, as sons can be?
Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus was “the exact representation of His being.” So, He was just like His Father. Still, a representation. Like I am of my Dad.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
One must be careful, and seek a spiritual understanding of what the early path of orthodoxy proposed as being spiritual truth. Most scholars do not believe the brother of Jesus wrote this epistle.It depends on what worshiping means. Bible has also this interesting scripture:
Pure religion [religious worship] and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
James 1:27
If that is pure worshiping of God, I think it would be reasonable thing to do.
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):
1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."
2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.
To undeniably believe that all words in the Bible are from God, is to follow the early catholic ideology. According to Paul in Galatians 2, James fell into the same emerging orthodoxy of the circumcised (Jews/Pharisee's) that Peter did. Gnosis teaches James overcame it as well as Peter, but not until Jesus appeared again in spirit (Apocryphon of James).
It's all in ones perspective based on the early christian activities that were written in the 1st-3rd centuries.
By the fourth century, the schism came to a head, and Rome (Constantines church) decided who would exist and who would become extinct. If you openly seek, you will find this accurate.
InChrist
Free4ever
Jesus the Son is not the same Person as the Father, yet they are One (John 10:30). So as such only the Son as one with God, Who is God could possibly be an exact representation of the Father. This in no way contradicts the Triune Nature of God, just as Jesus saying, 'the Father is greater than I am" is not a contradiction because those words were stated while Jesus was in the flesh, purposefully having left His glory and temporarily lowering Himself to a position much lower than His Father. Besides, the term "greater" does not indicate that Jesus is not equal to and of the same nature as God. Human being are all equal and of the same nature whether or not some hold greater positions. The President, though holding a greater position, is not different in nature from you or me...he is still a human being. The Son, likewise is of the same Nature as His Father-God.
all manifested things are of the Father.
isaiah 66 tells you that God doesn't rest just in this place vs some other, or in this person vs some other.
that is why god Our Father.
God the Father is the son manifested as all of creation, not parts of creation but all of creation. god is omnipresent in his offspring, her creation
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
Perspective. Actually, orthodox perspective.(one of flesh, not spirit).
If Jesus was flesh (and blood, physically) what became of the flesh? Paul says "flesh and blood doesn't rise". Jesus says the "flesh profits nothing" (John 8). Luke had to be written after Matthew and Mark because the masses were not seeing what was "told' them early.
Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.he Highest
The Holy Ghost was the mother (coming upon Mary) and the Father was the power of the Highest (capital H) that caused the holy thing to pass through a non defiled womb. Jesus had the appearance of human birth. Jesus true mother entered him at the chrism, which is what the word Christ means.
Of course, those who follow catholic orthodox fight for orthodox and the fathers who created it.
I don't question the Word of God, just where men have taken it.
InChrist
Free4ever
The flesh is changed to a glorified state, from corruptible to incorruptible, from mortal to immortal.
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1 Corinthians 15: 51-53
InChrist
Free4ever
You are certainly free to believe any idea of your imagination, but your idea does not line up with the biblical scriptures from my perspective.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
If flesh is "changed" then it would profit something and Jesus words misleading. If person burns up in a fire, or is missing appendages, how can you change something that's not there? The flesh is material. God/Heaven/Infinity is spiritual. (not made up of atoms, if you wish). Paul is speaking of conscientiousness which is what our spirit is. Our minds will experience knowing and understanding beyond how we understand now.
1 Corinth:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
If you follow the catholic ideology (not the church, the beginning of orthodoxy) they say that Jesus Christ is one thing. But that is not true. Jesus was the first Christ (chrism of the Holy Spirit). Paul say the mind of Christ. He isn't speaking of Jesus, but the chrism. The Holy Spirit is what makes us one with brothers, as well as Jesus being brother, because we are all sons of the Father (God) as well as our mother, the Holy Spirit.
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Spirit is of the feminine. Changing it to Latin or Greek, made it of male (saying he). The Gospel has been tainted by the church fathers as well as the scribes that replicated it. It's why Jesus told us not to trust scribes.
Jesus sword divided flesh and spirit. Here is an example of seeing both.
Luke:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
And Jesus said who his mother was when he said that she was within other sons/daughters:
Matthew:
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
The Catholics worship statues of flesh. Be wise. See the spiritual truth.
InChrist
Free4ever
I don't think your thoughts on the subject are quite in agreement with the words of Jesus. I certainly don't believe the glorified body will be "flesh" in the way it is material now, rather it will be a transformed, spiritual body just as Jesus' in His resurrected state.
Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.43 And He took it and ate in their presence. Luke 24:33-43
How will our resurrection body be different from our current body?
In Jesus’ prayer to His Father, He asked His Father to look after His disciples, stating “that they may be one, just as we are one.” (John 17:11) A few verses later (vs. 21 & 22), Jesus says, “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.”
Don’t you think John 10:30 should be applied differently than what you suggested? Certainly not literally one....otherwise, His disciples are all God, too.
This reminds me of Philippians 2:5-11......there are many ways this verse is translated (many are misleading, imho), but one phrase always stays the same: vs.9, which states, “God exalted Him.” (This being after His resurrection, why didn’t Jesus exalt Himself if He was God?) And why does verse 8 tell us Jesus was “obedient”? To Himself?
Are you aware of the origin of these terms, ‘nature’ and ‘essence’?
Acclaimed and highly respected priest John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
He was himself a Trinitarian, but he would not use Scriptures in a way he thought was dishonest. He was a great scholar!
He wouldn’t even use John 1:1....regarding the verse, he wrote
in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. [Bold type is mine.] Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
I will go into more detail regarding John 1:1 later.
Goodnight, my cousin.
I think it is n line with the teachings of Jesus in Gospels, therefore I have no problem to accept it.