Should Christ be worshipped?

[Clear]

post four of five

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

JESUS HAS LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER

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

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

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

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

post five of five follows

[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

post five of five

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ErikErik]

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

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.

My wife was lds for a number of years and so were some of our friends. We spent years studying mormonism and witnessing to others about the many false teachings and false prophecies of Joseph Smith. The lds church, which claims to be the One True Church, owes the world the truth concerning its many unscriptual teachings, not denials. Tell the world that you believe God has a body of flesh and bone, that there's a mother god and they have been producing spirit babies.That salvation is found only with the consent of Smith and by obedience to laws, ordinances and commandments. That you all hope to become gods and goddesses some day. That Christ's atonement wasn't enough to cover all sins. Let's talk about polygamy which even the BoM says is an abomination to God. Young's teaching on blood atonement where a man who murders must have his own blood spilled.

My wife was visited by missionaries and baptized so quickly before she knew knew the meat of Mormonism. The things she witnessed at temple ceremony was shocking.

Anyway, Christianity has never left and you can't restore what was never lost. Jesus Christ said he would be with us until the end of the world. God always has his faithful remnant.

For by grace are we saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is a free gift of God. How then can one work for it or try to earn it?

I wish you well and pray that you will give your life to Jesus Christ and trust him alone for your salvation.

 

[Katzpur]

My wife was lds for a number of years and so were some of our friends. We spent years studying mormonism and witnessing to others about the many false teachings and false prophecies of Joseph Smith. The lds church, which claims to be the One True Church, owes the world the truth concerning its many unscriptual teachings, not denials. Tell the world that you believe God has a body of flesh and bone, that there's a mother god and they have been producing spirit babies.That salvation is found only with the consent of Smith and by obedience to laws, ordinances and commandments. That you all hope to become gods and goddesses some day. That Christ's atonement wasn't enough to cover all sins. Let's talk about polygamy which even the BoM says is an abomination to God. Young's teaching on blood atonement where a man who murders must have his own blood spilled.

My wife was visited by missionaries and baptized so quickly before she knew knew the meat of Mormonism. The things she witnessed at temple ceremony was shocking.

Anyway, Christianity has never left and you can't restore what was never lost. Jesus Christ said he would be with us until the end of the world. God always has his faithful remnant.

For by grace are we saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is a free gift of God. How then can one work for it or try to earn it?

I wish you well and pray that you will give your life to Jesus Christ and trust him alone for your salvation.

Calm down, Erik. You're starting to froth at the mouth, and it's not pretty. And please... don't worry yourself about my relationship with Jesus Christ, as it's all taken care of. (Sorry you weren't consulted in the matter.)

 

[kjw47]

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.

While back in heaven sitting at Gods right hand in the spirit.--Jesus made it clear--rev 3:12-- Jesus has a God. Its a 100% guarantee that God does not have a God--so i guess it comes down to who one believes--Jesus or men.

 

[ErikErik]

While back in heaven sitting at Gods right hand in the spirit.--Jesus made it clear--rev 3:12-- Jesus has a God. Its a 100% guarantee that God does not have a God--so i guess it comes down to who one believes--Jesus or men.

He was 2 natures (one was fully human, the other fully divine) in one person. 2 Cor. 5:19. "that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

All through the Scriptures we find evidence that Jesus is deity (God by nature) like the Father. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Heb 1:3)

Can you or I or any angel claim that?

 

[kjw47]

He was 2 natures (one was fully human, the other fully divine) in one person. 2 Cor. 5:19. "that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

All through the Scriptures we find evidence that Jesus is deity (God by nature) like the Father. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Heb 1:3)

Can you or I or any angel claim that?

The one who gained access to the ancient of days and was given the kingship for 1000 years, as well as a bride( 144,000) bought from the earth. This one-Daniel 12:1--1 thess 4:16

 

[Clear]

Kjw47, Katzpur (and others) – I believe that ErikErik is (inadvertently) offering us another example of how the theologian derived Nicene theory creates illogical complications and is dependent upon a tenuous and illogical usage of the biblical text. I do NOT think this is intentional deception on ErikErik’s part (since most of us grew up with similar misconceptions), it is simply a matter of repeating what one has been taught.

The Nicene theory of the later theologians, influences illogical translations as well as illogical use of text, as we have already demonstrated. For example, ErikErik tells us that the Son is “…the exact representation of his being…”whereas the greek base text tells us no such thing. “…. χαρακτηρτηςυποστασεωςαυτο…”is the greek text which underlies ErikErik’s English text. Forum greek readers will be able tell you that there is NO word indicating “exact” or “exactness” in this sentence (though "similarity" is the main implication). "Exactness" is not there.

