Do christians worship God (not Jesus)?

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I know of no sin or error that Jesus commited; however, I am in no position to judge whether any human being (including Jesus) was, is, or will be absolutely good.

What do you mean by absolutely good. You mean there is no way one could be absolutely perfect in nature just as God is perfect in nature. And have that nature of God?

There are several groups that deny the deity of Christ. Four of the most common are: Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians and Unitarians. The most common arguments used by these groups, and some others that are not listed, are cited below. It is out of obedience to Jude 3 and love for the truth of God that this study has been presented. (The Christian worker should become familiar with the contents of this study. See 1 Pet. 3:15.)


[Before the following refutations are given, it is imperative that you know two basic truths about the Lord Jesus: (1) When a Christian says, "Jesus is God," he is NOT saying Jesus is the Father! Jesus is NOT the person of the Father, yet He is equal to the Father BY NATURE. In other words, Jesus is God BY NATURE, as are the Father and the Holy Spirit. (2) Jesus is both God BY NATURE and man. In other words, He is both true God AND true man. Jesus' humanity is shown in Heb. 2:14 and 1 Tim. 2:5.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #1. Jn. 14:28 reads, "... my Father is greater than I." If Jesus is equal to the Father, as the Trinity definition states, then why did Jesus say His Father was "greater" than He?

ANSWER: Jesus spoke these words after He humbled Himself and became a servant (Phil. 2:5-8). Furthermore, the word "greater" refers to OFFICE or POSITION and not NATURE! God is God because of His "NATURE" (Gal. 4:8). Jesus is saying in Jn. 14:28 that His Father has a "greater" OFFICE or POSITION than He does. This is how the word "greater" is used as clearly seen in Gen 41:40. That verse reads, "You [Joseph] shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I [Pharaoh] be GREATER than you," (NIV). Pharaoh was "greater" than Joseph only by OFFICE or POSITION, but not NATURE. The nature of Pharaoh and Joseph was the same, that is, human being. Similarly, the president of the USA is GREATER than we are, as far as OFFICE or POSITION is concerned, but certainly not by NATURE!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #2. 1 Cor. 11:3 reads, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." If Christ has a "head," then He can't be God.

ANSWER: Does this show Jesus inferior to the Father by NATURE? If one will insist that it does, then to be consistent, he would have to say the same regarding the woman to the man! Though a wife is subject to her husband in the Lord, she is NOT inferior to him by nature. The same is true with the relationship between the Lord Jesus and the Father.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #3. 1 Cor. 15:28 says, "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." If Jesus is "subject" to the Father, He can't be God.

ANSWER: Again, this argument is similar to Arguments #1 and #2. This verse doesn't refer to NATURE either, but only to OFFICE or POSITION! In Lk. 2:51, the SAME GREEK WORD translated "subject" is found. No one would say that Jesus was inferior BY NATURE to Joseph and Mary from Lk. 2:51, which would be the natural conclusion if the word "subject" refers to NATURE! Likewise, Jesus is NOT inferior BY NATURE to the Father, since He is God. See Jn. 1:1, Greek; Jn. 20:28; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1 and 1 Jn. 5:20.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #4. Mk. 13:32 declares, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." If Jesus was God, then He would have had this knowledge.

ANSWER: Again, we must bear in mind that Jesus is true man besides true God. The Lord Jesus spoke these words when He was limited by His humanity and was relying upon the Father entirely (Acts 10:38; Jn. 12:49). After His resurrection, however, Jesus would have to be all-knowing, since He can be prayed to (Jn. 14:14, Greek; Acts 7:59; 9:14,21; 1 Cor. 1:2). In other words, if a group of Christians is praying to Jesus in Canada, Mexico and Japan at the same time, He would have to be all-knowing to know their requests! Also, since prayer is a form of worship, it would be idolatry to pray to Jesus unless He was and is God by NATURE. (If He wasn't God by NATURE, then the early Church was guilty of idolatry by praying to Jesus, which is IMPOSSIBLE!)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #5. Lk. 18:19 reads, "And Jesus said unto him, 'Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.'" God is "good," but Jesus isn't. Therefore, Jesus isn't God.

