Should Christ be worshipped?

[ErikErik]

As a Mormon, I'm not a trinitarian Christian. I do, however, believe that Jesus Christ should be worshipped. He is, after all, the Son of God and our Savior. If that's not reason enough to worship Him, I don't know what would be.

But doesn't this pose a problem for the lds to say they worship Christ, since it would mean they worship more than one god?

 

[ErikErik]

so in reference to the Messiah Jesus the word obesiance is the correct usage not worship. .

This sounds so Jehovah's Witness.

 

[haribol]

Worshipping God is a primitive mindset. God is our own image and we are worshipping our own egos through Gods. Let us feel the presence of God unbiblical and un-mythological. God is consciousness and our realization of our own reality and the reality of the universe we are in. Worshipping God is a primitive human temperament and in fact it is born of fear. And it belittles us into ignominious beings. Let us learn to recognize our larger selves, something divine and lofty

 

[Katzpur]

But doesn't this pose a problem for the lds to say they worship Christ, since it would mean they worship more than one god?

It seems to be a problem for Trinitarian Christians who want to nit-pick over our choice of words, but it's not a problem for us, since we know that in worshipping the Son, we are also worshipping the Father. We believe that even though the Father and the Son are separate beings, they are perfectly united as "one God" in will, purpose, mind, heart, power, glory, love, etc. Their unity is absolute. It would be impossible to worship one of them without worshipping the other.

 

[ErikErik]

It seems to be a problem for Trinitarian Christians who want to nit-pick over our choice of words, but it's not a problem for us, since we know that in worshipping the Son, we are also worshipping the Father. We believe that even though the Father and the Son are separate beings, they are perfectly united as "one God" in will, purpose, mind, heart, power, glory, love, etc. Their unity is absolute. It would be impossible to worship one of them without worshipping the other.

Ok, this is where I am confused. Does Mormonism teach that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ started out as men like us and then through obedience had progressed to godhood? If so, then wouldn't this make Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ 2 separate gods?

 

[kjw47]

This sounds so Jehovah's Witness.

Yes it is, because its truth. In order for Gods written word to remain in harmony, obesiance is the correct usage of the greek word proskenaeu. Because its the Father who is seeking the such to worship him( singular) in spirit and truth. Gods word never taught that Jesus was seeking worship, but Jesus did teach that truth about his God and Father.

 

[Katzpur]

Ok, this is where I am confused. Does Mormonism teach that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ started out as men like us and then through obedience had progressed to godhood? If so, then wouldn't this make Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ 2 separate gods?

Judging from the way you've asked both of your questions so far, I'm going to assume that you are sincere in wanting to understand LDS doctrine, as opposed to just picking it apart. I appreciate that. I'll try to respond with an answer that is sufficiently comprehensive enough that you won't think I'm simply sidestepping the issue but which still qualifies as official LDS doctrine and not as merely speculation or conjecture.

Like all Christians, we believe what the Bible says on the subject (in John 1:1): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If I were to try to clarify this statement, I'd say, "In the beginning was the Word (known throughout His mortal ministry as Jesus Christ). The Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) was with God (i.e. with God, the Father, since the word "with" is a conjunction linking two things). The Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) was God (like His Father, Jesus Christ is known to us as "God."). The fact that John 1:1 says, "the word was with God" is evidence of the existence of two individuals separate individuals. Furthermore, if there is a Father and a Son, they cannot both be the same individual. Of course, I've heard people say, "Well, I'm both a son and a father." Yes, but no one is a son to himself or a father to himself. Two individuals have to exist in order for there to exist a father-son relationship between them.

John 10:30 says that the Father and the Son are "one." It does not say that they are numerically a single unit. And John 7:11 clarifies exactly what Jesus meant when He said they are "one." It states, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." I don't believe that Jesus was praying that we may all someday be absorbed into the substance we call God, or that we will lose our own identities and become part of God. It seems so obvious to me that Jesus was not talking of "one" as a number designating a single unit, but of "one" as describing a unity that is perfect and absolute.

There are numerous instances where the word "one" is found in the scriptures denoting a unity which is not physical:

Exodus 24:3 says, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

2 Corinthians 13:11 says, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

Acts 4:32 states, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

In every one of these instances, the word "one" denotes unity, and I would say that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are of "one mind." That doesn't mean that they are two individuals who share a mind, but that they are fully united in their thinking, in their desires for mankind. I think it's worth noting, too, that there is one instance in the Bible that makes it absolutely clear that we are talking about two distinct individuals. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed to His Father that "the bitter cup" might be removed from Him. But He specifically said, "Not my will, but thine be done." Clearly, there were, at that moment, two separate wills -- the Father's and the Son's. But the Son gave up His will so that His Father's will would be done.

With respect to the idea that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ started out as men like us and then through obedience had progressed to godhood, we know, again from John 1:1, that Jesus Christ was known as "God" in the beginning. We do not teach that He became God at the time of His conception, His birth, His baptism, His death or His resurrection, but that He was God in the beginning. We teach that, under His Father's direction, He created our universe. If that was the case, He had to pre-exist it.

Regarding God the Father's beginnings, we have no official doctrine. Some of our leaders have taught that, like Jesus Christ, He once lived a mortal life on a world such as ours. These teachings, however, have never been canonized and are not doctrinally binding upon members of the Church. For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that He did. To begin with, this (i.e. God the Father's life as a mortal being) would have had to take place before "the beginning," before the clock started ticking, so to speak. How do we know this? Well, we know that God definitely did exist prior to the time the Bible refers to as "the beginning." We also know that the Bible is completely silent about God's existence prior to "the beginning." Thus, "the beginning" refers not to God's existence but to the existence of our universe and everything in it. Secondly, if Jesus Christ was God before He was born, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that -- if God the Father ever did have a mortal existence -- He, like His Son, would not have "progressed to godhood" but would have been God prior to His own condescension.

Again, though, I wish to both emphasize and summarize as follows:

1. Jesus Christ was every bit as much "God" prior to His birth as He was during His mortal life and as He is today.
2. God the Father may have fulfilled a similar role to that which His Son fulfilled in a time prior to "the beginning" but we have no official doctrine on the subject.

I'm not sure whether or not you believe the Athanasian Creed, but if you do, you will be familiar with these two statements: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God." If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all "God" but only one God and not three, then either there is a contradiction between the two statements, or else further clarification is needed. I'd say it would be reasonably accurate in the minds of Latter-day Saints to say, "The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. And these three comprise one Godhead (Godhead being a collective noun, such as "team.")

I hope this helps some. Sorry that it was so long.

 

[ErikErik]

Like all Christians, we believe what the Bible says on the subject (in John 1:1): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If I were to try to clarify this statement, I'd say, "In the beginning was the Word (known throughout His mortal ministry as Jesus Christ). The Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) was with God (i.e. with God, the Father, since the word "with" is a conjunction linking two things). The Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) was God (like His Father, Jesus Christ is known to us as "God."). The fact that John 1:1 says, "the word was with God" is evidence of the existence of two individuals separate individuals. Furthermore, if there is a Father and a Son, they cannot both be the same individual. Of course, I've heard people say, "Well, I'm both a son and a father." Yes, but no one is a son to himself or a father to himself. Two individuals have to exist in order for there to exist a father-son relationship between them.


I hope this helps some. Sorry that it was so long.

John 1:14 tells us that Jesus was ALREADY the word by the time he became flesh. Who was it that became flesh to dwell among us? the only begotten of the Father. Jesus existed in the beginning with God, and not just existing with God, but Jesus was God in the beginning! He is still God today. This is monotheism.

In Isaiah 44:6, God the Father said:
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

In Rev, 22:13 Jesus Christ said: ” I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

How is it that both God the Father and Jesus Christ (God the Son) can be the first and the last? This is only possible because Jesus is God. Remember “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Both are God, both are one being, one deity, even though they are individual. To make them separate gods would be polytheism.

 

[ErikErik]

Yes it is, because its truth. In order for Gods written word to remain in harmony, obesiance is the correct usage of the greek word proskenaeu. Because its the Father who is seeking the such to worship him( singular) in spirit and truth. Gods word never taught that Jesus was seeking worship, but Jesus did teach that truth about his God and Father.

But God's written word does remain in harmony with God the Father and God the Son being the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending. I am familiar with the NWT. John 1 was changed to make Jesus into "a god."