And the word χαρακτηρ( greek) (or C h a r a c t e r (in english) MEANS “character”, whether Its usage refers to printing or a similarity of type and "CHARACTERistic". The fact that Jesus has similar characteristics to his Father, does NOT mean he is the SAME as his Father any more than my dad are I are the same despite our similar Characteristics.

Even the Authorized Version (which I dislike) is more correct in it's rendering of Jesus being "...the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty ("Μεγαλωσυνησ" - e.g. "greatness", etc) on high." In the text, Jesus, having accomplished his commission, sits in honor BESIDE the greatness, but he is NOT the greatness, himself.

If the base verb form of the word used in this sentence (“υποστασις&#8221 means “to set under” or “to stand under” or “to support”, then the individual who does this in this sentence is one who IS “set under” or who “stands under” or who “supports” another individual(s) (who is, by definition, “above” this individual in a ranking). This position of Jesus being a support person, commissioned under God the Father, does NOT make him equal to the Lord God. Jesus, “After he provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Heb 1:3). As I said, Jesus sits “at the right hand” of the Majesty, but It does not mean that Jesus IS the Majesty of Heaven.

Clear
fuacfuachg

p.s. :As an aside note, period Historians in the forum will recognize the reference in verse six to the very famous tradition where God the Father commands other angels to honor Adam, “the προτο-τοκον” (grk). This is one of the few early doctrines and traditions where, Jewish and Christian AND Islamic texts are in wonderful agreement regarding historical events that took place prior to adam being placed upon the earth. Though the story tells us that ADAM ALSO has such a similar likeness and characteristic appearance to the Lord God, that some angels, seeing adam, mistake him, temporarily; for God the Father, since, In early Judeo-Christian tradition, Adam was made "in the image of God" , that is, their appearance was so similar.

The reference, in this case, points out yet another source example for confusion by a Nicene theory. Just as Adam’s similar characteristics and similar appearance did not mean that he WAS God the Father; Jesus similarities to God the Father do not mean that he IS God the Father.

 

[ErikErik]

Kjw47, Katzpur (and others) – I believe that ErikErik is (inadvertently) offering us another example of how the theologian derived Nicene theory creates illogical complications and is dependent upon a tenuous and illogical usage of the biblical text. I do NOT think this is intentional deception on ErikErik’s part (since most of us grew up with similar misconceptions), it is simply a matter of repeating what one has been taught.

The Nicene theory of the later theologians, influences illogical translations as well as illogical use of text, as we have already demonstrated. For example, ErikErik tells us that the Son is “…the exact representation of his being…”whereas the greek base text tells us no such thing. “…. χαρακτηρτηςυποστασεωςαυτο…”is the greek text which underlies ErikErik’s English text. Forum greek readers will be able tell you that there is NO word indicating “exact” or “exactness” in this sentence (though "similarity" is the main implication). "Exactness" is not there.

And the word χαρακτηρ( greek) (or C h a r a c t e r (in english) MEANS “character”, whether Its usage refers to printing or a similarity of type and "CHARACTERistic". The fact that Jesus has similar characteristics to his Father, does NOT mean he is the SAME as his Father any more than my dad are I are the same despite our similar Characteristics.

Even the Authorized Version (which I dislike) is more correct in it's rendering of Jesus being "...the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty ("Μεγαλωσυνησ" - e.g. "greatness", etc) on high." In the text, Jesus, having accomplished his commission, sits in honor BESIDE the greatness, but he is NOT the greatness, himself.

If the base verb form of the word used in this sentence (“υποστασις”) means “to set under” or “to stand under” or “to support”, then the individual who does this in this sentence is one who IS “set under” or who “stands under” or who “supports” another individual(s) (who is, by definition, “above” this individual in a ranking). This position of Jesus being a support person, commissioned under God the Father, does NOT make him equal to the Lord God. Jesus, “After he provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Heb 1:3). As I said, Jesus sits “at the right hand” of the Majesty, but It does not mean that Jesus IS the Majesty of Heaven.