ANSWER: If one would look closely at this verse, he should quickly notice that Jesus NEVER said that He Himself was NOT 'good'! He merely asked, "Why callest thou me good?" Jesus wanted to know "WHY," that's all! Furthermore, Jesus openly declared elsewhere that He Himself was the "GOOD shepherd" (Jn. 10:11). Psalm 23 declares YHWH as the "shepherd," but He isn't called the "GOOD" shepherd, the description Jesus reserved for Himself!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #6. Jesus is shown in the Scriptures as being created in Rev. 3:14; Col. 1:15; Prov. 8:22 and Psa. 2:7. If He was created, He can't be God, since God is eternal.

ANSWER: (A) Rev. 3:14 states that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God." The word translated "beginning" is ARCHE in the Greek. It also means ORIGIN besides BEGINNING. Since ORIGIN and SOURCE are synonymous, we can now understand why this verse reads in the N. A. B. "the SOURCE of God's creation." This verse doesn't show Jesus is created, but that He is the Creator! After all, since Jesus created EVERYTHING that was created (Col. 1:16), how could He be part of His own creation?


(B) Col. 1:15 reports that Jesus is "the firstborn of every creature." Please notice that it does NOT say "first-created"! This word, "firstborn," has more than one possible meaning. If one would read Gen. 41:51,52; 48:17-19 and Jer. 31:9 he would see that it can mean PREEMINENT. That is how it is used in Col. 1:15 as the context reveals from verses 15 through 18. Jesus is PREEMINENT over creation because: (1) He created everything that was created, (2) ALL created things were created for Him, (3) He existed before ALL created things and (4) ALL created things are held together because of Him.


(C) Prov. 8:22 states that Wisdom was brought forth in the beginning. Since Jesus is called the "Wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24), He was created, according to the argument.

What one must decide is: IS THIS WISDOM MENTIONED IN PROV. 8 REFERRING TO JESUS, BEFORE HE CAME TO EARTH? According to Jn. 1:1,14, Jesus was called the "Word" before He came to earth, NOT Wisdom (or even "Michael" as some groups teach)!

Secondly, the chapter reveals Wisdom in verse 19 as the PROPER USE OF KNOWLEDGE as shown by Job 28:15. Therefore, the Wisdom of Prov. 8 is personified and not really a person at all!

Finally, since Jesus is the WISDOM OF GOD and the POWER OF GOD (1 Cor. 1:24), for one to say that He was created is to say that there was a point in time in the distant past when God existed WITHOUT Wisdom and Power, which is ludicrous!


(D) Psa. 2:7; Jn. 3:16; etc. state that Jesus was "begotten." Does this mean that Jesus had a beginning as we did, since we were begotten by our fathers and at that point we had our beginning? The answer to Psa. 2:7 is found in Acts 13:30-33. There we learn that this verse from Psalms refers to the resurrection of Christ! Secondly, the word translated "only begotten" in Jn. 3:16,18 and 1 Jn. 4:9 in regards to Christ is also used in Heb. 11:17 in regards to Isaac. Was Isaac the FIRST child of Abraham? No! See Gen. 16:15,16. Was Isaac the ONLY child of Abraham? No! See Gen. 16:15,16; 25:1,2. Was Isaac the UNIQUE ONE-OF-A-KIND son of Abraham? Yes! This is how this same Greek word is used in reference to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the UNIQUE ONE-OF-A-KIND Son to the Father, but NOT created. Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus the SAME WAY Psa. 93:2 refers to God. Jesus is "from everlasting" and therefore can't be part of creation. Since He isn't part of creation, then He must be God, since only God is eternal!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #7. In the Bible, Jesus is NEVER called "God the Son," but instead "the Son of God." Therefore, He can't be God.

ANSWER: This argument has a trace of truth in it for the words, "God the Son," are NOT found in the Bible. However, when an "open" student of the Scriptures examines all the verses relevant to the deity of Christ, he will conclude that Jesus is both God and man. How can this be? It's possible the same way Jesus can be both shepherd and lamb and the high priest and sin offering at the same time! Concerning words NOT found in the Bible, the word, "Bible," isn't found in the Bible! Neither is the word "Millennium" found in the Bible, even though it is certainly taught in Rev. 20.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #8. If Jesus is God, who was He praying to in the Garden, Himself?

ANSWER: This question stems from a misconception about HOW Christians believe Jesus is God. We believe Jesus is God BY NATURE. We do NOT believe Jesus is the person of the Father! He can NOT be the Father, since He prayed to the Father in Jn. 17! He certainly wasn't praying to Himself. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God by NATURE, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is only one true God by NATURE. See Gal. 4:8. The Trinity is NOT defined as three Gods in one, but instead three Persons in one God. God is the NATURE of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #9. If Jesus is God, then who ran the universe while He was dead for three days?

ANSWER: Again, this is no problem to answer when one understands that Jesus is NOT the person of the Father. The Father and the Son are two separate and distinct personalities.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #10. Jesus can't be God, since God can't die!

ANSWER: Remember, Jesus isn't only God by nature, but also man! Jesus could die as any other human, because He became man (and still is man) besides being God by NATURE.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTION #11. Jesus can't be God, because He said that the Father was His God in Jn. 20:17.

ANSWER: Jesus said this as a man. This, however, doesn't change the clear evidence that shows Jesus is God! The Apostle Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and my God," Jn. 20:28. The Greek literally says, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Remember also that Thomas was a strict MONOtheistic Jew. Was the Apostle Thomas "in the truth?" Obviously he was. Was the Apostle Thomas part of the early church? Obviously he was. Therefore, the early church believed that Jesus is God. If you claim to believe and teach like the early church, then shouldn't you proclaim the same? Are you in the same "light" that the Apostles were in? Furthermore, the Father identifies Jesus as "God" in Heb. 1:8. Again, the Greek says, "the God." Certainly the Father knows the true identity of the Son. Also, Heb. 1:6 declares that "ALL the angels worship Him [Jesus]." Who do the angels worship, according to Rev. 19:10? According to Heb. 1:6, the angel of Rev. 19:10 WORSHIPS Jesus! In fact, Jesus' disciples WORSHIPED Him too (Matt. 28:9). Why do you think Jesus received this WORSHIP from His disciples? Are you following the example of the early disciples regarding this? Did you know it would have been idolatry for those early disciples, who were "in the truth" to worship Jesus, unless He was God?

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

I'm happy to be linked with Hitchins works, he's not my favorite theologian and i copy his smoking and drinking habits a bit too much, but no problems otherwise.
As regards Insults, again , i'm perfectly happy with people letting off steam.

To your main point.

Stating something is irrelevent when it directly focuses on the core of your main point is not a new tactic, but a rather clumsy avoidance.

You say that God committed atrocity. That Jesus did not.
I assume therefore that you beleive that Jesus and God are not one, but that Jesus is a seperate God from the Old testement God, even though he claimed to be the same. A Kinder, genteler, forgiving God who is not connected with the massive scale inhuman slaughtering, sacrifice and terror of the old one.

Where did your God come from? Why did he think he was yahweh or tell people that?

Your position is a new one to me. A Christian who beleives that a divine being-Jesus- is seperate from God.

I don't think I ever claimed my argument was new

My only point was the Jesus, as portrayed in the Gosples, did not incite violence, nothing more and nothign less. The question of wether Jesus was God, and how to reconcile the seemingly contrary personalities are seperate issue, ones I have no position in arguing.

