Did Christ every command or request worship for himself?

[Clare73]

I thought we weren't debating? You did say that you weren't here to debate, but to ask a question right?

Well I offered an answer to that question. Since the Son is consubstantial with the Father, then the Son is to be worshiped as true and very God. If you would be interested in why I believe this to be the case, then I would happily provide answer as to why I affirm the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

-CryptoLutheran

The site has it right (post #15). . .he is a non-Christian.

 

[Runningman]

The Son is to be honored as the Father is honored (Jn 5:23). . .how is the Father honored?

Honor doesn't mean the same thing as worship. I can honor you without worshipping you. The context is regarding the authority to judge that Yeshua only received after it was given to him by God. It means that the authority to judge should be honored with the same amount of respect as if it had came from the Father.

John 5:22-23
22For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

 

[Clare73]

Honor doesn't mean the same thing as worship. I can honor you without worshipping you. The context is regarding the authority to judge that Yeshua only received after it was given to him by God. It means that the authority to judge should be honored with the same amount of respect as if it had came from the Father.

John 5:22-23
22For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Previously addressed in post #4.

You are not a Christian (post #15) . .and cannot be expected to believe NT revelation.

There was no proof that Jesus was divine until the resurrection, so there is no prescribing of worship of him before the resurrection.

But there is his accepting and approving worship of him before the resurrection (post #4), which is enough demonstration for Christians.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Forget it. let's not discuss it then if you consider it debating to answer you.

Debate, by definition, consists of a back and forth of arguments. If I make an argument, and you make a counter-argument, then I make another counter-argument, and so on--that's debate.

You made an insistence that you were not here to debate, and doubled down on that you were following forum rules and asking a question as per the rules of Exploring Christianity. I was skeptical of that, but provided an answer--you then immediately followed up by putting forward a counter-argument. That's debate.

This comes across as disingenuous and acting in bad faith. That may not have been your conscious intention, but I can't help but believe that, even if subconsciously, you wanted to have a debate between your Unitarian view of Jesus and the Trinitarian view of Jesus.

Underlying your inquiry is the premise that if Jesus did not, during His earthly ministry, make an explicit command to receive worship, then that is a point for team Unitarianism against the Trinitarian position of Jesus' Deity. And if you genuinely don't see that, then I don't think you are being honest with yourself. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything, we all do things with subconscious motivations at least once in a while. And it takes having them pointed out to us for us to recognize that we're even doing it.

So I have no desire to shame you here, or attack your character. But I do believe you are acting in bad faith, possibly motivated by a zeal to defend what you believe to be the truth; and unfortunately zeal is a double-edged sword. Zeal can lead us to much good, but zeal can also lead to much bad. We read in Scripture that many who were "zealous for the Law" acted in wrong and ungodly ways. And the historical record is replete with examples of zealous people--people who were almost certainly very sincere in their religious zeal and passion--be overtaken by it and do things that were horrific. We still see that happen many times today.

Which is why zeal must always be tempered with self-restraint, a sober mind, humility, and most importantly love. And learning to have zeal tempered through maturity is a long and difficult process--one that can take our whole lives.

May I ask, how long have you been a Unitarian for?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Runningman]

Debate, by definition, consists of a back and forth of arguments. If I make an argument, and you make a counter-argument, then I make another counter-argument, and so on--that's debate.

You made an insistence that you were not here to debate, and doubled down on that you were following forum rules and asking a question as per the rules of Exploring Christianity. I was skeptical of that, but provided an answer--you then immediately followed up by putting forward a counter-argument. That's debate.

This comes across as disingenuous and acting in bad faith. That may not have been your conscious intention, but I can't help but believe that, even if subconsciously, you wanted to have a debate between your Unitarian view of Jesus and the Trinitarian view of Jesus.

Underlying your inquiry is the premise that if Jesus did not, during His earthly ministry, make an explicit command to receive worship, then that is a point for team Unitarianism against the Trinitarian position of Jesus' Deity. And if you genuinely don't see that, then I don't think you are being honest with yourself. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything, we all do things with subconscious motivations at least once in a while. And it takes having them pointed out to us for us to recognize that we're even doing it.

So I have no desire to shame you here, or attack your character. But I do believe you are acting in bad faith, possibly motivated by a zeal to defend what you believe to be the truth; and unfortunately zeal is a double-edged sword. Zeal can lead us to much good, but zeal can also lead to much bad. We read in Scripture that many who were "zealous for the Law" acted in wrong and ungodly ways. And the historical record is replete with examples of zealous people--people who were almost certainly very sincere in their religious zeal and passion--be overtaken by it and do things that were horrific. We still see that happen many times today.

Which is why zeal must always be tempered with self-restraint, a sober mind, humility, and most importantly love. And learning to have zeal tempered through maturity is a long and difficult process--one that can take our whole lives.

May I ask, how long have you been a Unitarian for?

-CryptoLutheran

An argument would typically be heated or angry; I can only speak for myself, but I am neither. So what we're doing is having a discussion about different perspectives. In my opinion, you're attempting to blur the lines between me responding to you in a normal discussion and debating. However, your premise requires you to be a participant in this alleged infraction; I can't debate alone. So are we debating or not? I don't believe we are. So why are you assigning bad faith to me, but not yourself?

In reflection, you came out guns blazin' quoting the Statement of Faith and forum rules while not mentioning the rules that actually give me permission to have this discussion here, i.e., I asked a question, it's not in the Christians Only board, and non-Trinitarianism is allowed to be discussed in Outreach by what this site considers to be "non-believers." This is the box I have been placed in. Is that bad faith or are you the righteous one?

Furthermore, I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. You are free to believe what I am showing you the Bible says or not. A disagreement isn't automatically a debate. That would require me to be trying to persuade you.

In God the Father, at your service,
Brother Runningman

 

[Runningman]

Previously addressed in post #4.

You are not a Christian (post #15) . .and cannot be expected to believe NT revelation.

If you say so.

There was no proof that Jesus was divine until the resurrection, so there is no prescribing of worship of him before the resurrection.

But there is his accepting and approving worship of him before the resurrection (post #4), which is enough demonstration for Christians.

So Yeshua was not divine until the resurrection then before the resurrection he was not divine. If he was worshipped before the resurrection then a non-divine human being was being worshipped. Is that idolatry? and since angels are divine then is it safe to worship them?

 

[Clare73]

If you say so.

So Yeshua was not divine until the resurrection then before the resurrection he was not divine.

Read it again. . .is that what I said?

 

[Runningman]

Read it again. . .is that what I said?

Fair enough, but you said, "There was no proof that Jesus was divine until the resurrection,"

I am taking that to mean that since that's the proof of when exactly Yeshua became divine then it must be true that before being divine a different set of context must be in effect.

 

[Clare73]

Fair enough, but you said, "There was no proof that Jesus was divine until the resurrection,"

I am taking that to mean that since that's the proof of when exactly Yeshua became divine then it must be true that before being divine a different set of context must be in effect.

A different set of response must be in effect.

Again, Jesus was not proven to them to be God until the resurrection, when he would then prescribe worship of him.

He would not expect them to believe he was God simply on his own word, and then put them in a position of being prescribed to worship him with no proof.

Think!

 

[Runningman]

A different set of response must be in effect.

Again, Jesus was not proven to them to be God until the resurrection, when he would then prescribe worship of him.

He would not expect them to believe he was God simply on his own word, and then put them in a position of being prescribed to worship him with no proof.

Think!

When was worship prescribed to people for Yeshua Messiah? Verse please?

 

[Lukaris]

When was worship prescribed to people for Yeshua Messiah? Verse please?

John 1:1

 

[Clare73]

When was worship prescribed to people for Yeshua Messiah? Verse please?

It's quite simple. . .Jesus is God (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14. . .God is to be worshiped.

Tit 2:13,
Heb 1:6, 8,
Lk 24:52,
Jn 17:5,
Php 2:6, 10,
Rev 5:11-12,
Rev 5:13-14,
Rev 7:9-10.

 

[ViaCrucis]

An argument would typically be heated or angry;

In a different context, certainly. We use the word "argument" informally to describe a quarrel. More formally an argument is simply an assertion. In the United States, and most developed nations, the entire system of justice includes the process of two competing sides presenting their arguments before a judge. That has nothing to do with people being heated or angry, it's simply the act of making a case for, or asserting something.

I can only speak for myself, but I am neither. So what we're doing is having a discussion about different perspectives. In my opinion, you're attempting to blur the lines between me responding to you in a normal discussion and debating. However, your premise requires you to be a participant in this alleged infraction; I can't debate alone. So are we debating or not? I don't believe we are. So why are you assigning bad faith to me, but not yourself?

In reflection, you came out guns blazin' quoting the Statement of Faith and forum rules while not mentioning the rules that actually give me permission to have this discussion here, i.e., I asked a question, it's not in the Christians Only board, and non-Trinitarianism is allowed to be discussed in Outreach by what this site considers to be "non-believers." This is the box I have been placed in. Is that bad faith or are you the righteous one?

Furthermore, I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. You are free to believe what I am showing you the Bible says or not. A disagreement isn't automatically a debate. That would require me to be trying to persuade you.

In God the Father, at your service,
Brother Runningman

At this point I feel it safe to conclude that you are simply wanting to play games.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Runningman]

John 1:1

Can you elaborate? All I can see is that it says the Word is God. It doesn’t say the Word is the son or Christ or Yeshua. And it says nothing about worship.

 

[Runningman]

In a different context, certainly. We use the word "argument" informally to describe a quarrel. More formally an argument is simply an assertion. In the United States, and most developed nations, the entire system of justice includes the process of two competing sides presenting their arguments before a judge. That has nothing to do with people being heated or angry, it's simply the act of making a case for, or asserting something.




At this point I feel it safe to conclude that you are simply wanting to play games.

-CryptoLutheran

I opened this thread on this topic because I wanted to have a discussion about it. I don’t even know who you are. You came here telling me I’m breaking the rules then when I answer you you just say I’m arguing and acting in bad faith. Then when I answer you again you say I’m playing games. I mean, I don’t know what you’re trying to get at here. Do you want me to stop replying to you? I can do that, but I didn’t know because you messaged me first.

 

[Runningman]

It's quite simple. . .Jesus is God (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14. . .God is to be worshiped.

Tit 2:13,
Heb 1:6, 8,
Lk 24:52,
Jn 17:5,
Php 2:6, 10,
Rev 5:11-12,
Rev 5:13-14,
Rev 7:9-10.

Okay so that’s your opinion then. It isn’t expressly commanded like it’s one of the 10 commandments right? There is no “Thou shalt worship Christ.” True?

 

[Lukaris]

Can you elaborate? All I can see is that it says the Word is God. It doesn’t say the Word is the son or Christ or Yeshua. And it says nothing about worship.

You claim to know scripture and need elaboration on this? Ok, then read John 1:1-18 & Colossians 1:1-29 for comparison & verification that Jesus Christ is God, having many titles (according to His purpose) the Son of God, God the Word, etc. He is the Creator with God His Father ( John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 1:15-18). This same Son of God who is also God was prophesied to become flesh also bears the name: Immanuel ( God with us) as per Isaiah 7:14.

God said, “I am that I am” to Moses and told him to tell the people that He is “I am”. ( Exodus 3:14-15). Jesus Christ testifies of His divinity in John 8:56-59 in verse 58 by stating that He is “I am” . He says He and His Father ate one in John 14:11 and this is the same God as Moses says He is One God in Deuteronomy 6:4.

 

[Clare73]

Can you elaborate? All I can see is that it says the Word is God. It doesn’t say the Word is the son or Christ or Yeshua.

See Jn 1:14.

And it says nothing about worship.

Are you that uninformed?. . .see Jn 1:1.

God is to be worshiped.

ViaCrucis has it right (post #33). . .you just play games.
Therefore, the word of God will be a closed book to you.

 

[Clare73]

Okay so that’s your opinion then. It isn’t expressly commanded like it’s one of the 10 commandments right? There is no “Thou shalt worship Christ.” True?

There is also no "Thou shalt believe in God."

More games. . .demonstrating you are not a Christian believer (post #15) and the word of God is a closed book to you.

God commands worship of himself.. Jesus is God (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14).

You do the math.

 

[Clare73]

The answer about who Yeshua is, revealed by the God the Father in heaven, is that he is the Son of God. That's the only answer we should give if he were standing here now asking us who he is.

The answer who is Jesus is revealed by God the Father in heaven to John the apostle in the NT word of God; i.e. Jesus is God (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14).

As a denier of the word of God, the Bible is a closed book to you.