Clear
fuacfuachg

p.s. :As an aside note, period Historians in the forum will recognize the reference in verse six to the very famous tradition where God the Father commands other angels to honor Adam, “the προτο-τοκον” (grk). This is one of the few early doctrines and traditions where, Jewish and Christian AND Islamic texts are in wonderful agreement regarding historical events that took place prior to adam being placed upon the earth. Though the story tells us that ADAM ALSO has such a similar likeness and characteristic appearance to the Lord God, that some angels, seeing adam, mistake him, temporarily; for God the Father, since, In early Judeo-Christian tradition, Adam was made "in the image of God" , that is, their appearance was so similar.

The reference, in this case, points out yet another source example for confusion by a Nicene theory. Just as Adam’s similar characteristics and similar appearance did not mean that he WAS God the Father; Jesus similarities to God the Father do not mean that he IS God the Father.

So you are an advocate of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses? You claim I am merely repeating what I have been taught. Why the rush to judgment when you know nothing about me? I was raised Roman Catholic and stayed in that church for years. If I were merely repeating what I had been taught, I would be advocating Catholicism.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to eternal life. He is the only way to God and salvation. Anyone who disagrees is teaching a false gospel.

BTW, what website did you cut and paste from?

 

[ErikErik]

Hebrews 1:3

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (KJV)

Clarke's Commentary:

The express image of his person - Χαρακτηρ της ὑποστασεως αυτου· The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest.

Jesus Christ is of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor.

That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other.

 

[ErikErik]

The one who gained access to the ancient of days and was given the kingship for 1000 years, as well as a bride( 144,000) bought from the earth. This one-Daniel 12:1--1 thess 4:16

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Katzpur]

BTW, what website did you cut and paste from?

Clear is a scholar in his own right, Erik.

 

[Clear]

post one of two

Kjw47, Katzpur (and others) – I believe that ErikErik is (inadvertently) offering us another example of how the theologian derived Nicene theory creates illogical complications and is dependent upon a tenuous and illogical usage of the biblical text. I do NOT think this is intentional deception on ErikErik’s part (since most of us grew up with similar misconceptions), it is simply a matter of repeating what one has been taught.

The Nicene theory of the later theologians, influences illogical translations as well as illogical use of text, as we have already demonstrated. For example, ErikErik tells us that the Son is “…the exact representation of his being…”whereas the greek base text tells us no such thing. “…. χαρακτηρτηςυποστασεωςαυτο…”is the greek text which underlies ErikErik’s English text. Forum greek readers will be able tell you that there is NO word indicating “exact” or “exactness” in this sentence (though "similarity" is the main implication). "Exactness" is not there.

And the word χαρακτηρ( greek) (or C h a r a c t e r (in english) MEANS “character”, whether Its usage refers to printing or a similarity of type and "CHARACTERistic". The fact that Jesus has similar characteristics to his Father, does NOT mean he is the SAME as his Father any more than my dad are I are the same despite our similar Characteristics.

Even the Authorized Version (which I dislike) is more correct in it's rendering of Jesus being "...the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty ("Μεγαλωσυνησ" - e.g. "greatness", etc) on high." In the text, Jesus, having accomplished his commission, sits in honor BESIDE the greatness, but he is NOT the greatness, himself.

If the base verb form of the word used in this sentence (“υποστασις&#8221 means “to set under” or “to stand under” or “to support”, then the individual who does this in this sentence is one who IS “set under” or who “stands under” or who “supports” another individual(s) (who is, by definition, “above” this individual in a ranking). This position of Jesus being a support person, commissioned under God the Father, does NOT make him equal to the Lord God. Jesus, “After he provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Heb 1:3). As I said, Jesus sits “at the right hand” of the Majesty, but It does not mean that Jesus IS the Majesty of Heaven.

Clear
fuacfuachg

p.s. :As an aside note, period Historians in the forum will recognize the reference in verse six to the very famous tradition where God the Father commands other angels to honor Adam, “the προτο-τοκον” (grk). This is one of the few early doctrines and traditions where, Jewish and Christian AND Islamic texts are in wonderful agreement regarding historical events that took place prior to adam being placed upon the earth. Though the story tells us that ADAM ALSO has such a similar likeness and characteristic appearance to the Lord God, that some angels, seeing adam, mistake him, temporarily; for God the Father, since, In early Judeo-Christian tradition, Adam was made "in the image of God" , that is, their appearance was so similar.

The reference, in this case, points out yet another source example for confusion by a Nicene theory. Just as Adam’s similar characteristics and similar appearance did not mean that he WAS God the Father; Jesus similarities to God the Father do not mean that he IS God the Father.

