Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[Desert Snake]

If I believed in God, Jehovah. Abrahamic and Abrahamic-like religions have one thing in common, worship to the Creator and the Creator only. I would not send an "I love you Card" to my mother's daughter, if I knew I can give it to her myself. Muslim and Judiasm, as far as I know, believe that there is direct communication with the Creator regardless our temptation to sin or if its inherited.

To think of any type of middle man between a person and the Creator is an insult really. The only way I can see that is if the middleman was in communion with both Her Creator and the believer. They All act as One. As long as there is hierarchy in power, there is no harmony.

Huh? Traditional, ie real, Xian belief, is that Jesus is God. Therefore, worshipping Jesus is worshipping God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Huh? Traditional, ie real, Xian belief, is that Jesus is God. Therefore, worshipping Jesus is worshipping God.

I disagree. Its the same ol debate about Jesus as God. In short, Jesus never said worship Him. He always told His diciplds that heading His Words are heeding His Fathers. (Not listening to me because I am the Father...to different statements)

Belief in salvation does not rest in the claim Jesus is God. It rests on believing in Jesus Words because His Word is from His Father not His own. Your salvation lies in the relationship you have with Jesus because Jesus is the only way "to" the Father. Not Jesus is the only way to Himself.

You can be saved knowing Jesus is not God. His diciples did. It must have gotten mixed up after Jesus death and the romans tooknover.

 

[Desert Snake]

I disagree. Its the same ol debate about Jesus as God. In short, Jesus never said worship Him. He always told His diciplds that heading His Words are heeding His Fathers. (Not listening to me because I am the Father...to different statements)

Belief in salvation does not rest in the claim Jesus is God. It rests on believing in Jesus Words because His Word is from His Father not His own. Your salvation lies in the relationship you have with Jesus because Jesus is the only way "to" the Father. Not Jesus is the only way to Himself.

You can be saved knowing Jesus is not God. His diciples did. It must have gotten mixed up after Jesus death and the romans tooknover.

If Jesus were merely a man, whether prophet or not, then He does not have the authority to negate the verbal Torah, ie the Pharisees would be correct in disagreeing with Jesus. The type of situation you seem to be inferring, actually does not work within the Hebraic/Judaic paradigm. A manifestation of Deity, however, does work, it means that Jesus is the form of God, therefore has the authority to modify the Judaic statutes. Jewish belief does not have ''middlemen'', that is strictly against teaching; hence, what you are stating is basically impossible, and some form of polytheism. What the Europeans did get correct, was the notion that Xianity was a monotheistic religion, the position they still maintain.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He wouldnt have the authority? His authority came from God "who His Father was well pleased." He didnt care who disagreed because He knew Hed be crucifed anyway regardless if it was by His own people or by the pharisees choice. Im not sound on the history. God gave Jesus the authority to speak on His (God) behalf as a representative of His Father not Himself. Jesus represents His Father. So whatever Jesus says is what God says. They are One as Father and Son.

Are you saying making Jesus human would mean Jesus didnt have permission to speak the Torah? If so, thats putting down His role as Gods representative to speak Gods Word which He quotes from the Torah.

Basically, Im saying as a human, Jesus had the authority (like the prophets) from God to do whatever God told Him to do. The big difference is Moses parted the sea l, Jesus brought people back to His Father. Different missions, both human.

If Jesus were merely a man, whether prophet or not, then He does not have the authority to negate the verbal Torah, ie the Pharisees would be correct in disagreeing with Jesus. The type of situation you seem to be inferring, actually does not work within the Hebraic/Judaic paradigm. A manifestation of Deity, however, does work, it means that Jesus is the form of God, therefore has the authority to modify the Judaic statutes. Jewish belief does not have ''middlemen'', that is strictly against teaching; hence, what you are stating is basically impossible, and some form of polytheism. What the Europeans did get correct, was the notion that Xianity was a monotheistic religion, the position they still maintain.

 

[metis]

If Jesus were merely a man, whether prophet or not, then He does not have the authority to negate the verbal Torah, ie the Pharisees would be correct in disagreeing with Jesus. The type of situation you seem to be inferring, actually does not work within the Hebraic/Judaic paradigm. A manifestation of Deity, however, does work, it means that Jesus is the form of God, therefore has the authority to modify the Judaic statutes. Jewish belief does not have ''middlemen'', that is strictly against teaching; hence, what you are stating is basically impossible, and some form of polytheism. What the Europeans did get correct, was the notion that Xianity was a monotheistic religion, the position they still maintain.

