Different Gods

[Phantasman]

Perhaps I get hung up with the idea of worship, which I see as harkening back to pagan religions, as described in my earlier post. Let me ask this question:

If one "worships" Wotan, or says that they have belief or faith in a diety named Wotan, yet this person lives their life completely within the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel, what are they? They can't be called "a Christian" (meaning a member of a Christian religion), yet they could be considered "Christian", meaning they lead an exemplary life that is in concordance with God's will (even if they may not be initially aware of the diety we call "God").

Then let me ask another question:

Would that same person be acceptable to Christ? My reading of the Gospels tells me that the answer is yes, and this person could be like one of those non-Jews that Jesus said was "near the Kingdom of God". If that person met Jesus (all hypothetical here) and was attracted by his person and his message, yet knew little or nothing about Christian doctrines, rituals or practices, would Jesus welcome him as a person of great faith, as a disciple? My response, again based on what Jesus ACTUALLY said and did, is yes.

No matter how much we insist that "right belief" and adhering to correct doctrines and rituals is the route to heaven, Jesus clearly tells us otherwise. Not that those are necessarily bad, but that there is something else that is much more important. And if an insistence on "right belief" and accepting a creed (which Jesus never asked anyone to do) prevents one from being a true disciple, that person should step back and think about what is really essential to being that disciple.

I would have no problem accepting someone who worshipped "Wotan" as my neighbor, especially if they treated me as THEIR neighbor as well. I have known many people who claim to be Christians who neither accepted nor practiced the idea of treating others as their neighbor (even less so as themselves). There are, unfortunately, many Christians who are NOT Christian. That, to me, is much more important than agreeing on how many persons God is comprised of, or the relationship between them.

That's a good point. Or if no name was mentioned but the Father of Jesus, since Jesus always referred to him as Heavenly Father. I believe if you follow the Gospel, which is what Jesus said to preach, and you follow the wisdom Jesus taught, you are following the right God.

 

[Enkil]

That's a good point. Or if no name was mentioned but the Father of Jesus, since Jesus always referred to him as Heavenly Father. I believe if you follow the Gospel, which is what Jesus said to preach, and you follow the wisdom Jesus taught, you are following the right God.

How is the Gnostic Wisdom, which you claim to have, superior to the plain words of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible? The two are not the same, even though they claim to be from the same Jesus. Christ died for us on the cross. The Gnostic Jesus did not.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps I get hung up with the idea of worship, which I see as harkening back to pagan religions, as described in my earlier post. Let me ask this question:

If one "worships" Wotan, or says that they have belief or faith in a diety named Wotan, yet this person lives their life completely within the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel, what are they? They can't be called "a Christian" (meaning a member of a Christian religion), yet they could be considered "Christian", meaning they lead an exemplary life that is in concordance with God's will (even if they may not be initially aware of the diety we call "God").

There was a time when a person was called a Christian man if he was respected and lived life like a gentleman. It would only be in that now obsolete sense of the word that I could agree. Absent the committment to Christ, as opposed to only his moral teachings, I couldn't say that anyone is either "a Christian" or just "Christian" in the Scriptural meaning of the word.

Then let me ask another question:

Would that same person be acceptable to Christ? My reading of the Gospels tells me that the answer is yes, and this person could be like one of those non-Jews that Jesus said was "near the Kingdom of God".

I really don't think that idea can be sustained from a reading of Jesus' own words on the subject.

If that person met Jesus (all hypothetical here) and was attracted by his person and his message, yet knew little or nothing about Christian doctrines, rituals or practices, would Jesus welcome him as a person of great faith, as a disciple? My response, again based on what Jesus ACTUALLY said and did, is yes.

Again, I can't agree. I might agree that they have a shot at salvation, even though there's no Scriptural basis for concluding that, because we can't know everything about the workings of the Almighty. If I had to give a firm answer, I'd say that no one comes to the Father but by the Son, and that that means belief, faith, relationship..."My Lord and My God"

No matter how much we insist that "right belief" and adhering to correct doctrines and rituals is the route to heaven

Whoa. I haven't said that and would not.