ErikErik said :

“So you are an advocate of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses?”

Erik, your incorrect assumptions continue to contaminate your conclusions.

I am, in this case, simply an advocate for the earlier judeao-Christian doctrines. For example, as far as I know, the example I referred to in heb 1 vs 6 is known only by period historians and is NOT taught by either the LDS nor the J.W. general membership or it’s leaders. These are HISTORICAL references that have nothing to do with any particular denomination other than the early Judeo-Christians believed in them and described these beliefs in their early texts, mishas, diaries, psalms, and other texts.

I DO however, go into some detail on issues to offer examples to LDS readers. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims that it represents a restoration of many base doctrines from original christianity. As a convert-historian to the LDS ("mormon") theology, I have been and continue to be astounded at the accuracy of this claim. Even most of the modern non-LDS scholars of the earliest periods who are discussing pre-creation periods from the 19th century textual discoveries in ugarit, qumran, nag-hamadi, (etc, etc) sound like they are LDS as they discuss and confirm LDS doctrines (though I think many of them would be surprised - maybe aghast... to learn they are doing this...).

The pre-creation council histories of early Judeo-Christianity are all LDS base doctrines and it has become a hot topic among many, many great scholar-historians since it creates the base context (υποστασισ) for God's plan for mankind and details much of his methods and motives. To have Joseph Smith's doctrinal base claims and his relentless insistence that we must worship jesus for many things christianity was historically unaware of, IS a theme I would like the non-historian LDS membership to become aware of so they can understand the incredible strength of their claim.


post two of two follows

 

[Clear]

post two of two follows


ErikErik asked :

“Why the rush to judgment when you know nothing about me?”

You have already told us that you do not believe in the earliest version of the God head (as I have given ample description of from early judao-christian descriptions themselves in five detailed consecutive posts detailing early Judao-Christian descriptions of the subject in posts #78-82). You already described that you believe in a Nicene type theory of God.

The “why judge me” posing will be a waste of our time and will detract from communication of information rather than enhance it.

Erik, it is obvious that you do not read greek nor understand the early textual nuances or you would simply tell me what YOU think rather than continue “cutting and pasting” other peoples’ opinions regarding greek.

Even your last comment in post #90, is simply another “cut and paste” from clarkes' thoughts on the verse in question, and you have simply mixed your opinion with their written thoughts in illogical ways that create illogical conclusions to support your belief. For example, you say :

“Jesus Christ is of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor.”

However, cutting and pasting will not give you the depth of understanding you need to make a logical or correct conclusion.

“ΑΥΓΗ” (or “αυγη”) is the root word meaning “BRIGHTNESS”.

ADDING “απ” CHANGES THE MEANING. ΑΠ-ΑΥΓΑΣΜΑ(or “απ-αυγασμα&#8221 is a reflection of, or a radiation OF a brightness or light.

Just as greek αιρο means to “bear” or to “carry”, adding απ (i.e. απ-αιρο) changes it’s meaning to “bear away”, or “carry away”. By the same principle, Απ-αυγασμα is a reflection of another light in this context. It is a nuance you cannot learn by simply cutting and pasting comments from others. And, in fact, if you force a translation to conform to your own prior bias, you may not be able to see what the early writer was saying at all.

In an avoidance of a “forced meaning” of this sentence, the revised Standard in the Nestle-Aland critical text for critical greek scholars, the text renders this sentence thusly : “He (Jesus) reflects the glory of God…”.

Such correct textual distinctions make it more clear that the early Judao-Christians believed that though Jesus deserves our most profound honor as the redeemer of mankind to whom mankind must turn for redemption and salvation, still, JESUS is NOT the LORD GOD (his Father), but rather he reflects God’s Glory (in his own divine nature which is similar to that of his Father) .

The illogical and erroneous forcing of your theology onto a text is yet another example of how the Nicene Theory creates and causes illogical and difficult problems. The adoption of the Nicene theory by later Christianity, causes more problems than it was intended to solve.



In response to your question : “…what website did you cut and paste from?”, While I appreciate Katzpurs comments and our mutual respect, I think she is being very kind regarding my narrow knowledgebase. I do know some wonderful scholars, but am NOT any great scholar and know that I make my own mistakes. I am however, posting my own thoughts and did not “cut and paste” my responses from any website.

My point in discouraging a constant, habitual, “cutting and pasting” is that habitual cutting and pasting does not increase our knowledge base or understanding as quickly as engaging in our own critical analyses of issues and coming to our own conclusions. I don’t want you to feel that you cannot cut and paste, but it will not tell me what YOU are thinking and what YOUR depth of understanding on a specific point is. I apologize if I seemed overly critical.

ErikErik, I am sorry that these historical distinctions place us at odds on these issues. I hope you understand that I have no ill will or frustrations with you. I hope I do not come across as condescending since I certainly respect you, your opinion, and your ability to continue to increase your knowledge on these specific historical issues. I also appreciate your calmness and patience.

Clear
fuacnevihg

 

[ErikErik]

post two of two follows


ErikErik asked : You have already told us that you do not believe in the earliest version of the God head (as I have given ample description of from early judao-christian descriptions themselves in five detailed consecutive posts detailing early Judao-Christian descriptions of the subject in posts #78-82). You already described that you believe in a Nicene type theory of God.

The “why judge me” posing will be a waste of our time and will detract from communication of information rather than enhance it.

Erik, it is obvious that you do not read greek nor understand the early textual nuances or you would simply tell me what YOU think rather than continue “cutting and pasting” other peoples’ opinions regarding greek.

Even your last comment in post #90, is simply another “cut and paste” from clarkes' thoughts on the verse in question, and you have simply mixed your opinion with their written thoughts in illogical ways that create illogical conclusions to support your belief. For example, you say : However, cutting and pasting will not give you the depth of understanding you need to make a logical or correct conclusion.

“ΑΥΓΗ” (or “αυγη”) is the root word meaning “BRIGHTNESS”.

ADDING “απ” CHANGES THE MEANING. ΑΠ-ΑΥΓΑΣΜΑ(or “απ-αυγασμα&#8221 is a reflection of, or a radiation OF a brightness or light.

Just as greek αιρο means to “bear” or to “carry”, adding απ (i.e. απ-αιρο) changes it’s meaning to “bear away”, or “carry away”. By the same principle, Απ-αυγασμα is a reflection of another light in this context. It is a nuance you cannot learn by simply cutting and pasting comments from others. And, in fact, if you force a translation to conform to your own prior bias, you may not be able to see what the early writer was saying at all.

In an avoidance of a “forced meaning” of this sentence, the revised Standard in the Nestle-Aland critical text for critical greek scholars, the text renders this sentence thusly : “He (Jesus) reflects the glory of God…”.

Such correct textual distinctions make it more clear that the early Judao-Christians believed that though Jesus deserves our most profound honor as the redeemer of mankind to whom mankind must turn for redemption and salvation, still, JESUS is NOT the LORD GOD (his Father), but rather he reflects God’s Glory (in his own divine nature which is similar to that of his Father) .

The illogical and erroneous forcing of your theology onto a text is yet another example of how the Nicene Theory creates and causes illogical and difficult problems. The adoption of the Nicene theory by later Christianity, causes more problems than it was intended to solve.



In response to your question : “…what website did you cut and paste from?”, While I appreciate Katzpurs comments and our mutual respect, I think she is being very kind regarding my narrow knowledgebase. I do know some wonderful scholars, but am NOT any great scholar and know that I make my own mistakes. I am however, posting my own thoughts and did not “cut and paste” my responses from any website.

My point in discouraging a constant, habitual, “cutting and pasting” is that habitual cutting and pasting does not increase our knowledge base or understanding as quickly as engaging in our own critical analyses of issues and coming to our own conclusions. I don’t want you to feel that you cannot cut and paste, but it will not tell me what YOU are thinking and what YOUR depth of understanding on a specific point is. I apologize if I seemed overly critical.

ErikErik, I am sorry that these historical distinctions place us at odds on these issues. I hope you understand that I have no ill will or frustrations with you. I hope I do not come across as condescending since I certainly respect you, your opinion, and your ability to continue to increase your knowledge on these specific historical issues. I also appreciate your calmness and patience.

Clear
fuacnevihg

You are in agreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses in blaming the nicene fathers for concocting the Trinity. Therefore, it makes your entire premise false. A faulty foundation leads to more falsehood. Where did I ever say that Jesus is the Father? I gave the scripture that Jesus is the same representation of the Father and is God the Son. Jesus said: I am the Alpha and Omega the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.(Rev. 22:13)

Rev. 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'" Can you or I or any man claim that?

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (John 5:46) Do you know where Moses wrote about Jesus?

