• 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!

Are Christians actually worshiping the Father of Jesus?

mystic64

nolonger active
Of course, the Father presented by the Christians is different than the one in OT, given that the Father of the Christians has a physical Son. Was that a surprise to you ? ;)

But the real Question is if Jesus(pbuh) ever portrayed the Father as anything different than what is described in the OT or not. As you can clearly see :

NT : “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (Mark 12:29-30)

OT: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Deuteronomy 6:4-5

If,what's on red above is true, why would he say the following ?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them...Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." Matthew 5:17-19

Thank you, but please note that the words, "Least in Heaven." You can break those commandments and still go to Heaven. The only sin that is truely fatal is to sin against the Holy Spirit. Everything else seems to be just a matter of sorting things out. At least until you come to the NT book "Revelation" which as far as I am conserned is not about the Father of Lord Jesus which means that what it is saying is not going to happen. Pieces of it might, but not the whole thing.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Yep, it is amazing how much Christians distort Tanakh, and even the words of their own Jesus. He never said he was God, or even a literal son of God. He said all could be children of God - in the adopted family sense. :)



*

:) ! Very well said.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The original belief of the Israelites was the same as that of other Canaanites.

No one knows what our original belief was, and that we were Canaanites is possible, but not a gimme.

As Augustine said, you can call then gods (as often in the psalms) or call them angels: it doesn't really matter.

But "God" or "gods", as used in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, never appears to have referred to angels.

As for Yahweh, he was the guardian angel or god of the Israelites: "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of God ; for the Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his own inheritance." (Deut. 32; from the Septuagint, for the Hebrew text is later and has be altered). So Yahweh told Moses "I am your god", not "I am God the Father Almighty", and Moses asked his name. Also Jephthah obviously considered Kemosh as equal to Yahweh. (Judges 11) Eighth-century inscriptions in Israel show that El (God} and Yahweh were still distinguished. The idea that they were the same appears about the same time in Judah but it wasn't fully established until after the Babylonian Captivity (fifth century).

There are roughly 16 different names for God as found in Torah and Tanakh, so one shouldn't at all assume the above. Many of these names come from the Sumerian language, but even though the Sumerians were polytheistic, and it's quite possible our early ancestors may have also been polytheistic. However, they are used exclusively as a monotheistic reference in Torah.


So are Christians and Jews worshiping the same god? Well, since they are both intending to worship the creator, they both intend to. As Augustine and Aquinas pointed out, if you acknowledge a supreme being as creator and worship him, then there's only one available, so to speak! But if the Jews are worshiping the god who regards them as "his people", then that does complicate the issue. In Roman times, Marcion compiled a table of contrasting quotations from the OT and NT, to show that one promoted a "just god" but the other a "good god".

I think it's very obvious that Christians and Jews worship the same God.

I find it noteworthy that Jesus used the term Father, which was not used of Yahweh.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that God has different names in Hebrew, plus the fact that it was never interpreted as there being more than one god for us. If there were doubts, many other verses tend to verify that there's only one.

He also dismissed conversion to Judaism in his denunciation of the Pharisees, and said that Judaism was not the only way to heaven when he healed the centurions' son.

Jesus was operating as a Pharisee as was Paul. Nor does Judaism claim that somehow only Jews can go to heaven.

Needless to say, this view is controversial in traditional circles, although serious scholars have accepted for years that Judaism was created after Moses and Solomon.

Not exactly.

If one draws a line and says "Judaism started here", their line is arbitrary. For example, Abraham is called the "father of Judaism", largely because Torah credits him as being the first Jew who believed in one God, plus through God he established the Covenant for us that is observed by male circumcision on the eighth day after birth, and we are the only ones who have this as a requirement. Later, under Moses, we received the Law, all 613 of them, and we are the only people who try and observe them.

Judaism, like all other religions, was a "work in progress", therefore one simply cannot draw a line and say "Judaism started here". Names change, additions are made, people come and go, etc., but the basis of Judaism goes back far enough to the point whereas we lose it in antiquity.