But one can make the argument that Jesus didn't negate Torah but took a very liberal position in regards to his interpretation of it, which is the position I lean more towards. And, to me, this explain why there's so much confusion during his life and after his death dealing with the Law. He's seemingly frequently being asked by the leaders about the Law, plus the apostles even later begin to fudge on the Law, which leads me to believe that Jesus had to open that door in some way. If one rereads Jesus' supposed quotes in the synoptics in this context, then I believe it's apparent that this is what's likely going on. John's gospel, which had a very late writing, tends to more deify Jesus and condemn Jews who didn't convert

 

[Desert Snake]

He wouldnt have the authority? His authority came from God "who His Father was well pleased." He didnt care who disagreed because He knew Hed be crucifed anyway regardless if it was by His own people or by the pharisees choice. Im not sound on the history. God gave Jesus the authority to speak on His (God) behalf as a representative of His Father not Himself. Jesus represents His Father. So whatever Jesus says is what God says. They are One as Father and Son.

Are you saying making Jesus human would mean Jesus didnt have permission to speak the Torah? If so, thats putting down His role as Gods representative to speak Gods Word which He quotes from the Torah.

Basically, Im saying as a human, Jesus had the authority (like the prophets) from God to do whatever God told Him to do. The big difference is Moses parted the sea l, Jesus brought people back to His Father. Different missions, both human.

To put it bluntly, ''as a man'', Jesus is incorrect. The only way for Jesu to be ''correct'' is with divine authority, a 'tone' of teaching that supercedes a necessary scrutiny to his teachings, which one would have to employ, if He is merely a Rabbi fisherman.

 

[Desert Snake]

I disagree. Its the same ol debate about Jesus as God. In short, Jesus never said worship Him. He always told His diciplds that heading His Words are heeding His Fathers. (Not listening to me because I am the Father...to different statements)

Belief in salvation does not rest in the claim Jesus is God. It rests on believing in Jesus Words because His Word is from His Father not His own. Your salvation lies in the relationship you have with Jesus because Jesus is the only way "to" the Father. Not Jesus is the only way to Himself.

You can be saved knowing Jesus is not God. His diciples did. It must have gotten mixed up after Jesus death and the romans tooknover.

This can't be literal, in the manner you are presenting. The prophets did not know ''Jesus the man'', yet they knew the father.

 

[cataway]

This can't be literal, in the manner you are presenting. The prophets did not know ''Jesus the man'', yet they knew the father.

apparently not very well

 

[Desert Snake]

apparently not very well

O.k., so are you saying that the Prophets were incorrect? Do you believe that this is also the teachings of Jesus?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Huh? Traditional, ie real, Xian belief, is that Jesus is God. Therefore, worshipping Jesus is worshipping God.

Jesus taught to worship and pray to his God - Rev. 3:12 - that God's name, Not Jesus' name, should be hallowed, held sacred, sanctified.
First century belief is that Jesus is the Son of God.
Gospel writer John wrote - John 1:18 - that No man has seen God at any time. People saw Jesus
Gospel writer John wrote - 1st John 4:12 that No man has seen God at any time.
Exodus 33:20 says No man can see God and live - People saw Jesus and lived.
Gospel writer John, who also wrote Revelation, wrote that the heavenly resurrected Jesus still has a God over him - Rev. 3:12
John continues at Rev.1:5; 3:14 that the pre-human Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.
So, only God was before the beginning - Psalm 90:2- thus Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But one can make the argument that Jesus didn't negate Torah but took a very liberal position in regards to his interpretation of it, which is the position I lean more towards. And, to me, this explain why there's so much confusion during his life and after his death dealing with the Law. He's seemingly frequently being asked by the leaders about the Law, plus the apostles even later begin to fudge on the Law, which leads me to believe that Jesus had to open that door in some way. If one rereads Jesus' supposed quotes in the synoptics in this context, then I believe it's apparent that this is what's likely going on. John's gospel, which had a very late writing, tends to more deify Jesus and condemn Jews who didn't convert

What about what gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts 2 vs 22,23,36,38; Acts 3 vs 12,13,14,15,17,19,21
There was culpable community responsibility when they failed to bring Jesus to justice - Deut. 21 vs 1-9
Peter was Not so much condemning as asking for repentance - Acts 2:38
Please note Acts 3:17 where he says, And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did....

In the KJV Bible the same Greek grammar rule applies at John 1:1 and at Acts28 :6 B
The letter ' a ' was omitted in one verse, and the letter ' a ' was inserted in the other.

For the record ( John bear record ) Jesus is Son at John 1:34 - Not deify him as being God.
John believed No man ever saw God - John 1:18; 1st John 4:12 - People saw Jesus and lived - Exodus 33:20
John wrote Nathanael believed Jesus to be Son at John 1:49
John wrote Peter, as spokesman for the 12, believed Jesus is Son at John 6:69
John wrote Martha believed Jesus to be Son at John 11:27
John wrote Jesus believed Jesus was Son at John 10:36 B
John wrote Jesus' Father is greater than ALL at John 10:29
John wrote Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus at John 14:28

 

[metis]

My issue with this idea, well, one issue, is the fact that Jesus seemed to oppose the verbal Torah. This would, imo, be a very liberal, or even odd, position, for a religious Jew. He seems to either be presenting a totally different concept, as a Rabbi, as you say, a liberal teacher, in approaching the father, or in worship.

Actually this would not at all be unusual as there were different takes on how to approach the Law, and we do know that such liberal Pharisee groups existed during Jesus' time. "Liberal", in this context, definitely appears to have been a minority position amongst the Pharisees.

 

[metis]

What about what gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts 2 vs 22,23,36,38; Acts 3 vs 12,13,14,15,17,19,21
There was culpable community responsibility when they failed to bring Jesus to justice - Deut. 21 vs 1-9
Peter was Not so much condemning as asking for repentance - Acts 2:38
Please note Acts 3:17 where he says, And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did....

In the KJV Bible the same Greek grammar rule applies at John 1:1 and at Acts28 :6 B
The letter ' a ' was omitted in one verse, and the letter ' a ' was inserted in the other.

For the record ( John bear record ) Jesus is Son at John 1:34 - Not deify him as being God.
John believed No man ever saw God - John 1:18; 1st John 4:12 - People saw Jesus and lived - Exodus 33:20
John wrote Nathanael believed Jesus to be Son at John 1:49
John wrote Peter, as spokesman for the 12, believed Jesus is Son at John 6:69
John wrote Martha believed Jesus to be Son at John 11:27
John wrote Jesus believed Jesus was Son at John 10:36 B
John wrote Jesus' Father is greater than ALL at John 10:29
John wrote Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus at John 14:28

If you understood traditional Judaism, you would know that anyone walking around claiming to be God would be laughed out of the area, so the idea that the apostles and those who listened to him thought he was God is quite nonsensical. To gentiles, however, it is more conceivable that they could take him as such, and this is what appears to have happened.

 

[cataway]

and they would likely laugh and any one claiming to be the '' son of God '' he did however do many amazing things that only a Son of God could do

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This can't be literal, in the manner you are presenting. The prophets did not know ''Jesus the man'', yet they knew the father.

What do you mean by they wouldnt known Jesus the man? They wouldnt know He is human?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To put it bluntly, ''as a man'', Jesus is incorrect. The only way for Jesu to be ''correct'' is with divine authority, a 'tone' of teaching that supercedes a necessary scrutiny to his teachings, which one would have to employ, if He is merely a Rabbi fisherman.

I agree to that. But to uplift Him as God? Thats a little too far

 

[cataway]

true Jesus is not God

 

[metis]

and they would likely laugh and any one claiming to be the '' son of God '' he did however do many amazing things that only a Son of God could do

First of all, you're making the assumption that all you read there is correct. Remember that all scriptures in all religions tend to be highly subjective, and miraculous events abound in virtually every religion, including those by gods and demigods, and sometimes followers supposedly perform miracles. "Acts" even has the apostles performing miracles. Even in today's Catholicism, for example, a person cannot be canonized as a "saint" unless it's confirmed that (s)he performed at least two miracles.

BTW, in Judaism, we are all "sons [and daughters] of God".

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus taught to worship and pray to his God - Rev. 3:12 - that God's name, Not Jesus' name, should be hallowed, held sacred, sanctified.
First century belief is that Jesus is the Son of God.
Gospel writer John wrote - John 1:18 - that No man has seen God at any time. People saw Jesus
Gospel writer John wrote - 1st John 4:12 that No man has seen God at any time.
Exodus 33:20 says No man can see God and live - People saw Jesus and lived.
Gospel writer John, who also wrote Revelation, wrote that the heavenly resurrected Jesus still has a God over him - Rev. 3:12
John continues at Rev.1:5; 3:14 that the pre-human Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.
So, only God was before the beginning - Psalm 90:2- thus Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

This is polytheism. This would mean that Mary gave birth to a demi-god, and there is more than one deity in the Godhead. This is basically impossible, as Xianity has always maintained that it is monotheistic. Something is incorrect in your Scripture figurings, basically. One way to explain what you are presenting, in a monotheistic context, is that these verses mean the 'father' aspect, yet, not the 'son' aspect. These titles are metaphoric, hence why Jesus states that the only way to the father is through Him. That statement makes no sense if one maintains that Jesus is a separate god or demi-god, because then Jesu would be saying, indirectly, that the Prophets in the OT, did not know the father.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you understood traditional Judaism, you would know that anyone walking around claiming to be God would be laughed out of the area, so the idea that the apostles and those who listened to him thought he was God is quite nonsensical. To gentiles, however, it is more conceivable that they could take him as such, and this is what appears to have happened.

I don't get this impression. The church in Europe even went so far as to create the 'trinity' doctrine, in order to explain the divinity of Jesus. We also notice how many Europeans in general, have a very difficult time accepting that Jesu is G-d, an aspect of G-d. This is why so many have left Xianity, imo, or, one of the reasons.