Judeo-christianity is just another name for Judaism. The Jews have rejected their very own Messiah and are still under the bondage of the law for denying Christ who alone offers salvation. This is why they desperately want to rebuild another temple to continue making sacrifices for sins. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian as the two religions are diametrically opposed. Therefore your whole point is moot.

You do not say if you are a Christian, but by your unqualified statements, attempts at intellectualism and not going to the Holy Bible as your source, one can deduce that you are not. Therefore, you and I will remain diametrically opposed.

You wrote that, "The Nicene Theory creates and causes illogical and difficult problems." This also tells me that you are not a born again believer because the Trinity is not difficult to understand and makes perfect sense to the Christian who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually (not intellectually) discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God discerned. (1 Cor. 1:18)

The Holy Scriptures is foolishness to the unsaved, the unconverted, because he is an enmity of God.

I can give quotes from the PRE nicene fathers about subjects such as the Trinity and Jesus being God, but that would be a waste of time. You will always insist on having the last word. I have used the Holy Scriptures to back up my statements. You have not done so.

I wish you well.

 

[kjw47]

You are in agreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses in blaming the nicene fathers for concocting the Trinity. Therefore, it makes your entire premise false. A faulty foundation leads to more falsehood. Where did I ever say that Jesus is the Father? I gave the scripture that Jesus is the same representation of the Father and is God the Son. Jesus said: I am the Alpha and Omega the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.(Rev. 22:13)

Rev. 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'" Can you or I or any man claim that?

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (John 5:46) Do you know where Moses wrote about Jesus?

Judeo-christianity is just another name for Judaism. The Jews have rejected their very own Messiah and are still under the bondage of the law for denying Christ who alone offers salvation. This is why they desperately want to rebuild another temple to continue making sacrifices for sins. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian as the two religions are diametrically opposed. Therefore your whole point is moot.

You do not say if you are a Christian, but by your unqualified statements, attempts at intellectualism and not going to the Holy Bible as your source, one can deduce that you are not. Therefore, you and I will remain diametrically opposed.

You wrote that, "The Nicene Theory creates and causes illogical and difficult problems." This also tells me that you are not a born again believer because the Trinity is not difficult to understand and makes perfect sense to the Christian who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually (not intellectually) discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God discerned. (1 Cor. 1:18)

The Holy Scriptures is foolishness to the unsaved, the unconverted, because he is an enmity of God.

I can give quotes from the PRE nicene fathers about subjects such as the Trinity and Jesus being God, but that would be a waste of time. You will always insist on having the last word. I have used the Holy Scriptures to back up my statements. You have not done so.

I wish you well.

Moses wrote Genesis-- and at 3:15 was a prophecy About Jesus--that is one. There is ample evidence that the trinity God was created at the councils of catholicism--at the first council of Nicea--the HS was not taught as being part of the so called godhead-it came later.

 

[ErikErik]

Moses wrote Genesis-- and at 3:15 was a prophecy About Jesus--that is one. There is ample evidence that the trinity God was created at the councils of catholicism--at the first council of Nicea--the HS was not taught as being part of the so called godhead-it came later.

You still haven't offered anything by way of evidence.

 

[ErikErik]

Moses wrote Genesis-- and at 3:15 was a prophecy About Jesus--that is one. There is ample evidence that the trinity God was created at the councils of catholicism--at the first council of Nicea--the HS was not taught as being part of the so called godhead-it came later.

Here's a brief history lesson. There was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine, because Christianity was an illegal religion and an underground practice.

The doctrine of the Trinity did not depend on any council as it was used by Tertullian and others long before a council was called on doctrinal teaching.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles' teaching of who Christ is; the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Katzpur]

Here's a brief history lesson. There was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine, because Christianity was an illegal religion and an underground practice.

The doctrine of the Trinity did not depend on any council as it was used by Tertullian and others long before a council was called on doctrinal teaching.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles' teaching of who Christ is; the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Ah, yes... Tertullian, the "the father of Latin Christianity." How about we talk about "the founder of original Christianity" and what He taught. I'll tell you one thing -- it wasn't "the Trinity."

 

[kjw47]

Ah, yes... Tertullian, the "the father of Latin Christianity." How about we talk about "the founder of original Christianity" and what He taught. I'll tell you one thing -- it wasn't "the Trinity."

Jesus himself taught that the one who sent him( John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD=John 17:1-6--verse 6 = Jehovah--Paul taught the same-1 cor 8:6-- there is no disputing these facts. There is no dispute of the fact that every israelite that ever lived and served the true God, served a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah).