Which is risker?

[Elijah John]

Which approach is riskier?

a) To worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is not?

b) Or to not worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is?

Why?

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 66 by dakoski]

John comments that the people of his day were are hearted as YHWH predicted verse 38-40

Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, who said: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?� The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.�

Then the writer states Isaiah was in a position to say the above because saw "His" glory.

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.

-Could you flesh out your argument a bit more as its not clear to me the point you're making, is it:

1) Jesus isn't Jehovah almighty

2) Isaiah 6 speaks of Jehovah almighty

3) Therefore Isaiah 6 isn't about Jesus because Jesus isn't Jehovah almighty

4) Therefore Jesus isn't Jehovah almighty

if so its a circular argument that presumes its conclusion.

-A further point if John 12:41 says Isaiah saw the Father, does that not contradict John 1:18? Did John make a mistake?

[dakoski]

The context makes it clear the glory being spoken of is Jesus'. Since John is quoting Isaiah 6 to show this was the expected reaction to Jesus.

Verse 37 is indeed speaking about Jesus, verse 41 is not. John comments that the people of his day were hard- hearted and didn't put faith in JESUS (verse 37)

Although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him [Jesus]

The writer then quotes Isaiah 53:1, and Isaiah 6:10 to prove that the rejection of the Messiah had been previously predicted as by YHWH (see verse 38-40).

Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, who said: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?� The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.�

Then the writer states Isaiah was in a position to say the above because saw "His" glory* (verse 41)

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.

So the writer concludes, returning to his original point, that prophecy was fulfilled with some putting faith "him" [Jesus], others preferred glory from humans to glory from God. (verses 42, 43)

All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God.

So verse 38- 41 are the writers proof that the people's attitude was in fact part of prophecy. He doesn't claim that Isaiah saw Jesus, only that Isaiah saw The "him" that had predicted the people's bad attitude towards Jesus. In the absence of Isaiah or John explicitly stating the predictions (about Jesus) were made by Jesus, the context does not establish this.

In short:

#1 The people rejected "him" [Jesus]

#2 the "him" that Isaiah saw, predicted that the chosen Messiah would be rejected.

#3 The majority indeed did rejected "him".

A reasonable conclusion then is that: "him" #1 & 3 = Jesus ; #2 = whoever Isaiah stated he "saw".

ISAIAH 6:1
I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne




JW

* NOTE Like Moses, Isaiah didn't literally see the person of Almighty God, he saw a glorious representation or vision of God.

I've already told you in another thread its ethically dubious to use the edit function to rewrite your post after I've replied to you. It distorts the discussion unnecessarily and makes it look like I've not addressed your points or read your post properly.

I'm not really interested in replying to this rewriting of history - if you want to continue the discussion respond to my response. And in future please don't rewrite your posts after I've replied, editing for grammar or typos is fine rewriting them looks dishonest.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 69 by dakoski]

Please do as you like. If you wish to leave don't let me stop you.

Have an excellent evening whatever you decide to do.


JW

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 69 by dakoski]

Please do as you like. If you wish to leave don't let me stop you.

Have an excellent evening whatever you decide to do.


JW

You don't think its ethically dubious to rewrite posts after someone has replied to you? If your conscience is OK with that then that's up to you. But I'd rather not engage in those kind of discussions and will call you out when you do it.

[brianbbs67]

I would agree that if a post is edited at all it should be noted and if responded to before editing, a corrected post should appear separately. Like Newspapers do, except on the front page not section D, page 32.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Which approach is riskier?

a) To worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is not?

b) Or to not worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is?

Why?

What would be riskier would be whichever is further from Truth, which I suppose is what you are really asking.

But just to throw some stuff out there -- I think it would be a riskier move to ignore what we do know (history). It would be risky to think God waited until the 19th century to establish His church by a group of 5 men who made false prophesies. It would be risky to me to trust/accept/believe anyone who changed/altered Sacred Scripture or changed her teachings over the years. It would be risky to follow a church that does not claim to have authority.

For me, those are some things that would be huge red flags for me and I would consider risky moves. If a person wanted to reduce the risk in being wrong about God, he or she would need to look at history, look at the facts, acknowledge the world we live in, and use reason and logic to determine if what we plan to put our trust/faith in meets certain rational components. Faith and reason work together. They do not contradict one another.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Which approach is riskier?

a) To worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is not?

b) Or to not worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is?

Why?

What would be riskier would be whichever is further from Truth, which I suppose is what you are really asking.

But just to throw some stuff out there -- I think it would be a riskier move to ignore what we do know (history). It would be risky to think God waited until the 19th century to establish His church by a group of 5 men who made false prophesies. It would be risky to me to trust/accept/believe anyone who changed/altered Sacred Scripture or changed her teachings over the years. It would be risky to follow a church that does not claim to have authority.

For me, those are some things that would be huge red flags for me and I would consider risky moves. If a person wanted to reduce the risk in being wrong about God, he or she would need to look at history, look at the facts, acknowledge the world we live in, and use reason and logic to determine if what we plan to put our trust/faith in meets certain rational components. Faith and reason work together. They do not contradict one another.

Again, you seem to be confusing me with a Jehovah's Witness. Yes, I am a witness for YHVH, (Jehovah), but I am not a member of that organization. They have a far higher Christology than I, and they also believe in "the blood" which I do not.

Speaking of risk if there is any chance that Jesus is not God, isn't Jesus worship then a form of idolatry? And how serious an idolatry would that be?

If you are absolutely convinced that "Jesus is God" what makes you so sure? The RCC say so? Anything more than that?

And even if Jesus IS God, where is Jesus-worship written or commanded? Or even expounded as a virtue?

Seems to me that Jesus (at least the Synoptic Jesus) directed worship to the Father alone.

John's Jesus, by contrast, seems to have grasped for a share of Divne glory. In spite of Paul saying he never did such a thing.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 74 by Elijah John]

Again, you seem to be confusing me with a Jehovah's Witness.

Yes, sorry, I am, however once again I think the point remains. Like I said, for me, I would look for red flags and I would consider those types of things risky moves. If a person wanted to reduce the risk in being wrong about God, he or she would need to look at history, look at the facts, acknowledge the world we live in, and use reason and logic to determine if what we plan to put our trust/faith in meets certain rational components. Faith and reason work together. They do not contradict one another.

Speaking of risk if there is any chance that Jesus is not God, isn't Jesus worship then a form of idolatry? And how serious an idolatry would that be?

If Jesus IS God, how serious would that be to not only be dissing God’s beloved son, but God Himself?

If you are absolutely convinced that "Jesus is God" what makes you so sure? The RCC say so? Anything more than that?

What makes you so sure God is God? Personal revelation? Sacred Scripture? What makes you so sure? Got anything more?

And even if Jesus IS God, where is Jesus-worship written or commanded? Or even expounded as a virtue?

Through Christ’s Church. Throughout all of Christendom. In Scripture. In early Church writings.

Seems to me that Jesus (at least the Synoptic Jesus) directed worship to the Father alone.

I would say that is a risky position from all that can be known via history, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

John's Jesus, by contrast, seems to have grasped for a share of Divne glory. In spite of Paul saying he never did such a thing.

Sounds like a personal interpretation lacking authority.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 75 by RightReason]

Please review the my previous post and answer the questions councillor.. Enough with the unsupported assertions and evasions.

Straight answers please, and no more answering questions with a question.

And don't try to change the subject. We are not discussing whether "God is God" (whatever that means) but the consequence of Jesus worship if Jesus is not God.

So, to repeat. What are the consequences of Jesus-worship if Jesus is not actually God? How is that not idolatry?

And a reminder, I am not appealing to the opinions of recent religious sects. This is not a question of novelty vs. antiquity.

And your resort to ancient traditon only amounts to the fallacy of appeals to authority.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Please review the my previous post and answer the questions councillor.. Enough with the unsupported assertions and evasions.

What have I asserted that isn’t supported? Certainly no more than you

Straight answers please, and no more answering questions with a question.

There was a point to the answering the question with a question. Perhaps it evades you.

And don't try to change the subject. We are not discussing whether "God is God" (whatever that means)

whatever that means exactly. As you see, my response isn’t changing the subject if in fact Jesus IS God. It would be the definition of God that I and Christ’s Church hold. However, you seem to have a different definition of God. So yes, actually we are discussing whether God is God. The whatever that means part is kind of the point.

but the consequence of Jesus worship if Jesus is not God.

As I tried to answer before – the consequences would be the same as one worshiping the wrong God. If I think Jesus is God and you think Jesus is not God, then we are clearly not worshiping the same God. And we both can’t be right. So, the consequences of not worshiping the right God would be the same if what I am worshiping is false. It doesn’t really matter if I think God is a bird or I think God is a creature with 12 tentacles. If God is neither of those things, then I would be wrong.

So, to repeat. What are the consequences of Jesus-worship if Jesus is not actually God? How is that not idolatry?

The consequences are the same if God is not who you think He is. You get that, right? If He is a Trinitarian God and you deny that, then you are guilty of idolatry too – of making God into what you want Him to be and worshipping a false God.

And a reminder, I am not appealing to the opinions of recent religious sects. This is not a question of novelty vs. antiquity.

Any sect not established by Christ Himself would be considered novel. It would be outside His established Church and therefore somehow new from His original Church based on antiquity.

[quote[And your resort to ancient traditon only amounts to the fallacy of appeals to authority.[/quote]

Not if that authority can be traced to Christ Himself – which it can. So you would actually be guilty of dissing Sacred Tradition just because it is ancient – that’s a fallacy of its own.


If I am placing too much emphasis on Tradition, perhaps you aren’t placing enough . . . Things of yor aren’t good or right because they are things of yor, but neither are they wrong . . .


As G. K. Chesterton so insightfully pointed out . . .

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross."