-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Jesus---Messiah not God
- Thread starter windblown
- Start date
Equal to God is not the same thing as putting him before God. If we exalted Jesus above the Father I could see this possibly being a problem... but most Christians that I know don’t do that. Although it is entirely possible that some do.
I think this is kind of complicated. First of all what do you mean by "Son of God" or more importantly what does the Bible mean by the term? Does it mean anything more than something like we are all Sons of God because we are all made in God's image, or does it mean something more than that. And if so, what?
I believe the virgin birth and the fact that Jesus was the only begotton son of God is significant meaning that he is of the same essense God as the Father is and he is unlike us. We, too, can become sons of God, but in our case we must be adopted into God's family and transformed. For him his Godship is innate. Indeed to really accomplish the task we must be joined with Christ as one (celebrated by Christian communion)
The interesting thing is that "Son of God" was not his most common title. I believe he most often called himself "Son of Man". What does that mean? Does it mean something more than the fact that we are all sons of man? Why does he call himself that? If he means it in the ordinary sense, I think it looses its meaning. It would be a non-descriptive term since it would apply to all of us. Therefore I believe that the reason that Jesus used "Son of Man" for himself is because he is "God who is son of man" which is very unique and is obviously filled with importance.
Lastly, another problem with considering questions along this line is the danger in trying to apply physical boundries to spiritual questions. For example in this life everyone is autonomous. We are all individuals. All of the spiritual evidence is that autonomy is not something that is maintained in the spiritual world. God in the trinity, God and angels, Christ and the church, married couples. All of these spiritual entities are joined together spiritually in ways that we can hardly begin to imagine. I do not think you can paint a complete picture of one without the other as you can in our physical world, if that makes sense.
Therefore trying to ask where the Father ends and Christ begins is probably a futile question. They are one. Two sides of the same coin. Etc. (John 14:7-9).
I hope that helps.
Yeshua constantly taught people to pray to the Father, to worship the Father. I do believe there is an overemphasis on praying to and worshiping Yeshua instead of the Father whom He was pointing us towards. And the very many Christian songs worshipping the Holy Spirit are highly questionable as we are never taught to worship the Spirit.
Nevertheless, I agree with @Ancient Paths and @Verifyveritas76 that Yeshua is a manifestation of God the Father. I see Him as the mouthpiece through which the Father speaks.
He is both physical and spiritual. He is the interface between the physical and the spiritual. When the Father wishes to speak into the physical world, He does it through His physical manifestation - called the Son in order to allow us to understand their relationship in some way that makes sense to us as biological beings.
In the Revelation we are told of the seven spirits of God. Not one Spirit, but seven Spirits. How does that fit into the Trinity?
I don't think the Trinity exists for a time and then changes. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I think the Trinity is a very simplistic illustration that may have some value for teaching children that God has several aspects (the Father, the Son, and the Spirit), but is highly misleading in that it ascribes equality to these three aspects. When as far as I can see the Father is in charge, the Son is his mouthpiece, and the Spirit (or seven Spirits, or the Breath / Wind) is the creative and life-giving power of God who may or may not have an element of separate personhood(s) (scripture is unclear on that). All three are very different, and the reality is that God is beyond our comprehension so we'll never get it right anyway.
A concept can be technically wrong and yet useful simultaneously. For instance, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force" (the supposed force that keeps the water in a bucket when you spin it around your head). However, the idea that there is "centifugal force" is a really simple way to understand why things appear to be pulled away from a spinning object. In reality, there is "centripetal force", which is actually pulling inwards, and it's a bit more complicated to explain. So a child (or adult with no need to truly understand the engineering principles) can simply imagine "centrifugal force" to explain the movement of spinning objects, and an adult needing to do engineering calculations can adopt the more accurate concept of "centripetal force". In the same way, the Trinity can be used as a really simple way to say "God is complicated and has three major aspects" - but should not be considered essential doctrinal truth, someone looking into it in greater detail may adopt a more complex viewpoint.
@FollowingHim great explanation. indeed, the Almighty is infinitely more complex than we can understand with finite minds....maybe, maybe in the hereafter.
You make a terrific subpoint concerning thevdiffering interests, levels of understanding and depths each go to and the error denominations or individuals make when trying to define Him. it is an error that plagues all aspects of theology.... the need to be right and then the need to impose our 'rightness' on others. That's why Christendom has a path so well lit by burning martyrs.
It relates to why we have to handle thectruth of poly in the manner that we do... we may know and understand more, but that doesn't give us the right to beat others over the head. Conversely, stating what we know without caution in the wrong crowd can lead to a public 'execution.' (Since burning at the stake is currently frowned up, it is usually some form of character assassination...)