Rev. 3:14 states that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God." The word translated "beginning" is ARCHE in the Greek. It also means ORIGIN besides BEGINNING. Since ORIGIN and SOURCE are synonymous, we can now understand why this verse reads in the N. A. B. "the SOURCE of God's creation." This verse doesn't show Jesus is created, but that He is the Creator! After all, since Jesus created EVERYTHING that was created (Col. 1:16), how could He be part of His own creation?

This brings me right back to my original question. I will no longer be using the word Jesus for manifest reasons, I shall call him the Son of Mary (pbuh).

If the Son of Mary was the uncreated Creator, then what do you say of his physical body? You already acknowledge that he had an anatomy, and we all know that an anatomy is a created substance. If you use the duality argument again, it won't work. The Son of Mary was a corporeal entity composed of matter, which, in order to exist, must be created. You cannot worship what you see; for anything that your senses can perceive and your mind can conceptualize is not divine. Doing so would constitute idolatry.

A pantheist or panentheist can easily produce an equal argument in favour of his preferred doctrine. In their inability in explaining the transcendent separation line between God and nature, pantheists identify God with creation (matter) and believe that God is all and all is God. This is possible, they contend, given the infinity and incomprehensibility of the Divine. Incarnation therefore is inherently a pagan myth with a scent of pantheism.

The originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is {2:117}

Anything existing within the universe had an origin - the Son of Mary was in his mother's womb and was given birth thereafter, meaning he was a part of the universe which makes him a material and temporal being. The bottom line here is if you believe the Son of Mary is God, then you must also accept that God had re-created Himself (in the person of the Christ) by giving Himself a form on earth. If He in fact did so, this creates serious theological implications; in this case He violated His own law of unity and singleness, even if He retains His position as the Father in simultaneousness. Incarnation is a long way away from true monotheism.

They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. {5:17}

format_quote Originally Posted by Armand

You cannot worship what you see; for anything that your senses can perceive and your mind can conceptualize is not divine. Doing so would constitute idolatry.

Assalamu alaikum.

I fully agree with your post, but since Christians clearly worship the "Son of Mary", why do you think that Allah speaks favorably of them (and the Jews) as "People of the Book".

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

God is Jesus. Jesus is God. They are the same entity. Jesus is God given form on earth.

God Incites and commits violence, on a scale never seen before or since in known history. Commanding populations to be exterminated, cities to be destroyed and Children to be stoned with stones till they are dead. He tears kids apart, scatters blood in a bun dance and commands genocide infanticide regicide homicide and anyothercide.

Jesus is however, despite being the same guy.....someone who dosnt incite violence.

Okey.

all respect, your argument is silly.

Let's say most Hindu's in India beleived Ghandi was the reincarnation of a violent previous Indian empire.

Now, you come up and say, "Ghandi constantly commited atrocities aghinst smaller tribal populations", someone naturally says, "that's rediculious, Ghandi never ordered anyone to kill, never led an army, etc", you say, "no, Hindu's beleive he's the reincarnation of an indian warlord, so Ghandi was a very violent man"

Now, if the Hindu's were right about their metaphysical postulation you may have a point, if you are refering to Ghandi as the world knew him your argument is rediculious

You claimed JESUS incited violence, simply because some Christians believe that Jesus was the God of the OT as well dosen't mean that the Jesus of the Bible EVER incited violence.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Assalamu alaikum.

I fully agree with your post, but since Christians clearly worship the "Son of Mary", why do you think that Allah speaks favorably of them (and the Jews) as "People of the Book".

Wa alaikum as salam,

I'm not exactly certain as to why you posit this particular question? Perhaps it is the case that you are testing my ilm. Nonetheless I will give the benefit of the doubt and answer your question.

The Lord has named them People of the Book because they are just that: ahl ul kitaab; those who have received previous revelation. Their status is superior to those of the polytheists and the idolaters, mainly because these are not people of scripture.

format_quote Originally Posted by Armand

This brings me right back to my original question. I will no longer be using the word Jesus for manifest reasons, I shall call him the Son of Mary (pbuh).

If the Son of Mary was the uncreated Creator, then what do you say of his physical body? You already acknowledge that he had an anatomy, and we all know that an anatomy is a created substance. If you use the duality argument again, it won't work. The Son of Mary was a corporeal entity composed of matter, which, in order to exist, must be created. You cannot worship what you see; for anything that your senses can perceive and your mind can conceptualize is not divine. Doing so would constitute idolatry.

A pantheist or panentheist can easily produce an equal argument in favour of his preferred doctrine. In their inability in explaining the transcendent separation line between God and nature, pantheists identify God with creation (matter) and believe that God is all and all is God. This is possible, they contend, given the infinity and incomprehensibility of the Divine. Incarnation therefore is inherently a pagan myth with a scent of pantheism.

The originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is {2:117}

Anything existing within the universe had an origin - the Son of Mary was in his mother's womb and was given birth thereafter, meaning he was a part of the universe which makes him a material and temporal being. The bottom line here is if you believe the Son of Mary is God, then you must also accept that God had re-created Himself (in the person of the Christ) by giving Himself a form on earth. If He in fact did so, this creates serious theological implications; in this case He violated His own law of unity and singleness, even if He retains His position as the Father in simultaneousness. Incarnation is a long way away from true monotheism.

They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. {5:17}

Philliapians 2 says he humbled himself and became one like His creation. What a meek and compassoinate creator?

format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian

Some sufis are also claiming that they and God become one through a concept of "Wahdatul Wujud"... if I'm not mistaken..... "Wahdatul Wujud" concept is banned in Malaysia.

How did they 'ban' such a concept? Are you in violation by talking about it here and now?

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

OK, you are hard work because instead of accepting an earlier premise or discarding it you reply with something about a social revolution and reincarnation of Indian warlords.

It's called "Refutation by Logical Analogy"

The claim about Ghandi had the same logical structure as your argument, just applied to a different situation, one that showed it's logical flaw.

We are talking about Divinity and Theology here. If you had attempted to do a simile it bears no relevence to any known christian teaching about Unity/Trinity or even Divinity.

I have never argued that Jesus was or wasen't God/son of God/Prophet, anything else.

I have ONLY argued that Jesus, as recorded in the four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luck, and John, never incited violence.

We are left with the following that can be summised from your posts.

no, but let's go through them

You Know Yahweh/God is a intolerant atrocity-maker

I don't know that, I know that the OT reports God ordering numerous things I would consider atrocities

You Beleive Jesus is God, Jesus is Lord, the Lord is your Saviour.

Never said any such thing

Jesus is an Reincarnation of God? Is that what your saying?

no

The Original God is Dead.

I think you have me confused with Nietzsche

Jesus is not connected with the God of Abraham and Moses, other than being a reincarnation.

NEVER SAID JESUS WAS A REINCARNATION

I don't beleive in reincarnation

I said the question of how the OT portrayes God is IRRELIVENT to the issue of Weather Jesus in the Gosples incited violence, IF he were God, then perhapse, however

a-that antecedent has not been proven
b-that is a seperate issue
c-Even IF he were, and therefore in the past DID command atrocities, then Gosples STILL do not recored him commanding his followers to violence

Jesus Is peaceful

correct

All that nasty stuff he said is simply hyperbole

The only time I used the word hyperbole was in relation to your claim that Jesus incited violence, I never claimed Jesus used hyperbole

because Deitys talk in a hyperbolic way

Never said he was a Deity

and like using words like "And it came to pass! and Behold!"

All stuff like that that dosnt fit in with the bits of message you like, can be squinted at and have tangled quasi-theological explainations.

Not a quasi theological explication

I made note of the historical interpetation, and the clear contextual meaning of the verse in the larger chapter.

Jesus knew about the Old God and supported all his decisions

Never said that

agreed with his prophets but because he wasnt the same God, was free of all sin.

Never said that

(Kinda like me Coming back in a new life as Hitler's reincarnation. I know about him , and agree with his lovely ideas and actions. But I'm not him, even when I start telling everyone that I'm bringing the world not peace but a Panzer Division)

poor analogy

The seperate God-thingy has been created by itself,then created the world millions of years before it created itself retroactively, including populating it with people for another totally seperate God to wipe out and punish.

Seriously dude. I would get all your stuff down on paper quick. It sounds like you might have found the next new religion!

Sounds like you have confused me with someone else

Get out there and preach it. Theres probably a few hundred who will go for it, thats all ya need to get started. Try the poor and downtrodden first and offer them some of the good stuff, Jam tommorow in heaven, 15% of all donations today.
I'm Deadly serious. You could go far with this thing. Get the party started!

If you need a hand working out the loose ends Give us a shout, Ive done it before and would be happy to help.

Well, if you haden't falsely like 10 claims to me perhapse it woulden't be so confusing

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

Simply put, your replying a load of "no"'s and no explainations.

I have provided a cohesive argument, you attributed about a dozen claims to me I never made, I don't have time to individualy clarify each point, I told you which one's I didn't agrea with and tried to explain at a few points.

You might not have said some of the above. Jesus did.

correct.

Right, you say that the Jesus of the Bible was Peaceful.

correct

I say the Jesus of the Bible was Mostly peaceful...with a few off days of inciting violence and I give examples.

not really my friend, you quote mined the Gosples ripping some lines from context.

You say this is Irelevent.

No, I said that you had misrepresented the ines by ripping them from the context, both historical, theological, and textual, and trying to make a silly claim.

Which is one of the very poorest of debate-avoidance tools, equivilent to simple capitulation.

I don't think I avoided the issue, I have a historical and textual analysis of the claims

The Ghandi analogy had no structure at all to my arguement, it was light years off course. I've tried to bring it back in two ways. Pointing out that we are actually talking about theology and making a equally silly example which you reject as being poor, but your analogy was fine. And still no explaination why.

Alright, reject the analogy, it dosen't make the argument any better

Despite my love of Lolcats, if you cant tackle some very simple ideas, i'll have to acknowlage that sometimes, cohesion of thought is simply not everyones forte, and leave this here.
In order to argue Jesus is not a violent raging mass murderer, you must seperate him from the being that did all these atrocitys.

No.

You claimed Jesus commanded violence, to support this you cited verses from the Gospels, due to that I assumed you were claiming that Jesus IN THE GOSPELS, incited violence. As in there were specific instances IN THE GOSPELS of Jesus inciting violence.

nothing more nothing less.

Are you or are you not claiming that Jesus is God? Yes /No.
You are catholic yep? Jesus being God is pretty fundamental to the faith.

Where did I say I AM Catholic? I am studying religion.

I NEVER claimed Jesus was God

If not, then who do you say Jesus is?

With a basis of beleif to work from, we might actually start this discussion going.

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

Right ho. Public apology time.

For some reason I had you flagged as a christian.
I was getting utterly confused and a bit incredulous that you diddnt think Jesus was God or that he was your lordnsaviourinsureandcertainhopeforlifeeverlasting ,T.M.

All makes total sense now that I see your an aggy like me, and hence not required to beleive that Jesus was God.

Meh.

Apologies again, and for anyone else. Top tips
1)To assume makes an ass out of yourself.
2)Dont troll forums when tired.
3) Read Peoples Tags before trying to get them to accept Jesus!

However this has brought up some things for the christians. Was Jesus Good? If he's the son of and the divine creation of and the manifestation of Yahweh, how can he be classed as "good:"

HOW DARE YOU MAKE A MISTAKE!!!

It happens

"3) Read Peoples Tags before trying to get them to accept Jesus!"

Very funny apology