Welcome to the forums here, btw, and I look forward to seeing more of your posts.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your input, it was very helpful to me personally. Also some translate the word for God in Genesis as plural, "Gods". Does that have any possible part in what you have presented?
Thank you: it's nice to feel appreciated. When I said similar thing on a pagan forum, I was denounced as anti-semitic :confused:

The Hebrew word for god was originally just El, plural Elim. The form Elohim is a bit of a mystery. It can be used for God or gods. The verb used with it could be plural or singular, but that doesn't prove much: not many English speakers make the distinction between "the cabinet is divided" and "the cabinet are united". Reading too much into a single word is a risky business!
 

loverOfTruth

Well-Known Member
Thank you, but please note that the words, "Least in Heaven." You can break those commandments and still go to Heaven. The only sin that is truely fatal is to sin against the Holy Spirit. Everything else seems to be just a matter of sorting things out. At least until you come to the NT book "Revelation" which as far as I am conserned is not about the Father of Lord Jesus which means that what it is saying is not going to happen. Pieces of it might, but not the whole thing.

But it still says that Jesus(pbuh) did not come to abolish the law(like you or most Christians suggest) and it still says you are not supposed to break even the least of it. In that case, I would assume that most of the Christians who doesn't care about the laws/commandments are just shooting for the lowest status in heaven ... and those who follow the laws will have a higher status with God in heaven ;-) - just a reality check.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thank you: it's nice to feel appreciated. When I said similar thing on a pagan forum, I was denounced as anti-semitic :confused:

The Hebrew word for god was originally just El, plural Elim. The form Elohim is a bit of a mystery. It can be used for God or gods. The verb used with it could be plural or singular, but that doesn't prove much: not many English speakers make the distinction between "the cabinet is divided" and "the cabinet are united". Reading too much into a single word is a risky business!

And let me mention that all the adjectives and modifiers used in conjunction with "Eloheim" are singular in form. Traditionally in Judaism, there's been a tendency to believe that it may refer to God working in conjunction with the angels being why the plural may have been used.

BTW, I have never seen the name "Elim" before, so can you point to where you found this? One of the names of one of the Sumerian gods was "El", as you say above, but I have never seen that name being used in reference to more than one god.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
BTW, I have never seen the name "Elim" before, so can you point to where you found this?

M -

You're sure you've been going to services?

Think Exodus, my friend, think the sea. Moses and the Israelites raise their voices and sing -

מי כמכה באלם - Mi kamocha b'elim Adonai.....

You really should try to get there before the oneg.

Shabbat shalom.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
M -

You're sure you've been going to services?

Think Exodus, my friend, think the sea. Moses and the Israelites raise their voices and sing -

מי כמכה באלם - Mi kamocha b'elim Adonai.....

You really should try to get there before the oneg.

Shabbat shalom.


Which verse is that in 15?



*
 

mystic64

nolonger active
But it still says that Jesus(pbuh) did not come to abolish the law(like you or most Christians suggest) and it still says you are not supposed to break even the least of it. In that case, I would assume that most of the Christians who doesn't care about the laws/commandments are just shooting for the lowest status in heaven ... and those who follow the laws will have a higher status with God in heaven ;-) - just a reality check.

Sir, I think He said that He came to replace the old law which creates a bit of conflict relative to the Christian beliefs (of course others may disagree with me :) ) because, "What does it mean to replace the old law?" The true foundation for Christian beliefs are the recorded words of Lord Jesus and the eye witness testimonies of those that were present with Him at the time. Without the recorded words and eye witness acounts contained in Christian scripture there wouldn't be any Christianity. There would only be Jewish and Islam of those three religions. Now if one looks at the recorded words of Lord Jesus in the NT of Christian scripture one finds that the words of Lord Jesus are totally out of sinc with the beliefs of the old testament beliefs of the Jewish faith. What Jesus was saying is totally different than what the old testament was saying. One, the Jewish faith does not believe in life after death and only a very rare few are invited to ascend into Heaven. With Jesus everybody gets to go unless they sin against the Holy Spirit (whatever that means). And Lord Jesus went ahead to prepare a place for those that are going to Heaven.

About not breaking the old laws: Jesus said that slaves should obey their masters and to give to Rome that which is Rome's, so of course He would say that one should obey the Old Testament commandments. Jesus' words were not about this world other than love and forgiveness, His words were about becoming an adopted child of our Father that is in Heaven and joining His Heavenly family. There is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament that says anything about one being able to become an adopted child of the Heavenly Father (who Jesus claims as His Father) and joining His Heavenly family.

Lord Jesus has given a gift that a lot of Christianity is changing into something else and that something else is chasing folks away from that gift. They do not teach the love and forgiveness that Lord Jesus taught. Instead they are teaching the fear that is contained in the Old Testament (yes the Old Testement has love in it but mostly it is about fearing a jealous God and the wrath of that God). Some even clain that Lord Jesus is the Son of that God and that if you do not follow Lord Jesus in precisely the way that they think it should be done that you are going to burn in Hell for eternity because of the wrath of that God. There is not any love and forgiveness and allowance for ignorance in their Christianity, and their Christianity was not what Lord Jesus was teaching. Their Christianity is Old Testament not New Testament.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
BTW, I have never seen the name "Elim" before, so can you point to where you found this? One of the names of one of the Sumerian gods was "El", as you say above, but I have never seen that name being used in reference to more than one god.
The early Canaanite word for God (or god) was Ilu, which became El in later languages like Hebrew. It occurs in placenames and personal names, like Bethel "house of god". The natural plural of el would be elim. It's not attested in the Bible as far as I know, being replaced by the mysterious derivative Elohim, just as the Koran replaces it by Allah. Actually, I think the -oh- and -ah may be the same suffix!

It is of course correct to say Elohim is usually taken as singular. For the plural one has bene elohim "sons of god(s)". That's a common Semitic idiom for making generic references: "sons of fishermen" would mean fishermen taken as a class, as opposed to one particular group of them.

BTW El is not Sumerian.
 
After a lifetime of reading the Protestant Christian version of the Bible it has come to my mind that the Father that Lord Jesus was talking about is not the same God that most Christians are worshiping. Most Christians are worshiping the God of the Old Testament and not the Father of Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus said that He came to replace the Old Law and that the new commandments were to love the Father and one's neighbor. He also said that the only sin that can not be forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Lord Jesus also claimed that His Father was a loving entity. The God of the Old Testament is not a loving and forgiving entity and seems to be pretty fussy about things.

Christians for the most part seem to be worshiping the God of the Old Testament and not the Father of Jesus. On one hand the Christian God is a loving entity because Lord Jesus said so and on the other hand He is a monster that does not fit the discription that Lord Jesus gave of His Father. Either the old God changed because of Lord Jesus or the Father of Jesus is not the same God as the old God. Either way most of Christianity seems to have gone back to the old God and away from the Father of Lord Jesus.

?
Even as a revert to Catholicism, I'm still more inclined to view God as
being closer to the Krishnaic concept, rather than the traditional
Christian image of what can, at times, come across as Santa Claus's
angry twin brother. :)

I can easily see Jesus being influenced by God as He is portrayed in the
Bhagavad Gita as opposed to God as He's portrayed in parts of the
Bible. Temperamentally, Jesus seems to have more in common with
Krishna, imo.

God as "Santa's angry brother":
iridescence-albums-rf-specific-graphics-picture5009-angry.png



God as Love:
iridescence-albums-rf-specific-graphics-picture5010-notangry.png


Heretical, perhaps, but there ya go. :D


-
 

muziko

Member
Even as a revert to Catholicism, I'm still more inclined to view God as
being closer to the Krishnaic concept, rather than the traditional
Christian image of what can, at times, come across as Santa Claus's
angry twin brother. :)

I actually agree with you, so you're not alone.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Even as a revert to Catholicism, I'm still more inclined to view God as
being closer to the Krishnaic concept, rather than the traditional
Christian image of what can, at times, come across as Santa Claus's
angry twin brother. :)

I can easily see Jesus being influenced by God as He is portrayed in the
Bhagavad Gita as opposed to God as He's portrayed in parts of the
Bible. Temperamentally, Jesus seems to have more in common with
Krishna, imo.

God as "Santa's angry brother":
iridescence-albums-rf-specific-graphics-picture5009-angry.png



God as Love:
iridescence-albums-rf-specific-graphics-picture5010-notangry.png


Heretical, perhaps, but there ya go. :D


-

The introduction of Lord Krishna into this topic is an interesting side bar :) . Lord Krishna is suppose to be an incarnation of God, but not Brahma the Creator. And it is said that Lord Jesus visited India and that some of the Hindu religious scripture is based on His words :) . Also some folks claim that two of the lost tribes of Israel ended up in northern India. Which is interesting because the introduction of Brahma the Creator and Brahman the Creator's spirit originated in Northern India. And there are some simularities betwen the religious structure of the Brahman's and the old testament Jewish religious structure.

Back in my early twenties I became interested in studying the Hindu concept of becoming yoked (yoga) to God (with the understanding that you can actually yoke yourself to anything). The reason I did this was because a lot of Christians back then were leaving Christianity and going to some of the different yoga traditions to explore a closer relationship with God. The word was that you had to have a master to study this yoga stuff and none were available to me so I went to Jesus, because He was already my master and some of the yogi folk cliamed the Jesus knew about the yogi stuff, and asked Him to teach me about the yoga stuff and the "yoked to God" experience. Forty years and thousands of hours of meditation later I have a pretty good grasp of the yogi stuff and the "yoked to God" experience. And about twelve years ago I was intrduced to Lord Shiva and he and I are very close friends. Anyway to make a long story short, Lord Jesus, in the New Testament, was also teaching the "yoked to God" experience. "I am in the Father, the Father is in Me, and I am in you." "This is My body and this is My blood, eat and drink them." The yoked to God experience starts with one being consciously indwelt by the presence of God or one being consciously indwelt by the presence of one who is indwelt by the presence of God.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The early Canaanite word for God (or god) was Ilu, which became El in later languages like Hebrew. It occurs in placenames and personal names, like Bethel "house of god". The natural plural of el would be elim. It's not attested in the Bible as far as I know, being replaced by the mysterious derivative Elohim, just as the Koran replaces it by Allah. Actually, I think the -oh- and -ah may be the same suffix!

It is of course correct to say Elohim is usually taken as singular. For the plural one has bene elohim "sons of god(s)". That's a common Semitic idiom for making generic references: "sons of fishermen" would mean fishermen taken as a class, as opposed to one particular group of them.

BTW El is not Sumerian.

Actually it means "lord" in the Sumerian language and is sometimes combine with different suffixes, such as with "Ellil": Mesopotamian Gods Table
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Footnote:

Also relative to some of the versions of the Hindu religion, Lord Krishna is the incarnation of the Hindu god Lord Vishnu and the god Lord Shiva still resides on Earth in a living body (he is also reputed to be the king of yogis and an immortal who has a lot of god like abilities). Based on my experience with him, he is an immortal and does have a lot of god like abilities, but he is not actually a god. He is a mortal with an extremely long lifespan and he has chosen to not ascend until most of everybody can. Now what is interesting about this is that the followers of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva study how physical immortality and extended lifespans and ascension are accomplished. The reason that this is intresting is that Lord Jesus is quoted to have said that those who follow Him will not taste death and that some of them will still be alive until He returns, which creates the possibility that there are some folks living on this planet that are over two thousand years old and they for some reason are being very quiet about it :) .

I have studied both the Lord Vishnu version and the Lord Shiva version (neither one are Raja Yoga which includes the raising of the male kundalini as a golden snake, which I have also done just to see what it was all about) and for all practical purposes they are the same (and neither raise the male kudalini or promote the doing of it). When these Hindu versions are compared with Lord Jesus' version, Lord Jesus' version is an extreme short cut. With the Hindu versions you have to go through a whole bunch of stuff before you are pure enough to become a vessel for the presence of God. With Lord Jesus you just allow consciously the presence of Lord Jesus to indwell you and His purity allows the presence of His Father to indwell you also. And over time this Divine Presence changes you because you become what you channel.

So anyway, there is not anyway to recieve the indwelling of the the Divine Presence in the Old Testament or in the true Brahman tradition which has an Old Testament quality to it. That possible state of being is not in the religious traditions that worship "God the Creator".

?
 
Last edited:
Top