worship created

[2ducklow]

whew, now I feel relieved. Nobody's gonna be convinced about what worship really means. I'd hate for them to really know. So no worries there.

 

[drstevej]

Yep, a consensus of one. (Job 12:2)

 

[daq]

Romans 1:25 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear


Trinitarians like to believe us non Trinitarians aren't even Christians because they interpret, change, interpolate, translate badly etc. certain scriptures to mean that there is a trinity. It presumes that Jesus is God and if we don't worship Jesus as God then we are not saved.

BUT, if Jesus is a created being, and scripture says Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, of many brethren( who are all new creations), and other scriptures; then, worshiping Jesus as the creator would be very bad according to Romans 1.25.

Romans 1.25 the ones who changed over the truth of God the lie and worshiped (reverential awe is the real meaning) and served to the created over the one having created who blessed into the ages.

Now if you read Romans chapter one, it is abundantly clear that God is talking about Christians who God gave up on.


romans 1.25 Inasmuch as, having come to know God, not, as God, did they glorify him, or give him thanks, but were made fruitless in their reasonings, and darkened was their undiscerning heart,

"Having come to know God". That means they are Christians. But they didn't glorify God as God, they glorified the created as God. Now ask yourself the question, what created have Christians glorified as God? the answer is obvious, it's Jesus.
who could it possibly be that was made fruitless in their reasonings ? Trinity of course, Trinitarians have tried ever since it's conception to try and make it reasonable.


Romans 1.
1:23 And, exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God, for the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds and fourfooted beasts and reptiles

Jesus was a corruptible man, Jesus could have failed, he could have sinned. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are by Satan, because Satan knew Jesus could be corrupted. Jesus succeeded though and never was corrupted. The fact that Jesus could sin , amongst many other things, means Jesus could not have been god.
This verse is painting worship of Jesus as the creator, in the same category as what the Egyptians did with their created Gods.


well that;'s what I'm seeing in Romans 1. So we both have guns pointed at our heads, I have the Trinitarian doctrine that belief in trinity saves, and you Trinitarians have romans 1.25 pointed at your head, though I don't believe it means you won't be saved, I think it means that eventually God will deal with those who have that doctrine the way he said he would in romans 1. So either choice one makes, Jesus is God, or Jesus is created of God, results (so to speak) in a gun pointed at your head. This fact should cause one to be extremely careful in their decision process regarding whether Jesus was a created human being, or God. It should cause on to disregard what the majority believes in their though processes, because this is serious business.

IN my opinion , the church of Jesus Christ are the dry bones on the valley floor that God will breath life into in these final days, and those who refuse to give up false doctrine, will not be revived.

Not only these things but a lamb is a four-footed animal and a dove is a bird, (speaking of Romans 1:23). So I wonder what others say about those things? Also how do others here understand Romans 1:3 which is in the beginning of this same context being the opening of this major epistle? Isn't this epistle considered like the "opus magnum" of Paul's theology?

Romans 1:3 ASV
3. concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ["spermatos Dauid kata sarka"]

How is "spermatos David kata sarka" understood if not as rendered above?

 

[2ducklow]

Not only these things but a lamb is a four-footed animal and a dove is a bird, (speaking of Romans 1:23). So I wonder what others say about those things? Also how do others here understand Romans 1:3 which is in the beginning of this same context being the opening of this major epistle? Isn't this epistle considered like the "opus magnum" of Paul's theology?

Romans 1:3 ASV
3. concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ["spermatos Dauid kata sarka"]

How is "spermatos David kata sarka" understood if not as rendered above?

Mary came from the seed of David. One thing people do not face is that if Mary's egg was not fertilized, then Jesus was not born of the seed of David. the idea that the omnipresent God poofed himself into a 2 cell embryo not only is so ludicrous, but also it would meant that Jesus was not of the seed of David.
Mary's egg got fertilized by the new thing God created that enabled Mary to go around or compass a man to conceive. jer. 31.22.

jer. 31.22 How long wilt thou go about , O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man

looking at it from another angle, it was Mary's seed that fertilized Mary's egg. Gen .3.15. and it Was God who used Mary's seed, that he God created in her to begat Jesus with. The problem with this for most people is that it makes way to much sense. No really, because they are so imbued with making nonsense out of how Jesus was conceived and begotten.


gen 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


seed fertilizes egg, spirit doesn't fertilize egg. What's amazing is that this no brainer isn't a no brainer.

 

[daq]

Mary came from the seed of David. One thing people do not face is that if Mary's egg was not fertilized, then Jesus was not born of the seed of David. the idea that the omnipresent God poofed himself into a 2 cell embryo not only is so ludicrous, but also it would meant that Jesus was not of the seed of David.
Mary's egg got fertilized by the new thing God created that enabled Mary to go around or compass a man to conceive. jer. 31.22.

jer. 31.22 How long wilt thou go about , O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man

looking at it from another angle, it was Mary's seed that fertilized Mary's egg. Gen .3.15. and it Was God who used Mary's seed, that he God created in her to begat Jesus with. The problem with this for most people is that it makes way to much sense. No really, because they are so imbued with making nonsense out of how Jesus was conceived and begotten.


gen 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


seed fertilizes egg, spirit doesn't fertilize egg. What's amazing is that this no brainer isn't a no brainer.

It appears that Paul says that "woman" of which you speak is an allegory of Yerushalaim of above, (Galatians 4:22-31). Therefore the "women" are the cities are the covenants. The woman-covenant of above is Sarah, Rachel, Yerushalaim of above, mount Zion, mount Horeb, supernal Mishkan Tabernacle typology while the woman-covenant of below is Hagar, Egypt, Sodom, and mount Sinai physical-flesh-carnal, and of below typology. Perhaps then Mariam is the final typology of Yerushalaim of above? The New Covenant came down from the heavens like New Yerushalaim as a bride prepared for the adornment of her man: he that hath the bride, (New Covenant) is the groom. Ah, yes, to be clothed from on high in the New Covenant, New Yerushalaim, the Tabernacle of Elohim is with men.

 

[Albion]

Why is it impossible for you to believe that the second person of the Trinity took on flesh, just as the Bible teaches?

Romans 1:25 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear


Trinitarians like to believe us non Trinitarians aren't even Christians because they interpret, change, interpolate, translate badly etc. certain scriptures to mean that there is a trinity. It presumes that Jesus is God and if we don't worship Jesus as God then we are not saved.

BUT, if Jesus is a created being, and scripture says Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, of many brethren( who are all new creations), and other scriptures; then, worshiping Jesus as the creator would be very bad according to Romans 1.25.

Romans 1.25 the ones who changed over the truth of God the lie and worshiped (reverential awe is the real meaning) and served to the created over the one having created who blessed into the ages.

Now if you read Romans chapter one, it is abundantly clear that God is talking about Christians who God gave up on.


romans 1.25 Inasmuch as, having come to know God, not, as God, did they glorify him, or give him thanks, but were made fruitless in their reasonings, and darkened was their undiscerning heart,

"Having come to know God". That means they are Christians. But they didn't glorify God as God, they glorified the created as God. Now ask yourself the question, what created have Christians glorified as God? the answer is obvious, it's Jesus.
who could it possibly be that was made fruitless in their reasonings ? Trinity of course, Trinitarians have tried ever since it's conception to try and make it reasonable.


Romans 1.
1:23 And, exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God, for the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds and fourfooted beasts and reptiles

Jesus was a corruptible man, Jesus could have failed, he could have sinned. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are by Satan, because Satan knew Jesus could be corrupted. Jesus succeeded though and never was corrupted. The fact that Jesus could sin , amongst many other things, means Jesus could not have been god.
This verse is painting worship of Jesus as the creator, in the same category as what the Egyptians did with their created Gods.


well that;'s what I'm seeing in Romans 1. So we both have guns pointed at our heads, I have the Trinitarian doctrine that belief in trinity saves, and you Trinitarians have romans 1.25 pointed at your head, though I don't believe it means you won't be saved, I think it means that eventually God will deal with those who have that doctrine the way he said he would in romans 1. So either choice one makes, Jesus is God, or Jesus is created of God, results (so to speak) in a gun pointed at your head. This fact should cause one to be extremely careful in their decision process regarding whether Jesus was a created human being, or God. It should cause on to disregard what the majority believes in their though processes, because this is serious business.

IN my opinion , the church of Jesus Christ are the dry bones on the valley floor that God will breath life into in these final days, and those who refuse to give up false doctrine, will not be revived.

 

[daq]

Why is it impossible for you to believe that the second person of the Trinity took on flesh, just as the Bible teaches?

Paul says all flesh is not the same flesh:

1 Corinthians 15:39-44 ASV
39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. it is sown a natural body; [soma psuchikon] it is raised a spiritual body [soma pneumatikon]. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Is a dove a bird? Yes, so what then do you say of Luke 3:22? If there is a soma-psuchikos, (body natural) then there is a soma pneumatikos, (body-spiritual). Luke 3:22 clearly states that the Holy Spirit descended from the heavens in the somatikos-corporeal-bodily form of a dove:

Luke 3:22 ASV
22. and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily [somatikos] form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased.

Where then did the Son of man descend from the heavens? and who is this Son of man?

 

[Albion]

Paul says all flesh is not the same flesh:

1 Corinthians 15:39-44 ASV
39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. it is sown a natural body; [soma psuchikon] it is raised a spiritual body [soma pneumatikon]. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Is a dove a bird? Yes, so what then do you say of Luke 3:22? If there is a soma-psuchikos, (body natural) then there is a soma pneumatikos, (body-spiritual). Luke 3:22 clearly states that the Holy Spirit descended from the heavens in the somatikos-corporeal-bodily form of a dove:

Luke 3:22 ASV
22. and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily [somatikos] form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased.

Where then did the Son of man descend from the heavens?

That's 'the Incarnation' you're referring to, and the "where" would be Bethlehem.

and who is this Son of man?

The second person of the Trinity.

Jesus the Christ is, therefore, both Man and God.

 

[daq]

Paul says all flesh is not the same flesh:

1 Corinthians 15:39-44 ASV
39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. it is sown a natural body; [soma psuchikon] it is raised a spiritual body [soma pneumatikon]. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Is a dove a bird? Yes, so what then do you say of Luke 3:22? If there is a soma-psuchikos, (body natural) then there is a soma pneumatikos, (body-spiritual). Luke 3:22 clearly states that the Holy Spirit descended from the heavens in the somatikos-corporeal-bodily form of a dove:

Luke 3:22 ASV
22. and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily [somatikos] form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased.

That's 'the Incarnation' you're referring to, and the "where" would be Bethlehem.


The second person of the Trinity.


Jesus the Christ is, therefore, both Man and God.

The Son of man descended at the physical birth of Yeshua?
Do you have Scripture to support that idea or is that simply your opinion?
Who is this "WE" in the following passage? Why does Yeshua say "WE"?

John 3:11-13 ASV
11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12. If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13. And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.

And how is it that the Son of man had already ascended into heaven at this point? Yeshua says no one has ascended INTO the heavens except for he that descended OUT OF the heavens: even the Son of man. So you say that Yeshua had already ascended INTO the heavens at this point in his ministry? And who is the "we" that Yeshua includes with himself in the above passage? And also you therefore believe that Yeshua went around speaking of himself in the third person as the Son of man all of the time? If someone came to you today speaking of himself in the third person all of the time would you believe he was even sane?

Matthew 16:13-15 ASV
13. Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?
14. And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am?

The "Son of man" appears to be a personage that everyone was already expecting.
Yet the man Yeshua never appears to claim that he himself is the Son of man. Hmmm . . .

 

[Albion]

[The Son of man descended at the physical birth of Yeshua?

Yes.

Do you have Scripture to support that idea or is that simply your opinion?

It's the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Christians of all denominations and all the centuries of Christian history. No, it's hardly something I just thought up. And, yes, the Bible is quite clear about it, both in the Lucan account of the birth of Christ and in the first lines of John's Gospel. Also Romans 9.5 and many more verses. Jesus himself attests to being God a number of times in the NT.

In view of all of this, it would be easier to insist that Jesus was not a real human than that he was not God.

 

[2ducklow]

Why is it impossible for you to believe that the second person of the Trinity took on flesh, just as the Bible teaches?

why is it impossible for you to address the issues I brought up? You ignored every single thing I said in the post you replied to and changed the subject to something else.

The answer to your question is to be found in what you ignore.

 

[Albion]

why is it impossible for you to address the issues I brought up?

That's exactly what my question aimed to do. The idea that God became one of us in order to save us is not unthinkable, so I have to know why you treat it that way if I'm to work with you on this.

 

[2ducklow]

That's exactly what my question aimed to do. The idea that God became one of us in order to save us is not unthinkable, so I have to know why you treat it that way if I'm to work with you on this.

it is unthinkable because God is a spirit, an omnipresent spirit, and because the bible says God is not a man, and because it is nonsense to say a spirit that fills heaven and earth changed into a man and didn't change into a man as trinity claims. It's nonsense and antibiblical.

 

[daq]

Yes.


It's the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Christians of all denominations and all the centuries of Christian history. No, it's hardly something I just thought up. And, yes, the Bible is quite clear about it, both in the Lucan account of the birth of Christ and in the first lines of John's Gospel. Also Romans 9.5 and many more verses. Jesus himself attests to being God a number of times in the NT.

In view of all of this, it would be easier to insist that Jesus was not a real human than that he was not God.

Okay then would you please quote the passage which states that the Son of man descended from the heavens at the time of the nativity of the man Yeshua? Also there were many more things brought up which you said nothing about like the fact that Yeshua is using "we" in the famous John 3 passage, and the fact that according to your doctrine Yeshua is constantly referring to himself as the Son of man in the third person, (is Elohim the author of confusion?). And what about the statement from Luke 3:22 which clearly says the Holy Spirit descended in the somatikos-corporeal-bodily form of a dove? How is Luke 3:22 accounted for in your doctrine seeing that Paul states that not all flesh is the same flesh? This gets back to the first chapter of Romans where Paul states the same thing essentially when he writes the following:

Romans 1:20 ASV
20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Paul is clearly speaking of the same thing here again because he states that the invisible things of Elohim are perceived and known by what things are made and therefore seen. It appears that all of creation which is visible, especially living things, are images of spiritual lessons and things which cannot be seen with the carnal and fleshly eyes of the natural man. Thus Paul teaches in two places now: "If there is a body psuchikos-physical-natural; then there is a body pneumatikos-supernal-spiritual." Therefore it is indeed very possible that the Holy Spirit descending in the somatikos-corporeal-bodily, (but pneumatikos-spiritual) form of a dove is the Son of man which remained-abode upon-in the man Yeshua throughout his earthly physical ministry, and even upon the stake at Golgotha, until Yeshua surrendered up his Spirit into the hands of the Father.

 

[Albion]

it is unthinkable because God is a spirit, an omnipresent spirit, and because the bible says God is not a man, and because it is nonsense to say a spirit that fills heaven and earth changed into a man and didn't change into a man as trinity claims. It's nonsense and antibiblical.

The way you've presented it does sound nonsensical, I agree. But I suppose we haven't the time nor commitment on your part to straighten all of that out.

 

[2ducklow]

The way you've presented it does sound nonsensical, I agree.

Halleluha!

 

[BelieveTheWord]

That's exactly what my question aimed to do. The idea that God became one of us in order to save us is not unthinkable, so I have to know why you treat it that way if I'm to work with you on this.

It's unthinkable because of the holiness of Yahweh. The tabernacle/temple ordinances had to be perfect for His presence to abide there. Suddenly he loses His holiness, and walks around in sin? The bit about His unchanging character makes that impossible. It's obviously a profound thought for many, but it is inconsistent and unnecessary, so therefore wrong.

 

[Albion]

It's unthinkable because of the holiness of Yahweh. The tabernacle/temple ordinances had to be perfect for His presence to abide there. Suddenly he loses His holiness, and walks around in sin?

I'm sorry, but we are not confined to thinking of God in the way the Old Testament did.

It is clear to me that God CAN become Man for any reason he chooses, if that is his purpose. To think that this is impossible makes no sense to me, nor do I see any reason to think this could cost him his holiness.

 

[2ducklow]

god can't become a man for a number of reasons. one reason is that God says in his word that God is not a man. And the word of god also says it is impossible for God to lie, and also because god said " I change not". So there's two reasons that it is impossible for God to be a man.

Plus if God were a man he could lie, and God cannot lie.

Numbers 23:19King James Version (KJV)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


God is not a man and God is not the son of man. But Jesus is.

 

[Albion]

god can't become a man for a number of reasons. one reason is that God says in his word that God is not a man.

Meaning that he's not merely a man.

And the word of god also says it is impossible for God to lie, and also because god said " I change not". So there's two reasons that it is impossible for God to be a man.

If you take "I change not" super literally, you'd have to junk everything in the Bible after Adam's sin, since we obviously can read of all the changes God made thereafter. We are told that he intended something for Mankind that he changed afterwards, and the Torah contains many accounts of God having changed things. But if you confine your thinking to God changing himself, he didn't change from being God when he took on human nature, not any more than you change your nature if you decide to put a hat on this morning--or not.