The point is that as mature believers, when discussing any theological matter, we must always remember that we do not have the sum of all knowledge and therefore cannot impose our understanding on others. That is one of the great beauties of this forum. For the most part, disagreements are very respectful even when discussion is vigorous.
Thank you and all the moderators for maintaining that balance.
Blessings.
You make a terrific subpoint concerning thevdiffering interests, levels of understanding and depths each go to and the error denominations or individuals make when trying to define Him. it is an error that plagues all aspects of theology.... the need to be right and then the need to impose our 'rightness' on others. That's why Christendom has a path so well lit by burning martyrs.
It relates to why we have to handle thectruth of poly in the manner that we do... we may know and understand more, but that doesn't give us the right to beat others over the head. Conversely, stating what we know without caution in the wrong crowd can lead to a public 'execution.' (Since burning at the stake is currently frowned up, it is usually some form of character assassination...)
The point is that as mature believers, when discussing any theological matter, we must always remember that we do not have the sum of all knowledge and therefore cannot impose our understanding on others. That is one of the great beauties of this forum. For the most part, disagreements are very respectful even when discussion is vigorous.
Thank you and all the moderators for maintaining that balance.
Blessings.
The seven spirits are tied somehow to the seven churches. I don't think they have anything to do with God's nature.
Rev. 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Rev 1:20
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Rev 1:20
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
I don't see seven spirits there. I see one Sprit of God and then six things that are blessings maybe? Fruits of the Spirit? Definitely not seven divisions of God though. I have to admit that I've never even heard of such a thing.
The Revelation 1:20 is what I was referring to. Revelations 1:4 is interesting and I can see where it would raise questions although I still think the reference is to the "angels of the seven churches."
Perry Stone does a good sermon on that and the 9 fruit of the spirit. The spirit is always singular just like the word fruit in Galatians 5:22-23. There are not multiple spirits nor fruit. Just one Fruit and One Spirit with multiple earthly ways of describing it. I was setting here thinking about it and it made me think about how the Parables were the best way to explain a spiritual concept to earthly people. I think that is what is happening here. Spiritual Matters don't translate well to earthly thought. God is describing something too wonderful for words and we are grasping to understand it. But I think it is easy to see the triune God head. In the first 2 verses of the Bible you have YHWH creating the heavens and the earth, the Spirit moving on the waters of the deep and the Word.
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
So the Word, who is God became Flesh and lived among us. So I don't see any reason why you can't pray to Jesus knowing he is God. and God exalts him over his own name.
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
God exalted Jesus above his own name. Cool thought. Plus the Word is the light of the world. The first thing created in the creation story is Light. Most people understand that. The neat thing is that the Sun, moon and stars aren't made untill day 4 I think it is. After grass and land. So what was the Light made on day 1? In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Was reading this with the children today. Certainly makes one think!
Isaiah 9:6,
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6,
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
The nature of the Holy Spirit is quite difficult to pin down. At this stage, I believe that Wisdom and the Holy Spirit are often synonyms in scripture, meaning that when God is said to give wisdom, He is giving the Holy Spirit. So wisdom is a spiritual gift, but more than just one of many gifts, it is the essential nature of the Spirit. Read the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom and this parallel becomes very clear, they are spoken of as one and the same.
To then read Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Sirach from this perspective is very interesting, as you then see the Holy Spirit everywhere.
But you then also see the Spirit presented, as Wisdom, as created by God rather than being Him. By created by Him I take this to mean that the Spirit emanates from God, so is truly part of God, yet is also produced on demand.
As Spirit fundamentally means Breath, this fits. The Spirit is the power of God, breathed out upon the world, bringing life, wisdom, healing and all other good gifts of God. The Spirit can be divided or combined in any way and described as being either one, seven, or many, just as water is a fluid and can be divided or combined. The Spirit can be given to all believers, yet still be one Spirit coming direcctly from God.
I coukd be wrong of course. But that more fluid understanding seems to fit scripture better than any other way I have looked at the issue.
To then read Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Sirach from this perspective is very interesting, as you then see the Holy Spirit everywhere.
But you then also see the Spirit presented, as Wisdom, as created by God rather than being Him. By created by Him I take this to mean that the Spirit emanates from God, so is truly part of God, yet is also produced on demand.
As Spirit fundamentally means Breath, this fits. The Spirit is the power of God, breathed out upon the world, bringing life, wisdom, healing and all other good gifts of God. The Spirit can be divided or combined in any way and described as being either one, seven, or many, just as water is a fluid and can be divided or combined. The Spirit can be given to all believers, yet still be one Spirit coming direcctly from God.
I coukd be wrong of course. But that more fluid understanding seems to fit scripture better than any other way I have looked at the issue.
No, Jesus taught that it was perfectly acceptable to worship him, too. Mary annoiting Jesus was pure worship and praised by Jesus to the detriment of the apostles. Thomas, after seeing the resurrected Christ exclaimed, "My Lord and My God!"
Indeed the many examples of the worship of Jesus is further evidence that he was God and not merely a man.
I am not sure if I understand this comment either. If one believes that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father, or simply the spirit of the Father, then what is the difference? If you believe in the trinity then the Holy Spirit is still part of the God head. So no matter how you believe about the Holy Spirit on the issue of the trinity it seems to me that in all cases he is worthy of worship.
Indeed the greatest commandment, job #1 so to speak, for all Christians is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.". Notice this does not say, "Love the Lord your God the Father with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This commandment refers to all aspects of God, including the Son and the Spirit, however you interpret them I would think.
I'm not sure how you get this; the imagery of Christ is all over Revelation.
Maybe but we are only shown one individual and He never seems to be singled out and quite completely identified. In Revelation 16 when Jesus comes back at the head of His armies He's called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. You certainly don't have the clear separation you see at His baptism for instance.
@cnystrom , I didn't say that worshipping the Son was forbidden, I agree with you that it occurred in scripture. I said there was an "overemphasis" on this. I see no example of prayer to the Son, we are told to pray to the Father, and worship songs are prayers so their focus should be on the Father. But singing / praying to the Son occasionally is not forbidden, just without scriptural precedent without His physical presence.
In the same way, it's not that worship of the Spirit is forbidden either, but the sort of songs that are sung to the Spirit are rather questionable. For instance, I was at a church yesterday where a song featuring the lyrics "Holy Spirit you are welcome here" was sung. The song is pleading directly to the Spirit to come and fill the building. In scripture, where does anyone pray directly to the Spirit? Even Yeshua Himself says "I will ask the Father and He will send you a comforter". We see plenty of examples of asking the Father to send the Spirit, or Wisdom, but nobody inviting the Spirit directly. And the Spirit doesn't need to be made welcome, as if humans could make the church too scary and frighten the Spirit away. The Spirit is all-powerful and can go anywhere the Father pleases, whether welcoming or difficult. So once again this is not forbidden - but is without scriptural precedent and therefore "highly questionable" in my mind.
In the same way, it's not that worship of the Spirit is forbidden either, but the sort of songs that are sung to the Spirit are rather questionable. For instance, I was at a church yesterday where a song featuring the lyrics "Holy Spirit you are welcome here" was sung. The song is pleading directly to the Spirit to come and fill the building. In scripture, where does anyone pray directly to the Spirit? Even Yeshua Himself says "I will ask the Father and He will send you a comforter". We see plenty of examples of asking the Father to send the Spirit, or Wisdom, but nobody inviting the Spirit directly. And the Spirit doesn't need to be made welcome, as if humans could make the church too scary and frighten the Spirit away. The Spirit is all-powerful and can go anywhere the Father pleases, whether welcoming or difficult. So once again this is not forbidden - but is without scriptural precedent and therefore "highly questionable" in my mind.
I agree in essence with the position of @steve and @FollowingHim 's perspective about worshiping the Father seems to be the directive even Yeshua taught us.
I don't see any reason given in scripture to pray to the son or the holy spirit ever regardless of their divine status or lack-there-of.
I think people misunderstand when translations say "so and so worshiped him" as this comes out of the Hebrew mishtachaveh to prostrate down; which translates "worship" when we are doing it to G-d but differently when doing it before a King (like the King of the Jews).
I'm uncomfortable in worship services singing "come holy spirit come" and also singing to Yeshua in the 2nd person because I don't see examples of this in scripture.
Similar to what Sam wrote, I'm not sure if it's a sin or not, I just don't feel comfortable with it because I'm not sure that it's the right protocol and since holy behavior is defined by G-d's protocol and really what's the harm in not doing it?
Is it harmful to always pray "Abba" or El-Shaddai, G-d of Israel, etc.? Is there some kind of risk in following Yeshua's prayer example?
I tend to also believe in a G-d of complex unity but I'd rather not break from the biblical examples of how to pray; to me it seems praying to Yeshua is something which just came from tradition in the church that developed over time. I may be way off base though it just seems this way to me. There is definitely some kind of hierarchy between Father, Son, and Holy spirit otherwise Yeshua wouldn't mention "being at the right hand" of the Father (a position of subservience).
If I'm wrong about the dual / tri-une / septane / etc. nature of G-d well I'd rather err on the side of the safety within the Sh'ma as Steve pointed out since nothing says to ask Yeshua for anything and as for folks who don't believe in these things but do accept the sacrifice given by the Messiah ... it just seems to me those guys so often get hit hard by the traditionalists; disfellowshipped etc.and I don't see any grounds for that.
As others pointed out, the biblical model is "ask the Father in the name of the Son"
I don't see any reason given in scripture to pray to the son or the holy spirit ever regardless of their divine status or lack-there-of.
I think people misunderstand when translations say "so and so worshiped him" as this comes out of the Hebrew mishtachaveh to prostrate down; which translates "worship" when we are doing it to G-d but differently when doing it before a King (like the King of the Jews).
I'm uncomfortable in worship services singing "come holy spirit come" and also singing to Yeshua in the 2nd person because I don't see examples of this in scripture.
Similar to what Sam wrote, I'm not sure if it's a sin or not, I just don't feel comfortable with it because I'm not sure that it's the right protocol and since holy behavior is defined by G-d's protocol and really what's the harm in not doing it?
Is it harmful to always pray "Abba" or El-Shaddai, G-d of Israel, etc.? Is there some kind of risk in following Yeshua's prayer example?
I tend to also believe in a G-d of complex unity but I'd rather not break from the biblical examples of how to pray; to me it seems praying to Yeshua is something which just came from tradition in the church that developed over time. I may be way off base though it just seems this way to me. There is definitely some kind of hierarchy between Father, Son, and Holy spirit otherwise Yeshua wouldn't mention "being at the right hand" of the Father (a position of subservience).
If I'm wrong about the dual / tri-une / septane / etc. nature of G-d well I'd rather err on the side of the safety within the Sh'ma as Steve pointed out since nothing says to ask Yeshua for anything and as for folks who don't believe in these things but do accept the sacrifice given by the Messiah ... it just seems to me those guys so often get hit hard by the traditionalists; disfellowshipped etc.and I don't see any grounds for that.
As others pointed out, the biblical model is "ask the Father in the name of the Son"
Lol, I was merely curious if anyone had any information about the % of Messianics that do not believe in Christ's divinity.
Mostly, Messianics tote the traditional line of Christendom in this area with just some lingo change "tri-une" was popular for a while; now I think "complex-unity" is gaining but it's all getting at the same thing.Thanks for the replies, y'all. Oh, I definitely remember the Binitarianism thread. It was at the same time I dealing with a very optimistic Jehovah Witness lady.
I had never heard of these Messianics/HR/TO ones before, although there were some hints.. But they came roaring out on some social media threads. Soooo defensive. Maybe some of that "over reacting" and "pent up emotions" from the "oppression" as Ish mentioned. @IshChayil, could it be that one group, say Messianics, over another has more unitarian (not sure that's the correct term) leanings?
Part of this, I believe, is based on Messianics' unwillingness to bite off more than we can chew.
We already receive enough blowback from being interested in what the sages (ancient Rabbis) have to say about things, and about keeping Kosher, etc. that we don't want to push our luck and alienate our hosts (often Christian churches letting us use their pads on Saturday).
Often what happens if someone in Messianic circles feels very strongly about Yeshua & Ruach H.K. not being distinct personalities of G-d, they migrate over to a group known as Nazarene Judaism; kind of a sub-category if you will. Regarding your question of how many "messianic Jews" could be classified as Unitarians (I may also be misusing this term it doesn't feel right), if we exclude the Nazarene Jews, I'd put it at 5-10%.
It's usually not an issue or cause for division though I think some of the more Hebrew-Christiany groups like the Alliance won't tolerate the Nazarene Jewish perspective on the nature of G-d in leadership. My gutt tells me there may be more as it's kind of "don't ask don't tell" because really who cares?
Well it gets rather less straight-forward than presented when we trace back to the full encounter at the burning bush (where the Greek Ego eimi "I am" used in John in the Greek maps back to the Tanakh via the LXX).
It starts by saying that the malakh-Hashem "angel of the L-rd" appeared to Moses in a flame in a bush...
then the full dialogue appears. So one could make a fairly strong case that Yeshua is saying "I am the angel of the L-rd"... since also we have the encounter of 3 angels with Avraham Avinu, 2 go on to destroy S'dom and 'Amorah and one stays to discuss things with Avraham.
I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, but you asked a good question and I hope this answer illuminates a little bit that our brothers and sisters who don't buy the trinity are not just ignoring what seem to be obvious verses like "I am" but that it's actually quite a bit more complicated when researching it deeply.
shalom