And if an insistence on "right belief" and accepting a creed (which Jesus never asked anyone to do) prevents one from being a true disciple, that person should step back and think about what is really essential to being that disciple.

Again, it's not submission to a creed but to Christ as Lord and Savior.

I would have no problem accepting someone who worshipped "Wotan" as my neighbor, especially if they treated me as THEIR neighbor as well.

Well, that goes also for most of us, but tolerance of other people and other faiths isn't what we're talking about.

I have known many people who claim to be Christians who neither accepted nor practiced the idea of treating others as their neighbor (even less so as themselves). There are, unfortunately, many Christians who are NOT Christian.

All you're saying there is that they don't live up to their stated faith. That's true. Many don't. But that doesn't make them true believers if they only become nice!

That, to me, is much more important than agreeing on how many persons God is comprised of, or the relationship between them.

I understand, and I'm sorry not to say "I agree" more often, but I'm just being candid as you are.

 

[Martinius]

I don't think God requires our worship, but He most certainly is worthy of it. And that is why we worship Christ, because He is worthy of it. There is no other reaction possible. Those who do not worship God, simply do not know Him.

Depends on what you mean by "worship". In many instances, some kinds of worship can degenerate into forms of superstition. If by worship you mean doing God's will, I will agree with you.

The greater question is, why should we take your speculation over the words of the Bible? If the Bible is not a sufficient authority for who God is, why should we believe you? Where do you get your authority? And if the Bible is a sufficient authority for who God is, why don't you use it?

Very good questions. The answer to the first is you shouldn't take my word for it. I hope people will figure it out for themselves. The Gospels show that happening many times with the least likely people (sinners, outcasts, pagans, Centurions, etc.).

I don't want you to believe ME, I want you to "believe in" Jesus. You ask from where I get my authority, and isn't the Bible sufficient. First, I claim no authority over anyone or anything. Again, I am stating my opinion based on what I read (including in the Bible, and primarily in the words and deeds of Jesus). Many of those who claim to utilize the Bible's authority are really saying: "Accept what I say based on my (or someone else's) understanding and interpretation of the Bible." They are really claiming their own authority, not the Bible's.

I must admit that I don't see that the Bible itself is "sufficient authority" about "who God is". For one reason, I see the Bible as various peoples' attempts to understand who God is and the meaning of God in our lives. Some of those attempts and ideas contradict one another, especially between the books of the Hebrew Bible and those of the New Covenant. Different people at different times with different ideas. I respect what these people say, and I find them very helpful and inspirational, but I don't see the Bible overall as being definitive.

Secondly, it is not possible for any finite human being to accurately understand God. We are just not capable. To think we can is the pinnacle of hubris, and reminds me of the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law who Jesus roundly condemned for thinking that way.

I sincerely don't want or expect anyone to accept whatever I say as "gospel truth". I sincerely WANT people to discover that for themselves. No person or religion can force belief on anyone (well, almost anyone). My focus is directed toward what it means to BE Christian, rather than what it means to be "a Christian" (two often very different concepts). For that I DO greatly depend on the Bible, particularly the words and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

How is the Gnostic Wisdom, which you claim to have, superior to the plain words of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible? The two are not the same, even though they claim to be from the same Jesus. Christ died for us on the cross. The Gnostic Jesus did not.

In a technical sense orthodoxy equates Jesus with Wisdom. So to an "Orthodox" they would indeed be the same. The problem arises when Sophia (Wisdom) is identified as a feminine character, as it is in the bible.

 

[Phantasman]

Someone doesn't think God requires our worship? How blind they are.

John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Maybe they're just not "true worshippers".

 

[Martinius]

Someone doesn't think God requires our worship? How blind they are.

John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Maybe they're just not "true worshippers".

Great quote. But read carefully what John is saying: God seeks those who worship in SPIRIT and in TRUTH. What does that mean? What kind of worship is that? I submit that the kind of worship that John is talking about, that Jesus talked about, and that God the Father expects is not ritual, rubric and ceremony. It is to worship (devotion to and reverence for) God by following Jesus; to the Cross if need be.

 

[Phantasman]

Great quote. But read carefully what John is saying: God seeks those who worship in SPIRIT and in TRUTH. What does that mean? What kind of worship is that? I submit that the kind of worship that John is talking about, that Jesus talked about, and that God the Father expects is not ritual, rubric and ceremony. It is to worship (devotion to and reverence for) God by following Jesus; to the Cross if need be.

True. Rituals were done away with. God didn't want sacrifices. He sacrificed his son. He expects us to sacrifice self in spirit and truth. Jesus brought truth. We learn of him, and follow him through his teachings, which is why he said to spread the Gospel. Not the Bible. The Gospel.

 

[Martinius]

There was a time when a person was called a Christian man if he was respected and lived life like a gentleman. It would only be in that now obsolete sense of the word that I could agree. Absent the committment to Christ, as opposed to only his moral teachings, I couldn't say that anyone is either "a Christian" or just "Christian" in the Scriptural meaning of the word.

It is unfortunate that the "old" idea of Christian is obsolete. It really was closer to the original idea than what we mostly use today as the meaning.

What do we mean by "commitment to Christ"? In the earlier example of the man who worshipped Wotan, could it be possible that God, via one of the Trinity called the Holy Spirit, has "moved" this person toward a closer relationship with God? They may intellectually still see "Wotan" as their deity but are in reality close to the "Realm of God". We get a big hint of this in the Gospels where various people, many considered outside the mainstream of the dominant faith, are close to the Kingdom in a spiritual way even though they don't realize it intellectually. There is no reason whatever (other than our own obstinate belief that certain people are special or favored by God) that the Holy Spirit could not have worked in and through those people. And the same applies today to others who may be Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu or even a member of the LDS church.

 

[Martinius]

True. Rituals were done away with. God didn't want sacrifices. He sacrificed his son. He expects us to sacrifice self in spirit and truth. Jesus brought truth. We learn of him, and follow him through his teachings, which is why he said to spread the Gospel. Not the Bible. The Gospel.

Amen, Brother. I perceive that YOU are not far from the Realm of God.

 

[Enkil]

Depends on what you mean by "worship". In many instances, some kinds of worship can degenerate into forms of superstition. If by worship you mean doing God's will, I will agree with you.

By worship I mean this:

Rev 5:12-14 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. (13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (14) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Whether that is superstitious or not by your standards, I know not.

I don't want you to believe ME, I want you to "believe in" Jesus. You ask from where I get my authority, and isn't the Bible sufficient. First, I claim no authority over anyone or anything. Again, I am stating my opinion based on what I read (including in the Bible, and primarily in the words and deeds of Jesus). Many of those who claim to utilize the Bible's authority are really saying: "Accept what I say based on my (or someone else's) understanding and interpretation of the Bible." They are really claiming their own authority, not the Bible's.

The Gospels are quite clear who God is, and whom Jesus Christ claimed to be. Here is a post I made to one of the Gnostics who claimed that God in the Old Testament is actually a different god, who is an evil ignorant demiurge. Whereas their god is a different emanation, who is above the Demiurge and who repudiated the false Messiah as predicted in the Old Testament.

".... the nature of John's writings is that they are, inherently, Jewish works. The works of John are filled with references to the Old Testament, and not of the mocking Gnostic sort.

John quotes Peter describing Jesus as the one whom "Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write" (John 1:45). Jesus drives out the money changers from the temple, and the disciples remember "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" (John 2:17, a reference to Psalm 69:9). The quote you dismissed earlier, "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up…" (John 3:14, ref. Num 21:9). Christ declares, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me" (John 5:46). Christ cites the Prophets, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" (Jn 6:45, ref. Isaiah 54:13, Jer 31:33). Christ paraphrases the scriptures, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (Jn 7:38, Ref. Isa 44:2-4, Isa 58:11, Zech 14:8, Joel 3:18). John writes of fulfilled prophecy, "And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt" (Jn 12:14-15, Ref. Zech 9:9). John does it again, listing another fulfilled prophecy from the Old Testament, "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? (Jn 12:37-38, Ref. Isa 53:1). And again: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them" (Jn 12:39-40, Ref. Isa 6:10). Jesus Himself cites fulfilled scripture, "...but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (Jn 13:18, Ref. Psalm 41:9). And again, "...that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (Jn 15:25, Ref. Psalm 35:19, Psalm 69:4). More prophecy fulfilled, "They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did" (Jn 19:24, Ref. Psalm 22:18). And again, "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst" (Jn 19:28, Ref. Ps 69:21)."

The purpose of that is to demonstrate what every person who reads something (except when they start reading the Bible, as it suddenly changes) already knows. That sentences and words within sentences have meaning. That words don't exist in a vacuum, and can mean whatever you want them to mean, but can be understood by the words surrounding them. That common sense is useful for making claims on what a given sentence means.

The Gospels make very specific claims of who Jesus Christ is and claims to be. When He said that before Abraham was, I am, he was not quoting Khrisna or a pre-incarnate Muhammad. He was referring to the God whose name is I AM THAT I AM. When the Gospels say that Jesus Christ was with God and is God from before the foundation of the world, it does not mean he is an emanation from the elder god Cthulhu. It means that He is GOD, the plain meaning of the sentence. And when Christ says that no one comes to the Father, but by Him, He does not mean anything else except what that says. You can disagree with it, you can deny it, but you can't pretend it isn't there and claim to be speaking the true doctrine of Christianity.

I must admit that I don't see that the Bible itself is "sufficient authority" about "who God is". For one reason, I see the Bible as various peoples' attempts to understand who God is and the meaning of God in our lives.

I, of course, don't believe that. If the opinion is not based on the Bible, it is not an opinion I recognize as having any real weight. If you claim that you are speaking what Christ really taught, you must support this with the scripture. Otherwise, you're just placing your own speculations and raising them up to the level of God's declared truth.

 

[Phantasman]

Amen, Brother. I perceive that YOU are not far from the Realm of God.

lol..........but never close enough. Back to studying.

 

[ZoneChaos]

If they claim to worship the God of Abraham then I would say they worship the same God. They may have a lot of divergent ideas associated with that worship, but it isn't a seperate entity that we are talking about. Just a different set of beliefs.

Wow... So to you I could worship my TV and say it is the one true God and all is well?

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

I don't think anybody should claim that they understand God properly/perfectly. We all have our own interpretations. However, the Judeo-Christian God has outlined Himself clearly in Scripture so people's interpretations ought not be as farfetched as your biography story since we have written authority by prophets & holy men to draw upon God's character.

The problem with your analogy is that you have people writing 2 different interpretations from their perspective whereas the Bible hasn't been written several times. We do have 66 books but imo they flow together quite well in describing God's character & are not contradictory in the least. We all agree that there is 1 God & then false gods who do not exist or are the product of Satan's deceitful ideas. In your story, they have not created a whole new you, but 1 person is more objectively correct than the other in their interpretation of you because you either have the abilities they describe or you don't. A difference in perspective should not be so extreme that the God of the Bible ends up sounding like Allah, Buddha or some kind of goddess.

 

[Albion]

It is unfortunate that the "old" idea of Christian is obsolete. It really was closer to the original idea than what we mostly use today as the meaning.

No, it wasn't. If you are not familiar with that period of history, what was meant by a "Christian man" was not that he lived up to the standards of charity, mercy, and justice that Jesus called us to, but merely that he was refined, educated, a good conversationalist, respected in the community and polished. That sort of thing. Also, he would not be overtly religious, certainly not devout. That would be low class. But of course he would attend church o Sunday because that was a social obligation for all well-bred gentlemen. It actually might be called the opposite of what we'd expect when calling someone a good example of a Christian.

What do we mean by "commitment to Christ"?

Acceptance of Christ as one's Lord and Savior, trusting in him, and dedicated to his teachings. ALL of it.

In the earlier example of the man who worshipped Wotan, could it be possible that God, via one of the Trinity called the Holy Spirit, has "moved" this person toward a closer relationship with God?

I wouldn't see any reason to think so.

They may intellectually still see "Wotan" as their deity but are in reality close to the "Realm of God".

Why would God lead someone to a false God? And logically speaking, why wouldn't he just lead the person to Christ straightaway?

We get a big hint of this in the Gospels where various people, many considered outside the mainstream of the dominant faith, are close to the Kingdom in a spiritual way even though they don't realize it intellectually.

I don't remember any of them being devotees of Baal or some other deity in competition with the God of the Hebrews.

There is no reason whatever (other than our own obstinate belief that certain people are special or favored by God) that the Holy Spirit could not have worked in and through those people. And the same applies today to others who may be Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu or even a member of the LDS church.

It may be that certain IDEAS, i.e. philosophy, could be a precurser to what you are thinking of, but not a pagan religion. At least, that's my conclusion. There's just no sense IMO to the Holy Spirit actively leading someone into error in order to bring him to the truth later on.

 

[interpreter]

Does Islam worship a different God? They claim to worship the god of Abraham?

They worship Mohammed, the 7th head of the beast.

 

[Martinius]

The Gospels are quite clear who God is, and whom Jesus Christ claimed to be.

Not to start a new argument on this thread, but to many people (including a large number of bible scholars and theologians) the Gospels overall are not clear about who Jesus Christ claimed to be, or more precisely, who the apostles thought he was. The history of the early church also bears that out. That is not just my opinion (although I too can see that in reading the New Testament gospels and epistles). If one reads the Gospel of Mark, for example, and then the Gospel of John, one should see an obvious difference in how Jesus is portrayed and how he is viewed.

...when Christ says that no one comes to the Father, but by Him, He does not mean anything else except what that says. You can disagree with it, you can deny it, but you can't pretend it isn't there and claim to be speaking the true doctrine of Christianity.

I know this was from a post addressed to someone else, but I want to make it clear that I do not claim to "speak the true doctrine of Christianity". That is where so much of our divisiveness emanates from, which is the belief that I or someone else, sometimes more so than anyone else, knows and speaks the "true doctrine". My position has been that Jesus gave us little, if anything, in the way of doctrine. What is true about Christianity can be found in the words and actions of Jesus, and also in the lives of many people who have been his disciples. And, in my humble opinion, Jesus expects us to discover that for ourselves. As I have said before, he shows that the poor, uneducated, un-churched people often discovered it before the well-educated, scripturally trained priests and scholars did.

If the opinion is not based on the Bible, it is not an opinion I recognize as having any real weight. If you claim that you are speaking what Christ really taught, you must support this with the scripture. Otherwise, you're just placing your own speculations and raising them up to the level of God's declared truth.

I apologize for having to repeat this so often, I do NOT claim to be speaking for Christ or for what he taught, other than to myself perhaps. I make no pretentions about fully understanding it all; to say or act that way would be placing me above the first apostles who clearly struggled with it themselves. I will leave that type of egotism to others.

You are the one setting the conditions found in your statement. It is your way and no other way. Plus, the argument about "support with scripture" is so abused as to be meaningless. People have used the "support of scripture" over the centuries to commit unspeakable evil. Almost anything can be "supported" by scripture, including both sides of most opposing arguments.

I am encouraging others to move away from that and all the bric-a-brac that has been created by the churches over the centuries to instead look deeper and seek out the Jesus of the Gospels. Not by dissecting and parsing every phrase and word in the entire Bible, but by seeing the core message of the Gospels, and then internalizing it and living it by extending God's love (and acceptance) to others as he did to and for us.

THAT is my personal view of the Gospels and what Jesus (and by extension, God) expects of us. I do not tell anyone they must believe what I do, but only ask them to find it out for themselves.

 

[Albion]

They worship Mohammed, the 7th head of the beast.

"...and Mohammad is his prophet."

Get it?

 

[interpreter]

"...and Mohammad is his prophet."

Get it?

Mohammed was not God's prophet. He was the devil personified, masquerading as a phophet of God.

 

[Albion]

Mohammed was not God's prophet. He was the devil personified, masquerading as a phophet of God.

I suspected that I should have just laid it on the line. You said they worship Mohammad. No, Muslims don't worship Mohammad. He is considered by them to be Allah's prophet.