If Jesus is God, why didn't he teach..

[Elijah John]

If Jesus is God, why didn't he teach anyone to pray to Jesus? If he had, do you think his apostles would have been able to take him seriously?

If the notion of praying to Jesus was ridiculous in his own day, then isn't the notion that Jesus is God also ridiculous?

[For_The_Kingdom]

The father can't be anywhere but in the context as Jesus pointed out that if you have seen the son, you have seen the father. The father can't be seen anywhere but through the son. Christ pointed out that the Father was in the son

My point exactly. Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father, right?

So, if the Father is God (no debate), and Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father, then in essence, Jesus is saying "To see me is to see God".

See how that works?

[shnarkle]

Unless as scripture says, they were delegated to Christ? Much like a prophet it the OT, God's intermediary on earth.

But those prophets in the OT weren't worshipped, though. Jesus was. And that "delegated" stuff might work for things like answering prayers and forgiveness of sins (and that is a big "might"), but it wont work for acts of worship.

Scripture is clear that rendering worship to anyone/anything besides God is a no-no...yet, we have scriptures of Jesus being worshipped.

1. Worship no one but God
2. Jesus was worshipped
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Worship no one but God
Angels were worshipped.
Therefore angels are God.

That obviously doesn't follow does it?
Just because Jesus was worshipped doesn't mean he's God.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6"

Is it proper to worship the lord, especially if one should worship no one but God? I'm not sure you're first or second premises are accurate, especially with regard to Paul's comments to the Corinthians. When he points out that in Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead in bodily form, it also points out that Christ can be looked at as a vessel for God's presence much like one would look at the Temple. We wouldn't then conclude that the Temple is God, right? The fact that Christ makes this comparison to his body may be pertinent.

For all practical intents and purposes, Christ does seem to be God, but when he says if you have seen the son you have seen the father or that he is the image of the invisible God, it seems that the texts are pointing out that he's really not God, but God's image, form, son, word, icon, Symbol, etc.

To me it seems to be indicating that God can't actually exist without the son. The father exists in and with and through the son, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the son is God. I would make the same argument with regards to God's glory or presence in the Temple, the pillar of fire by night, and smoke during the day; the burning bush, etc. These are all manifestations of God, but especially within the context of the strict Monotheism of the Old Testament, a transcendent God can't be known at all. Therefore these manifestations can't be God, but aspects or manifestations of God. Some would call them theophanies, but I would call them Christophanies. in keeping with Paul's interpretation of "that rock is Christ". He would have to be the manifest God of the Old Testament(or perhaps more accurately the manifest Lord of the OT?), and by the same token this is precisely why Christ could accurately claim to reveal the Father.

[brianbbs67]

Unless as scripture says, they were delegated to Christ? Much like a prophet it the OT, God's intermediary on earth.

But those prophets in the OT weren't worshipped, though. Jesus was. And that "delegated" stuff might work for things like answering prayers and forgiveness of sins (and that is a big "might"), but it wont work for acts of worship.

Scripture is clear that rendering worship to anyone/anything besides God is a no-no...yet, we have scriptures of Jesus being worshipped.

1. Worship no one but God
2. Jesus was worshipped
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

After that is established, then those other duties like answering prayers and forgiving sins makes that much more sense.

Worship was afforded to many leaders and still is. The important thing is to only address the Lord as The Lord. Hosea 12:6 JPS tanakh, the original OT. "Yet The Lord(YHVH) , the God of Hosts, must be invoked as "Lord"(YHVH). The footnote says, IE, we should not invoke any of the heavenly host.

So, intercessory prayer or praying to anything except God is forbidden.

That said, if there are certain verses you wish examined. We can do that. Sometimes the Greek is not the Greek, as they were polytheists and their language reflected that. Ieonous or Jesus, is their creation. It was not his name. Apparantly, Yeshau, Yehoshau, Joshua, don't lend themselves to their language.

[shnarkle]

The father can't be anywhere but in the context as Jesus pointed out that if you have seen the son, you have seen the father. The father can't be seen anywhere but through the son. Christ pointed out that the Father was in the son

My point exactly. Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father, right?

So, if the Father is God (no debate), and Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father, then in essence, Jesus is saying "To see me is to see God".

See how that works?

I wouldn't say that it is "in essence", but effectively to see God's image. God is the origin while Christ is the means. Christ is the image of God, but the image isn't God. He's God's image. The thing to keep in mind here is that we are also image bearers of God as well, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't use this fact to conclude that you're God, would you?

It's a puzzling dilemma in that this is a problem for us as well in that we are not what we have or possess. We cannot completely identify with what is identified, and identification isn't really even the real issue here. We can identify the component pieces, but the part isn't the whole.

Christ and Paul both point out that Christ is effectively the icon of God, but this has to be because the Father transcends existence. There can be no referrent for God. The icon or symbol have no referrent, and by definition are substituted for what is signified. This isn't even accurate because what is signified doesn't exist except within the symbol. Ironically, it would appear that this may be what gives the symbol significance. Were it the case that the symbol did have a referent, then the symbol wouldn't be significant at all because a symbol must signify something else. The significance must lie outside the symbol with what is signified.

Christ reflects God's image, but a reflection is not the origin of what is reflected, but the means by which the image is reflected. For Christ to be the image is something different than saying he's the mirror by which the image is reflected, but Christ seems to be both. Nonetheless, he's not the origin of the image which is the Father.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 44 by shnarkle]

And Genesis 5:1-5 add a new wrinkle. As Adam begat children in his image. Not God's.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 44 by shnarkle]

And Genesis 5:1-5 add a new wrinkle. As Adam begat children in his image. Not God's.

When you refer to a new "wrinkle" and that Adam's children were made in Adam's image and "not God's" it seems to me you are trying to communicate the thought that although we can conclude Adam was in God's image all Adam's children cannot thus be considered and that this conclusion is somewhat problematic ("a wrinkle"). If this is what you were trying to communicate, please read on.


The bible text states God said refering to the Creation of Adam "Let us make man in our image" - Then Adam, given the power of procreation, had a son described as being "in his [Adam's] image". If Adam was made in God's image and his children were in Adam's image, where the children of Adam not also in God's image?

To illustrate: Image a man made a car that had the same features as a Porche. Then made replicas of that car. Would the replicas have the same features as the original Porche?

What do you think Brian?

JW




RELATED POSTS

If Adam & Eve were perfect, how could they sin?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 903#873903

How should we understand being in God's imagge ? (Tim)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 001#813001

[bjs]

Scripture is clear that rendering worship to anyone/anything besides God is a no-no...yet, we have scriptures of Jesus being worshipped.

1. Worship no one but God
2. Jesus was worshipped
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Worship no one but God
Angels were worshipped.
Therefore angels are God.

That obviously doesn't follow does it?
Just because Jesus was worshipped doesn't mean he's God.

Throughout the biblical cannon angels were not worshiped. In the Bible when someone tried to worship an angel (Rev 22:8-9) or tried to worship a human (Acts 14:13-15), those being worship tried to put a stop to it.

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 28:9) as if worshiping him was an appropriate thing to do. This suggests that he believed he was God.

If we agree that only God is to be worshiped then either Jesus (knowingly or unknowingly) encourage idolatry, or Jesus is God.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Worship no one but God
Angels were worshipped.
Therefore angels are God.

That obviously doesn't follow does it?

9Then the angel told me to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.� And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.� 10So I fell at his feet to worship him. But he told me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who rely on the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!

Just because Jesus was worshipped doesn't mean he's God.

You see, on one hand, we have what you are saying above...and on the other hand, we have what the Bible actually says, in the blatantly obvious scripture I provided.

Now, it is apparent that what you are saying appears to contradict what the Bible is saying on this very subject..and that is EXACTLY why we need Christian apologists out here acting as quality control, because that is what is needed to keep the bad interpretations, and in some cases out right DECEPTIVE theology that has plagued Christendom since Jesus ascended into heaven. We need to keep that stuff out.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6"

Is it proper to worship the lord, especially if one should worship no one but God?

Interesting. But then again..

Acts 2:38-39..

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.�

Pay attention to verse 39 "..for all whom the Lord our God will call".

You've got problems here, sir. You just gave a scripture where it states that we only have one Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet, Acts 2:39 states that God (the Father) is our Lord.

And you can't say that vs 39 is talking about Jesus, unless you are willing to admit that Peter is calling Jesus "God"...and if it is referring to the "Father" in this context, it is calling the Father "Lord", a title of which you just said applies only to Jesus.

It is a catch 22

I'm not sure you're first or second premises are accurate, especially with regard to Paul's comments to the Corinthians. When he points out that in Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead in bodily form, it also points out that Christ can be looked at as a vessel for God's presence much like one would look at the Temple. We wouldn't then conclude that the Temple is God, right? The fact that Christ makes this comparison to his body may be pertinent.

Heb 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."

If Jesus is the exact representation of God, then Jesus must actually be God. This harmonizes PERFECTLY with what Jesus told Philip in the same scripture we had previously discussed..."Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

In other words, if the Father decided to come on earth and dwell among man in a physical body, he would come on earth as Jesus!!!

For all practical intents and purposes, Christ does seem to be God, but when he says if you have seen the son you have seen the father or that he is the image of the invisible God, it seems that the texts are pointing out that he's really not God, but God's image, form, son, word, icon, Symbol, etc.

It has to be much more than that, though. Think about it, if God is perfect, holy, righteous, merciful, etc...qualities of which are to the absolute HIGHEST degree possible...and Jesus said "to see me is to see the Father", that would also mean that Jesus' qualities are also to the highest degree possible...because if that was NOT the case, then to see Jesus WOULD NOT be to see the Father, would it? No, it wouldn't.

To me it seems to be indicating that God can't actually exist without the son. The father exists in and with and through the son, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the son is God. I would make the same argument with regards to God's glory or presence in the Temple, the pillar of fire by night, and smoke during the day; the burning bush, etc. These are all manifestations of God, but especially within the context of the strict Monotheism of the Old Testament, a transcendent God can't be known at all. Therefore these manifestations can't be God, but aspects or manifestations of God. Some would call them theophanies, but I would call them Christophanies. in keeping with Paul's interpretation of "that rock is Christ". He would have to be the manifest God of the Old Testament(or perhaps more accurately the manifest Lord of the OT?), and by the same token this is precisely why Christ could accurately claim to reveal the Father.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Worship was afforded to many leaders and still is.

The question is, should it be?

Luke 4:8 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"


Rev 22:8-9 "...And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things. 9But he said to me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!�

[shnarkle]

Throughout the biblical cannon angels were not worshiped. In the Bible when someone tried to worship an angel (Rev 22:8-9) or tried to worship a human (Acts 14:13-15), those being worship tried to put a stop to it.

The biblical canon points out that there are plenty of gods that are worshipped by neighboring civilizations, e.g. the Canaanites, Hittites, etc. Then there's Satan who not only allows worship, but suggests it as well. This suggests that he may have believed he was God or at least worthy of God's worship. This doesn't sound much different than what you're suggesting which leads me back to my original conclusion,i.e. Jesus is simply the way or means that one approaches the transcendent, and it is not what is worshipped, but simply the means of worship.

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 28:9) as if worshiping him was an appropriate thing to do. This suggests that he believed he was God.

It would also suggest that Satan believes the same thing about himself. Given that Jesus taught to "deny yourself", my suspicion is that he took his own advice, and therefore knew he wasn't God, but simply the Way one worships God.

If we agree that only God is to be worshiped then either Jesus (knowingly or unknowingly) encourage idolatry, or Jesus is God.

Or Christ is the Way, the Truth, the Life that leads to transcendence. It is the difference between looking at a window verses looking through a window. Jesus suggests that looking at the window isn't as valuable as looking through the window. He displays the means to the transcendent, he is not the destination.