Fear God alone

[Wootah]

One of things all people but I presume Christians actually try to do it is to fear God and not fear other things.

examples from: https://www.openbible.info/topics/fear_of_the_lord

Proverbs 1:7 ESV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Deuteronomy 10:12 ESV
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

Psalm 23:4 ESV
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

Now here are some examples saying to not fear man https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Do-Not-Fear-Men

Psalm 118:6 ESV
The Lord is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?

1 Peter 2:17 ESV
Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Proverbs 29:25 ESV / 399 helpful votes
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.

I like 1 Peter 2 because it says clearly to honour the emperor but not fear the emperor and we can apply that to all kings and rulers.

The general point is that Christians are only meant to fear God and not fear man (or other things pretending to be God or angels). On angels, angels say fear not quite often. I think this is partly due to the fact they are probably terrifying but also because they do not want us to worship them. Only fear God.

Do you agree?

If you do agree can you explain this verse in the Bible?

https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-21.htm
https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-21.htm

New International Version
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

New Living Translation
And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

English Standard Version
submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Berean Standard Bible
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Berean Literal Bible
Be submitting yourselves to one another in reverence of Christ:

King James Bible
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

New King James Version
submitting to one another in the fear of God.

New American Standard Bible
and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.

NASB 1995
and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

NASB 1977
and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

Legacy Standard Bible
and being subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

Amplified Bible
being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Christian Standard Bible
submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.

American Standard Version
subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Be subject to one another in the love of The Messiah.

Contemporary English Version
Honor Christ and put others first.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.

English Revised Version
subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Place yourselves under each other's authority out of respect for Christ.

Good News Translation
Submit yourselves to one another because of your reverence for Christ.

International Standard Version
and you will submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah.

Literal Standard Version
subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.

Majority Standard Bible
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

I notice that the Greek word is phobos (the word for fear, phobia) so translations using reverence are meaning well but are not accurate. Similar to how the word doulos means slave but gets translated servant a lot .

Question: If we are only meant to fear God, why does the Bible say to fear Christ?

Is this evidence that Christ is God and it is good to fear Christ or .... over to you.

[JehovahsWitness]

the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion ...

Proof provided in post below.

[Bobcat]

It is not to fear God but revere Him. Worship Him.

“Genuine worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth….”( Jesus) book of JN

[JehovahsWitness]

WAS JESUS WRONGLY [ILLEGALLY] CONVICTED OF BLASPHEMY?

The Mosaic law against blasphemy was as follows :

EXODUS 20:7

You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way.

EXODUS 22:28
You must not curse God nor curse a chieftain among your people.

• SANHEDREN MISHNAH : "One who blasphemes, i.e., one who curses God, is not liable unless he utters the name of God and curses it" - Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.5

SANHEDREN MISHNAH : Court law forbid the giving of self-incriminating evidence; so whatever Jesus said during his trial he could not legally be convicted of blasphemy or any other crime based solely thereon.

Consequently, he may not testify about himself, just as the testimony of any relative is disqualified. And furthermore, a person does not make himself wicked. His testimony with regard to his own actions is inadmissible - Yevamot 25b

• According to Mishnah. Bava Kamma 90b:9 “a witness cannot become a judge” so once Caiphas and his associates proposed they themselves were witnesses of BLASPHEMY they no longer qualified to be Jesus’ judge. Ergo the subsequent conviction was illegal under court law.

Further reading : https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... ter-26.htm

To learn more please go to other posts related to

"BAD JESUS" , "FARICATED JESUS" and ... JESUS OF NAZARETH

[JehovahsWitness]

The documented evidence of first century Sanhedren law constitutes PROOF that, to date , there is no record of Jesus of Nazareth ever commiting the crime of BLASPHEMY as stipulated by said law [Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.5; Yevamot 25b ; Bava Kamma 90b:9], he was therefore wrongfully convicted of said crime.

The numerous illegalities of the proceedings according to both the Mosaic and the Mishnah law codes should have rendered any verdict arrived at during the night trial null and void.

And I asked and answered. "It was blasphemy."

Yes you did make this claim, as yet unsubstantiated: prove it.




JW



RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus night trial legal?
viewtopic.php?p=1126276#p1126276

[Miles]

The documented evidence of first century Sanhedren law constitutes PROOF that, to date , there is no record of Jesus of Nazareth ever commiting the crime of BLASPHEMY as stipulated by said law [Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.5; Yevamot 25b ; Bava Kamma 90b:9], he was therefore wrongfully convicted of said crime.

The numerous illegalities of the proceedings according to both the Mosaic and the Mishnah law codes should have rendered any verdict arrived at during the night trial null and void.

And I asked and answered. "It was blasphemy."

Yes you did make this claim, as yet unsubstantiated: prove it.

Originally you had asked (post 53) "Are you suggesting Jesus violated the Mishnah [Sanhedrin] law rather than the Mosaic law? "

To which I said (post 58) "What else could it be? Why else would the Sanhedrin say “He is deserving of death!” if he didn't break a law? And what was that law? As Caiaphas declared, it was blasphemy."

To which you asked (post 60) "That is what I'm asking you; you made the claim, not I." [obviously you chose to disregarded my last sentence]

to which you immediately repeated you remark (post 61) "That is what I'm asking you; you made the claim, not I." [inadvertent re-post?]

Addressing your first query (post 60) I said (post 63) "And I asked and answered. "It was blasphemy."

Now *sigh* sixteen (16) posts later you're still mired in what law Jesus was accused of violating. (post 74) "Yes you did make this claim, as yet unsubstantiated: prove it."



How about your own Bible, the New World Translation (2013 Revision)

Matthew 26:63-66
”+ 63 But Jesus kept silent.+ So the high priest said to him: “I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!”+ 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man+ sitting at the right hand of power+ and coming on the clouds of heaven.”+ 65 Then the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See! Now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What is your opinion?” They answered: “He deserves to die.”+

.

[JehovahsWitness]

How about your own Bible, the New World Translation

I am aware that the bible canon records Jesus being convicted of Blasphemy. I have proposed and offered PROOF that said conviction was illegal. And that according to Hebrew law the words recorded in Matthew 26:63-66 were in fact not blasphemous as concluded by Caiaphas.

You claim the words recorded in Matthew 26:63-66 were blasphemous because the court pronounced them so. Without resorting to circular reasoning , I am now asking you to offer PROOF of your yet unsubstaniated claim that Jesus words were indeed blasphemous as deemed at his trial

RELATED POSTS

Does pointing out that Jesus was convicted of blaphemy constitute sufficient proof that what Jesus is recorded as saying was indeed BLASPHEMY?
viewtopic.php?p=1126322#p1126322

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

[theophile]

One of things all people but I presume Christians actually try to do it is to fear God and not fear other things.
...
Do you agree?

Our fear of God should extend from God to all things. It's in the nature of what it means to fear God. To see what I mean, I think it's helpful to look at the first instance of fear of God in the bible, which is Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve are afraid of God because they are naked. Here we see that fear of God is first and foremost the fear of being naked, and then of God presumably for what God may do to us for the things that we have done or expose.

While many Bibles do indeed say in Genesis 3:10 that Adam was afraid and hid because he was naked

New Living Translation
He replied, “I heard you walking in the garden, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked.”

Just as an aside, wouldn't it be far more accurate to say Adam was afraid, not of being naked per se, but because of what his nakedness told god?---not that god, being omniscient, wouldn't have known how the whole little drama here was going to play out anyway---From the very outset god knew that through his apple incident he wold be establishing a sellable reason to infect humanity with original sin. And sell it he has: 2.2 billion Christians and 4 million Jews have bought the idea.

Other Bibles say they were afraid because they simply heard god walking in the garden.

Tree of Life Version
Then he said, “Your sound—I heard it in the garden and I was afraid. Because I am naked, I hid myself.” [Deftly setting the two situations apart]

So, the only reason here for hiding was because they were ashamed of being naked, not fearful because they were naked.


Moreover, some Bibles don't even mention being afraid.

The Living Bible
And Adam replied, “I heard you coming and didn’t want you to see me naked. So I hid.”


Other than giving god a pretense to lay Original Sin on everyone, I'd say it's not at all clear what part the their nakedness played in fearing god.

.

You are right that the verse could possibly be read in other ways. I'm not an ancient Hebrew scholar so I won't argue that. No matter what though, nudity is a central concept in Genesis 3, and given it is placed so closely here to the first instance of fear of God I think there is reason to at least consider a connection...

In such instances, I find it helpful to go to other texts, to see how the interpretation holds up. Notable here I think are the trial of Abraham and Job, both of whom explicitly had their fear of God tested.

In Job, nudity makes an appearance again in Job's first declaration in 1:21 after being stripped of his children and wealth: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. ... blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Being stripped bare is the essence of the test, and in this moment we see Job is quite intent on persisting in his nudity / fear of God...

The same can be seen in Abraham's trial, when God asks for Isaac, presumably to see how willing Abraham will be to expose what he most cherishes on the mountaintop. To expose himself and in doing so demonstrate his fear of God...



Once we enter into this way of thinking, it's hard to deny it methinks.

But don't forget Isaiah 20:1-3 where god tells one of his followers, Isaiah, to take off all his clothes and go naked, which Isaiah did, and for three years no less.

Isaiah 20:1-3
1 Sargon was the king of Assyria. He sent his military commander to fight against Ashdod. The commander went there and captured the city. 2 At that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said, “Go, take the sackcloth off your waist and the sandals off your feet.” So Isaiah obeyed the Lord and went without clothes or sandals.

3 Then the Lord said, “My servant Isaiah has gone without clothes or sandals for three years. This is a sign for Egypt and Ethiopia.

So, how bad can going naked really be?

I suppose I would ask Job that one. Or Jesus. Who would have been nailed to the cross naked, and with the cross itself being the most extreme exposure we see in the bible.

Granted that Jesus' situation was more extreme, but I fail to see why his nakedness would be a more extreme exposure than Isaiah's. I mean, how much more naked can a person get than being totally naked, which Isaiah was?

.

Nudity goes beyond literal nudity. We have to think in terms of exposing our full possession, not just our physical bodies. Everything we are or claim as ours must be presented to God in this model, otherwise there is no fear of God. No trust / faith. Put otherwise, we can be more naked than just having no clothes on, e.g., we could also be stripped of our wealth, our family, our health...

It is in this respect we can see a progression in the bible, i.e., where more and more layers are stripped away to see if the characters will continue to expose themselves to God, or if they will cover up and hide whatever remains, putting their trust someplace else:

--Isaiah exposes his body, but nothing too bad seems to happen to him.
--Abraham exposes his child, but never has it taken.
--Job is stripped of his children, wealth, and health, but is explicitly spared his life.
--Jesus exposes his life, and to a horrible death at that.

It is in this ultimate respect that Jesus is most naked of all, or at least has his nudity tested.

Considering that "nudity" never popped up in the discussion I'm a bit puzzled as to why you've bothered to comment on it. That you've gone to the trouble to give it a particular meaning and usage is also somewhat mystifying, if not self-serving, but to each his own. I simply don't buy it. Isaiah was no less naked than was Jesus.

In fact, it can't be said with any certainty that Jesus was ever naked.

John 19:23 (NIV)
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

Plus the fact that scripture never declared Jesus to be naked as it did Isaiah.

.

Not sure what I said to warrant this reaction, but okay. Was just trying to give what I think is the answer to the OP and to address the follow-on questions or challenges that you posed. And yah, it's an answer rooted in the biblical concept of nudity, which I think goes to the heart of what it means to fear God.

Also, you need to keep reading John 19... The 'undergarment remaining' is not to say that it was still on Jesus when he was crucified, but that it was the last piece of clothing that the soldiers drew lots on. i.e.:

When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, “They divided my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.” So this is what the soldiers did.

In other words, Jesus was fully naked according to John, and as was the custom for Roman crucifixion.

[Miles]

One of things all people but I presume Christians actually try to do it is to fear God and not fear other things.
...
Do you agree?

Our fear of God should extend from God to all things. It's in the nature of what it means to fear God. To see what I mean, I think it's helpful to look at the first instance of fear of God in the bible, which is Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve are afraid of God because they are naked. Here we see that fear of God is first and foremost the fear of being naked, and then of God presumably for what God may do to us for the things that we have done or expose.

While many Bibles do indeed say in Genesis 3:10 that Adam was afraid and hid because he was naked

New Living Translation
He replied, “I heard you walking in the garden, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked.”

Just as an aside, wouldn't it be far more accurate to say Adam was afraid, not of being naked per se, but because of what his nakedness told god?---not that god, being omniscient, wouldn't have known how the whole little drama here was going to play out anyway---From the very outset god knew that through his apple incident he wold be establishing a sellable reason to infect humanity with original sin. And sell it he has: 2.2 billion Christians and 4 million Jews have bought the idea.

Other Bibles say they were afraid because they simply heard god walking in the garden.

Tree of Life Version
Then he said, “Your sound—I heard it in the garden and I was afraid. Because I am naked, I hid myself.” [Deftly setting the two situations apart]

So, the only reason here for hiding was because they were ashamed of being naked, not fearful because they were naked.


Moreover, some Bibles don't even mention being afraid.

The Living Bible
And Adam replied, “I heard you coming and didn’t want you to see me naked. So I hid.”


Other than giving god a pretense to lay Original Sin on everyone, I'd say it's not at all clear what part the their nakedness played in fearing god.

.

You are right that the verse could possibly be read in other ways. I'm not an ancient Hebrew scholar so I won't argue that. No matter what though, nudity is a central concept in Genesis 3, and given it is placed so closely here to the first instance of fear of God I think there is reason to at least consider a connection...

In such instances, I find it helpful to go to other texts, to see how the interpretation holds up. Notable here I think are the trial of Abraham and Job, both of whom explicitly had their fear of God tested.

In Job, nudity makes an appearance again in Job's first declaration in 1:21 after being stripped of his children and wealth: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. ... blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Being stripped bare is the essence of the test, and in this moment we see Job is quite intent on persisting in his nudity / fear of God...

The same can be seen in Abraham's trial, when God asks for Isaac, presumably to see how willing Abraham will be to expose what he most cherishes on the mountaintop. To expose himself and in doing so demonstrate his fear of God...



Once we enter into this way of thinking, it's hard to deny it methinks.

But don't forget Isaiah 20:1-3 where god tells one of his followers, Isaiah, to take off all his clothes and go naked, which Isaiah did, and for three years no less.

Isaiah 20:1-3
1 Sargon was the king of Assyria. He sent his military commander to fight against Ashdod. The commander went there and captured the city. 2 At that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said, “Go, take the sackcloth off your waist and the sandals off your feet.” So Isaiah obeyed the Lord and went without clothes or sandals.

3 Then the Lord said, “My servant Isaiah has gone without clothes or sandals for three years. This is a sign for Egypt and Ethiopia.

So, how bad can going naked really be?

I suppose I would ask Job that one. Or Jesus. Who would have been nailed to the cross naked, and with the cross itself being the most extreme exposure we see in the bible.

Granted that Jesus' situation was more extreme, but I fail to see why his nakedness would be a more extreme exposure than Isaiah's. I mean, how much more naked can a person get than being totally naked, which Isaiah was?

.

Nudity goes beyond literal nudity. We have to think in terms of exposing our full possession, not just our physical bodies. Everything we are or claim as ours must be presented to God in this model, otherwise there is no fear of God. No trust / faith. Put otherwise, we can be more naked than just having no clothes on, e.g., we could also be stripped of our wealth, our family, our health...

It is in this respect we can see a progression in the bible, i.e., where more and more layers are stripped away to see if the characters will continue to expose themselves to God, or if they will cover up and hide whatever remains, putting their trust someplace else:

--Isaiah exposes his body, but nothing too bad seems to happen to him.
--Abraham exposes his child, but never has it taken.
--Job is stripped of his children, wealth, and health, but is explicitly spared his life.
--Jesus exposes his life, and to a horrible death at that.

It is in this ultimate respect that Jesus is most naked of all, or at least has his nudity tested.

Considering that "nudity" never popped up in the discussion I'm a bit puzzled as to why you've bothered to comment on it. That you've gone to the trouble to give it a particular meaning and usage is also somewhat mystifying, if not self-serving, but to each his own. I simply don't buy it. Isaiah was no less naked than was Jesus.

In fact, it can't be said with any certainty that Jesus was ever naked.

John 19:23 (NIV)
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

Plus the fact that scripture never declared Jesus to be naked as it did Isaiah.

.

Not sure what I said to warrant this reaction, but okay. Was just trying to give what I think is the answer to the OP and to address the follow-on questions or challenges that you posed. And yah, it's an answer rooted in the biblical concept of nudity, which I think goes to the heart of what it means to fear God.

Also, you need to keep reading John 19... The 'undergarment remaining' is not to say that it was still on Jesus when he was crucified, but that it was the last piece of clothing that the soldiers drew lots on. i.e.:

When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, “They divided my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.” So this is what the soldiers did.

In other words, Jesus was fully naked according to John, and as was the custom for Roman crucifixion.

I believe you're absolutely correct.

.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Miles in post #78]
"The undergarment remaining" might well have been a loin cloth that the men wore under their outer garments. Jesus' outer garment was the seamless piece that was the subject of the casting of lots. He probably was not completely naked.

[JehovahsWitness]

I agree that its probable Jesus wasnt completely naked as arguably the extremely modest Jewish society would not have permitted any women to be present otherwise. Either way it was yet another way for his enemies to try and shame the Son if God.

(the undergarment probably refered to his tunic)