Christ, during his earthy ministry, did not SEEK worship because he came as a suffering servant to die for the sins of the world. Yet he NEVER forbade or rebuked anyone from worshiping him. The Holy Bible tells us that in the end every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Christ as LORD. It is Jesus Christ, who will be the Judge at the Great White Throne Judgment. Jesus said: "Unless you believe I AM he, you will die in your sins.

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps I better start by reiterating the final statement of my prior post, which was:

Jesus Christ was every bit as much "God" prior to His birth as He was during His mortal life and as He is today.

John 1:14 tells us that Jesus was ALREADY the word by the time he became flesh.

That's what I just got through saying.

Who was it that became flesh to dwell among us? the only begotten of the Father.

That's what I said, too, so it appears we agree again.

Jesus existed in the beginning with God, and not just existing with God, but Jesus was God in the beginning! He is still God today. This is monotheism.

And again, that's exactly what I said!

In Isaiah 44:6, God the Father said:
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

In Rev, 22:13 Jesus Christ said: ” I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

How is it that both God the Father and Jesus Christ (God the Son) can be the first and the last? This is only possible because Jesus is God.

Actually, I believe that Isaiah 44:6 was referring to the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. But again, I agree; even before His birth, Jesus Christ was God.

You appear to have merely glossed over my post and not really put much effort into understanding it. I know I explained the LDS perspective very well, and I trust you are capable of understanding it if you really want to.

Remember “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Both are God, both are one being, one deity, even though they are individual. To make them separate gods would be polytheism.

So maybe you could explain what the difference is between a "being" and an "individual."

I've already agreed that they are "one God." As a matter of fact, even the Book of Mormon teaches this: "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end." (Mormon 7:7)

 

[ErikErik]

Perhaps I better start by reiterating the final statement of my prior post, which was:


That's what I just got through saying.

That's what I said, too, so it appears we agree again.

And again, that's exactly what I said!

Actually, I believe that Isaiah 44:6 was referring to the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. But again, I agree; even before His birth, Jesus Christ was God.

You appear to have merely glossed over my post and not really put much effort into understanding it. I know I explained the LDS perspective very well, and I trust you are capable of understanding it if you really want to.

So maybe you could explain what the difference is between a "being" and an "individual."

I've already agreed that they are "one God." As a matter of fact, even the Book of Mormon teaches this: "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end." (Mormon 7:7)

You have not addressed the lds teaching that Heavenly Father was once a man who had to work out his own salvation to become who he is now. Nor have you addressed the lds teaching that there are zillions of gods on other planets and that the lds believe they are gods in embryo. It only seems we agree because you have thus far discussed only the milk of Mormonism. Nor have you addressed a very old lds belief that Jesus was married and had fathered children. I really don't think it's fair to deny others the meat of Mormonism. I believe in the Biblical Jesus.

You said in a previous post that you were willing to discuss these things with me because I was not attacking. Have you ever considered how Christians feel when the lds church says they alone have all the truth and the rest of us only have some? Since Christianity has never been lost, how can you restore something that has never been lost?

I think it's time to be honest and tell us what the lds church really teaches. I am NOT attacking, I just am tired of the dishonesty. I wish you well.

 

[Katzpur]

You have not addressed the lds teaching that Heavenly Father was once a man who had to work out his own salvation to become who he is now.

Yes, I did. You apparently didn't bother reading it, though. Here's what I said:

Regarding God the Father's beginnings, we have no official doctrine. Some of our leaders have taught that, like Jesus Christ, He once lived a mortal life on a world such as ours. These teachings, however, have never been canonized and are not doctrinally binding upon members of the Church. For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that He did. To begin with, this (i.e. God the Father's life as a mortal being) would have had to take place before "the beginning," before the clock started ticking, so to speak. How do we know this? Well, we know that God definitely did exist prior to the time the Bible refers to as "the beginning." We also know that the Bible is completely silent about God's existence prior to "the beginning." Thus, "the beginning" refers not to God's existence but to the existence of our universe and everything in it.... God the Father may have fulfilled a similar role to that which His Son fulfilled in a time prior to "the beginning" but we have no official doctrine on the subject.

Nor have you addressed the lds teaching that there are zillions of gods on other planets and that the lds believe they are gods in embryo.

Why should I have addressed points you never asked about? Am I supposed to be a mind-reader? FYI, I don't know where you're coming up with this stuff, but it's definitely not in any of the LDS Standard Works, which contain all of our doctrines. These, for your information, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

It only seems we agree because you have thus far discussed only the milk of Mormonism.

We've discussed every issue you've raised.

Nor have you addressed a very old lds belief that Jesus was married and had fathered children.

Why should I have addressed a topic which (a) is not LDS doctrine, (b) has nothing to do with the question posed in the OP, and (c) which you never even mentioned until now?

I really don't think it's fair to deny others the meat of Mormonism.

I haven't denied anybody anything. I've answered all of your questions honestly and thoroughly. You'll have to excuse me for not second-guessing what else you wanted me to comment on.

I believe in the Biblical Jesus.

So do I.

You said in a previous post that you were willing to discuss these things with me because I was not attacking.

Yes, but clearly I was wrong. I obviously failed to see initially what I can plainly see right now.

Have you ever considered how Christians feel when the lds church says they alone have all the truth and the rest of us only have some?

How much truth do you believe you have? How much do you believe I have? Incidentally, we Mormons don't believe we have "all the truth" yet as we believe there is a great deal God has not yet revealed. But it stands to reason that if different denominations are all teaching different things, they can't all be completely true.

Since Christianity has never been lost, how can you restore something that has never been lost?

This is so completely off-topic that I'm not going to even respond to it. If you'd like to discuss the subject, start a new thread. Oh, and by the way, you might consider reading the forum rules before you get too awfully wound up. There is to be no debating in the DIR forums.

I think it's time to be honest and tell us what the lds church really teaches. I am NOT attacking, I just am tired of the dishonesty.

Of course you're not attacking. You're just accusing me of being dishonest. I haven't a clue what you believe I have been dishonest about. I have been entirely honest and forthright in every one of my responses. Last I checked, the bearing false witness against someone is breaking one of God's Ten Commandments.

I wish you well.

Oh yeah, that's really obvious.

One last thing, Erik... I noticed that nowhere in your post (in which you accused me of not addressing numerous issues you hadn't even mentioned previously) did you bother answering the one question I asked you in my last post. It was: Please explain what the difference is between a "being" and an "individual."

 

[kjw47]

But God's written word does remain in harmony with God the Father and God the Son being the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending. I am familiar with the NWT. John 1 was changed to make Jesus into "a god."

Christ, during his earthy ministry, did not SEEK worship because he came as a suffering servant to die for the sins of the world. Yet he NEVER forbade or rebuked anyone from worshiping him. The Holy Bible tells us that in the end every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Christ as LORD. It is Jesus Christ, who will be the Judge at the Great White Throne Judgment. Jesus said: "Unless you believe I AM he, you will die in your sins.

Yes believe he is the messiah--The one sent forth from God, Yes every knee shall bow to their king in obesiance. We also find at 1 cor 15:24-28--- When Jesus hands back the kingdom( kingship) to his God and Father, Jesus becomes a subject--Proving no equality.

 

[ErikErik]

Yes believe he is the messiah--The one sent forth from God, Yes every knee shall bow to their king in obesiance. We also find at 1 cor 15:24-28--- When Jesus hands back the kingdom( kingship) to his God and Father, Jesus becomes a subject--Proving no equality.

The Holy Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was and is forever God, (God the Son) and therefore fully equal to the Father in relation to his Deity. He then became a man at some point in time from the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christ’s subjection to the Father is due to having to lower himself and thus he had a nature which is inferior since Jesus he was human, as well as deity. It was necessary for him to become human in order to die for the sins of the world.

Jesus is God the Son, fully equal with God the Father in nature, substance, power, and authority. The Son is subordinate to the Father only in order or function. It's something like men and women being equal, yet the man is the head of his house. The man has a different function.

 

[Clear]

kjw said in post # 73 regarding Jesus : “ Yes believe he is the messiah--The one sent forth from God, Yes every knee shall bow to their king in obesiance. We also find at 1 cor 15:24-28--- When Jesus hands back the kingdom( kingship) to his God and Father, Jesus becomes a subject--Proving no equality. “


Erikerick replied in post #74 “The Holy Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was and is forever God, (God the Son) and therefore fully equal to the Father in relation to his Deity. He then became a man at some point in time from the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christ’s subjection to the Father is due to having to lower himself and thus he had a nature which is inferior since Jesus he was human, as well as deity. It was necessary for him to become human in order to die for the sins of the world. Jesus is God the Son, fully equal with God the Father in nature, substance, power, and authority. The Son is subordinate to the Father only in order or function. It's something like men and women being equal, yet the man is the head of his house. The man has a different function.”

I think that the difficulty in this specific point is that posters such as Katzpur and kjw are referring to the earlier historical Judao-Christian worldview where God the Father and the pre-mortal Jesus are different individuals whereas ErikErick is referring to the later theologian era theory of the Godhead. (of which the Nicene theory is a popular example)



The later Nicene Theory regarding the Godhead

The Christian theory which ErikErick describes was neither the earliest nor the orthodox Christian worldview described by the earliest Judao-Christians, but rather, ErikErik is referring to the later theory (such as the Nicene theory of the Godhead, developed in a later theologian-derived christian era.)



The earliest Judao-Christian Worldview regarding the Godhead

In the earliest Judao-Christian worldview, Jesus was a different individual from his Father. Thus In early Christianity, the new testament text referred to Jesus as the “only begotten God” as it says in John 1:18 (grk) (“…ομονογενηςθεος.) whereas, God the Father was not a “begotten God” in this sense. John's distinction that Jesus was a "begotten God" was not the only important distinguishing characteristic between these individuals.

In the early Judao-Christian worldview, the Son was not omnipotent as was the father. The son obtained his authority from the father whereas in early Christianity, the Father was the source of all authority. The Son was subservient to the Father, whereas the Father had all authority and gave to the son a degree of the Fathers’ authority. The Son was given the co-mission (commission) of the Father and co-operated (cooperated) with the Father, in the Fathers plan to educate the pre-existent spirits of men in the early Judao-christian worldview. Ascension literature describe two individuals very clearly, as well as their relationship as individuals. Decensus literature, early christian prayers, their mishnas, their early hymns, etc. contain descriptions of them as individuals. It is only the later literature, in the age of theologians that begin to interpret the 3 individuals in the Godhead as somehow being 1 individual.



Speculative motives for the Origin of the Nicene Theory

Period scholars have discussed origins and motives as to why the original orthodox worldview of the Godhead as individuals (i.e. “3” individuals” equals “3” individuals) became less popular and what motivated the development of the later “Nicene Theory” for a Godhead (i.e. “3” individuals equals “1” individual).

One wonders if the pressures on early Christianity to combat the complaints of Chrisitan Polytheism by Jews and other religions was one of the reasons for the shift in popularity away from the early Judao-Christian Godhead (3 individuals = 3 individuals) to the theologian derived Nicene Theory (“3” individuals = “1” individual)



The Nicene Theory did not relieve doctrinal pressures nor create a sufficiently clear theory

Though I believe the motives underlying the development of the “Nicene theory” were more complex than this, the development of this theory does not relieve the ongoing complaint of “Polytheism” by other religions as they view the Christian Claim. For example, Islam continues to point out that Christianity is a polytheistic religion in that it encourages the worship of Jesus as a God as well as the worship of the Lord God (allah).

This same conceptual difficulty exists for other religions as they attempt to understand the Nicene theory of the Christian Godhead. It is very, very difficult for many non-christian religions to conceptualize how the Nicene theory can claim that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that means that there is one God rather than meaning that there are three Gods.

It doesn’t help when they see that, even the Christians themselves are confused by the Nicene theory, which is not well explained and controversies and debates as to the nature of the Godhead continue even within Christianity itself. Other religions also see this on-going Christian debate regarding the Nicene Theory and remained baffled.

Thus, in their eyes, the Nicene Theory continues to be a form of Polytheism (a “monotheistic polytheism” or a “polytheistic monotheism&#8221. If the Nicene theory was developed to relieve early Judao-christianity from the complaint of Polytheism, it hasn’t worked. I think that the development of the Nicene Theory by the theologians created as many problems as it was intended to solve.

One of Christianities greatest conceptual hurdles has been its’ claim that a man (Jesus) could be a God. If one motive for development and adoption of the Nicene Theory was to make this Christian claim more easy to understand and accept, then adopting the nicene theory does not seem to have improved clarification of nor acceptance of this Christian claim either, as it may have been intended to do.

Clear
fuseacviiu

 

[ErikErik]

kjw said in post # 73 regarding Jesus : “ Yes believe he is the messiah--The one sent forth from God, Yes every knee shall bow to their king in obesiance. We also find at 1 cor 15:24-28--- When Jesus hands back the kingdom( kingship) to his God and Father, Jesus becomes a subject--Proving no equality. “


Erikerick replied in post #74 “The Holy Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was and is forever God, (God the Son) and therefore fully equal to the Father in relation to his Deity. He then became a man at some point in time from the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christ’s subjection to the Father is due to having to lower himself and thus he had a nature which is inferior since Jesus he was human, as well as deity. It was necessary for him to become human in order to die for the sins of the world. Jesus is God the Son, fully equal with God the Father in nature, substance, power, and authority. The Son is subordinate to the Father only in order or function. It's something like men and women being equal, yet the man is the head of his house. The man has a different function.”

I think that the difficulty in this specific point is that posters such as Katzpur and kjw are referring to the earlier historical Judao-Christian worldview where God the Father and the pre-mortal Jesus are different individuals whereas ErikErick is referring to the later theologian era theory of the Godhead. (of which the Nicene theory is a popular example)



The later Nicene Theory regarding the Godhead

The Christian theory which ErikErick describes was neither the earliest nor the orthodox Christian worldview described by the earliest Judao-Christians, but rather, ErikErik is referring to the later theory (such as the Nicene theory of the Godhead, developed in a later theologian-derived christian era.)



The earliest Judao-Christian Worldview regarding the Godhead

In the earliest Judao-Christian worldview, Jesus was a different individual from his Father. Thus In early Christianity, the new testament text referred to Jesus as the “only begotten God” as it says in John 1:18 (grk) (“…ομονογενηςθεος.) whereas, God the Father was not a “begotten God” in this sense. John's distinction that Jesus was a "begotten God" was not the only important distinguishing characteristic between these individuals.

In the early Judao-Christian worldview, the Son was not omnipotent as was the father. The son obtained his authority from the father whereas in early Christianity, the Father was the source of all authority. The Son was subservient to the Father, whereas the Father had all authority and gave to the son a degree of the Fathers’ authority. The Son was given the co-mission (commission) of the Father and co-operated (cooperated) with the Father, in the Fathers plan to educate the pre-existent spirits of men in the early Judao-christian worldview. Ascension literature describe two individuals very clearly, as well as their relationship as individuals. Decensus literature, early christian prayers, their mishnas, their early hymns, etc. contain descriptions of them as individuals. It is only the later literature, in the age of theologians that begin to interpret the 3 individuals in the Godhead as somehow being 1 individual.



Speculative motives for the Origin of the Nicene Theory

Period scholars have discussed origins and motives as to why the original orthodox worldview of the Godhead as individuals (i.e. “3” individuals” equals “3” individuals) became less popular and what motivated the development of the later “Nicene Theory” for a Godhead (i.e. “3” individuals equals “1” individual).

One wonders if the pressures on early Christianity to combat the complaints of Chrisitan Polytheism by Jews and other religions was one of the reasons for the shift in popularity away from the early Judao-Christian Godhead (3 individuals = 3 individuals) to the theologian derived Nicene Theory (“3” individuals = “1” individual)



The Nicene Theory did not relieve doctrinal pressures nor create a sufficiently clear theory

Though I believe the motives underlying the development of the “Nicene theory” were more complex than this, the development of this theory does not relieve the ongoing complaint of “Polytheism” by other religions as they view the Christian Claim. For example, Islam continues to point out that Christianity is a polytheistic religion in that it encourages the worship of Jesus as a God as well as the worship of the Lord God (allah).

This same conceptual difficulty exists for other religions as they attempt to understand the Nicene theory of the Christian Godhead. It is very, very difficult for many non-christian religions to conceptualize how the Nicene theory can claim that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that means that there is one God rather than meaning that there are three Gods.

It doesn’t help when they see that, even the Christians themselves are confused by the Nicene theory, which is not well explained and controversies and debates as to the nature of the Godhead continue even within Christianity itself. Other religions also see this on-going Christian debate regarding the Nicene Theory and remained baffled.

Thus, in their eyes, the Nicene Theory continues to be a form of Polytheism (a “monotheistic polytheism” or a “polytheistic monotheism”). If the Nicene theory was developed to relieve early Judao-christianity from the complaint of Polytheism, it hasn’t worked. I think that the development of the Nicene Theory by the theologians created as many problems as it was intended to solve.

One of Christianities greatest conceptual hurdles has been its’ claim that a man (Jesus) could be a God. If one motive for development and adoption of the Nicene Theory was to make this Christian claim more easy to understand and accept, then adopting the nicene theory does not seem to have improved clarification of nor acceptance of this Christian claim either, as it may have been intended to do.

Clear
fuseacviiu

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism were founded in the 1800's. The 1st century Christians never taught some of the things that these two religious groups teach.

The Trinity is not confusing to those who are spiritually born again.

 

[Katzpur]

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism were founded in the 1800's. The 1st century Christians never taught some of the things that these two religious groups teach.

Spoken with the arrogance of limited information. How little you must know to make a statement like that.

The Trinity is not confusing to those who are spiritually born again.

And yet you won't haven't even attempted to answer my question concerning the difference between a "being" and an "individual." For someone like yourself who has been "spritually born again," I would think that such a question would be easy. It was the only question I actually asked you; I thought I'd start with an easy one, and look where it got me.

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]post one of five
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]kjw[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 73 regarding Jesus : “ Yes believe he is the messiah--The one sent forth from God, Yes every knee shall bow to their king in obesiance. We also find at 1 cor 15:24-28--- When Jesus hands back the kingdom( kingship) to his God and Father, Jesus becomes a subject--Proving no equality. “


ErikErick replied in post #74 “The Holy Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was and is forever God, (God the Son) and therefore fully equal to the Father in relation to his Deity. He then became a man at some point in time from the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christ’s subjection to the Father is due to having to lower himself and thus he had a nature which is inferior since Jesus he was human, as well as deity. It was necessary for him to become human in order to die for the sins of the world. Jesus is God the Son, fully equal with God the Father in nature, substance, power, and authority. The Son is subordinate to the Father only in order or function. It's something like men and women being equal, yet the man is the head of his house. The man has a different function.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] explained in post #75 : I think that the difficulty in this specific point is that posters such as Katzpur and kjw are referring to the earlier historical Judao-Christian worldview where God the Father and the pre-mortal Jesus are different individuals whereas ErikErick is referring to the later theologian era theory of the Godhead. (of which the Nicene theory is a popular example)

The later Nicene Theory regarding the Godhead
The Christian theory which ErikErick describes was neither the earliest nor the orthodox Christian worldview described by the earliest Judao-Christians, but rather, ErikErik is referring to the later theory (such as the Nicene theory of the Godhead, developed in a later theologian-derived christian era.)

The earliest Judao-Christian Worldview regarding the Godhead
In the earliest Judao-Christian worldview, Jesus was a different individual from his Father. Thus In early Christianity, the new testament text referred to Jesus as the “only begotten God” as it says in John 1:18 (grk) (“…ομονογενηςθεος.) whereas, God the Father was not a “begotten God” in this sense. John's distinction that Jesus was a "begotten God" was not the only important distinguishing characteristic between these individuals.

In the early Judao-Christian worldview, the Son was not omnipotent as was the father. The son obtained his authority from the father whereas in early Christianity, the Father was the source of all authority. The Son was subservient to the Father, whereas the Father had all authority and gave to the son a degree of the Fathers’ authority. The Son was given the co-mission (commission) of the Father and co-operated (cooperated) with the Father, in the Fathers plan to educate the pre-existent spirits of men in the early Judao-christian worldview. Ascension literature describe two individuals very clearly, as well as their relationship as individuals. Decensus literature, early christian prayers, their mishnas, their early hymns, etc. contain descriptions of them as individuals. It is only the later literature, in the age of theologians that begin to interpret the 3 individuals in the Godhead as somehow being 1 individual.

Speculative motives for the Origin of the Nicene Theory
Period scholars have discussed origins and motives as to why the original orthodox worldview of the Godhead as individuals (i.e. “3” individuals” equals “3” individuals) became less popular and what motivated the development of the later “Nicene Theory” for a Godhead (i.e. “3” individuals equals “1” individual).

One wonders if the pressures on early Christianity to combat the complaints of Chrisitan Polytheism by Jews and other religions was one of the reasons for the shift in popularity away from the early Judao-Christian Godhead (3 individuals = 3 individuals) to the theologian derived Nicene Theory (“3” individuals = “1” individual)

The Nicene Theory did not relieve doctrinal pressures nor create a sufficiently clear theory
Though I believe the motives underlying the development of the “Nicene theory” were more complex than this, the development of this theory does not relieve the ongoing complaint of “Polytheism” by other religions as they view the Christian Claim. For example, Islam continues to point out that Christianity is a polytheistic religion in that it encourages the worship of Jesus as a God as well as the worship of the Lord God (allah).

This same conceptual difficulty exists for other religions as they attempt to understand the Nicene theory of the Christian Godhead. It is very, very difficult for many non-christian religions to conceptualize how the Nicene theory can claim that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that means that there is one God rather than meaning that there are three Gods.

It doesn’t help when they see that, even the Christians themselves are confused by the Nicene theory, which is not well explained and controversies and debates as to the nature of the Godhead continue even within Christianity itself. Other religions also see this on-going Christian debate regarding the Nicene Theory and remained baffled.

Thus, in their eyes, the Nicene Theory continues to be a form of Polytheism (a “monotheistic polytheism” or a “polytheistic monotheism&#8221. If the Nicene theory was developed to relieve early Judao-christianity from the complaint of Polytheism, it hasn’t worked. I think that the development of the Nicene Theory by the theologians created as many problems as it was intended to solve.

One of Christianities greatest conceptual hurdles has been its’ claim that a man (Jesus) could be a God. If one motive for development and adoption of the Nicene Theory was to make this Christian claim more easy to understand and accept, then adopting the nicene theory does not seem to have improved clarification of nor acceptance of this Christian claim either, as it may have been intended to do.

Clear[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ErikErik[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] said in post #76 : “Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism were founded in the 1800's. The 1st century Christians never taught some of the things that these two religious groups teach.
The Trinity is not confusing to those who are spiritually born again.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ErikErik[/FONT] [FONT=&quot], When I explained that the early Judeo-Christian theological model was that of God the Father, His son Jesus (“the only begotten God” of Jn 1:18) and the Holy Ghost as separate individuals, I am not referring to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teach. I am referring to the early Judeo-Christians and their doctrines (though the earliest Judeo-Christian teaching mirrors the LDS in this specific respect). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are obviously not a period historian, (otherwise you would not make the historical claims you made), rather, you are simply subjecting the early Judao-Christian doctrines to your subjective modern interpretation of modern biblical text. If you do this, it cannot tell you what is actually correct, but it will merely demonstrate how your modern theory differs from the ancient Judao-Christians worldviews.

What typically happens in the forum is that individuals offer multiple conflicting modern interpretations of scriptures rather than simply looking at how the earliest Judao-christians themselves, interpreted scriptures. Even if you did argue against the early Christian worldview; still, they would retain their own ancient interpretations of the scriptures you (or I) offer and thus, they would still go away from such arguments with their own world views intact and keep their own interpretations rather than accepting your modern theory as to what they should believe.

Historically, the best way to determine what the ancient Judao-Christians believed is to study their own descriptions of what they said they believed. 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) [/FONT]For examples :

 

[Clear]

post two of five

[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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]IN THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW - JESUS VOLUNTEERED TO SACRIFICE AND REDEEM MANKIND IN SUPPORT OF THE FATHERS PLAN [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]– (thus he was immensely worthy of honor and respect)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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)

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)

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)

post three of five follows
[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

post three of five

[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) ;

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

post four of five follows

[/FONT]