Do Christians desire to replace God with Jesus?

[radhead]

Their imagery is one of the son of the king seated at the right hand of the king. In this case it is Jesus seated next to the Father. The natural conclusion is that Jesus will one day replace the Father in heaven.

Personally, I never felt any fear of God. Not until I first heard the dogma of evangelical Christianity. Before that my image was of a loving God.

Do Christians really desire to kill/remove/replace the image of God so much? Isn't it possible that their image of God is FALSE?

Why do they seem to want God to be removed from his position?

 

[Halbhh]

There is only one true God, and He will be forever. We know Christ is "one" with the Father, as He tells us in the Gospel of John. Meaning they are truly of one accord. Christ told us that all He said was from the the Father.

And, God is higher than our conceptualizations can encompass. Consider --

“Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!

Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?

Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and you will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to me;
listen, that you may live.

I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.
See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a ruler and commander of the peoples.
Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations you do not know will come running to you,
because of the Lord your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor.”

Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

....

We are shown cannot know everything about God, nor understand all of His thoughts or plans.

 

[Monna]

The natural conclusion is that Jesus will one day replace the Father in heaven.

Philippians 2:8-12
And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus was/is God's chosen one, his annointed one, the one for whom and through whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16); the one to whom he gave all authority on earth and in heaven (Matthew 28:18, 1 Peter 3:22). But notice in these and many other passages that Jesus is standing or sitting (different verses use different words) at the right hand of God. He has not usurped God, nor has God abdicated in Jesus favour.

 

[cloudyday2]

We can't blame Christians for the idea, because it comes from Daniel 7:13-14 , so this idea of two powers in heaven is Jewish. (Of course the earliest Christians were Jews, but I mean the idea of two powers existed two centuries before Jesus was born.)

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 7 - Revised Standard Version

 

[radhead]

We can't blame Christians for the idea, because it comes from Daniel 7:13-14 , so this idea of two powers in heaven is Jewish. (Of course the earliest Christians were Jews, but I mean the idea of two powers existed two centuries before Jesus was born.)

Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 7 - Revised Standard Version

Thank you!
I don't really agree with the Christian interpretation of this, but I really like these kind of passages.

 

[radhead]

...For example, to me it is pretty clear that "son of man" refers to someone of the lower working classes. That image of him being so highly honored was a quite new idea, compared to classic religious gods who were always more like members of the ruling classes.

 

[cloudyday2]

...For example, to me it is pretty clear that "son of man" refers to someone of the lower working classes. That image of him being so highly honored was a quite new idea, compared to classic religious gods who were always more like members of the ruling classes.

How come you think the "son of man" in Daniel refers to someone of the lower working classes? (I haven't read Daniel recently, so I'm not saying you're wrong.)

 

[radhead]

How come you think the "son of man" in Daniel refers to someone of the lower working classes? (I haven't read Daniel recently, so I'm not saying you're wrong.)

I remember I studied some verses after reading in John where Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they shouldn't object to anyone calling him "son of God" since they themselves were "like gods". He was quoting one of the more scandalous Psalms which stated "ye are gods".

There is also a clue when you study "men of renown". Supposedly Moses was encountered and challenged by the upstanding men of his community, and earlier, in Genesis the same phrase was used in describing the "sons of God" coming down to marry the "daughters of men".

 

[radhead]

How come you think the "son of man" in Daniel refers to someone of the lower working classes? (I haven't read Daniel recently, so I'm not saying you're wrong.)

I also read a translation of Ezekiel where the narrator (living in poverty) is often referred to as "son of man".

 

[cloudyday2]

I also read a translation of Ezekiel where the narrator (living in poverty) is often referred to as "son of man".

My impression from the Bible is that Ezekiel was an elite from the priestly class whose family had been taken to Babylon with the rest of the aristocracy. These exiles were probably treated like Babylonian aristocrats. The goal was to make them loyal servants of the emperor, so they could govern the province of Judah more effectively than foreigners. That is what eventually happened.

 

[cloudyday2]

I remember I studied some verses after reading in John where Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they shouldn't object to anyone calling him "son of God" since they themselves were "like gods". He was quoting one of the more scandalous Psalms which stated "ye are gods".

There is also a clue when you study "men of renown". Supposedly Moses was encountered and challenged by the upstanding men of his community, and earlier, in Genesis the same phrase was used in describing the "sons of God" coming down to marry the "daughters of men".

There are different theories on the meaning of "sons of god" and "son of man". The theory I find most believable is that "son of" meant "of the same species". So I might call a Chevrolet "a son of a Ford", because they are both automobiles.

The modern Jewish understanding of "sons of God" is that these were merely human judges. An earlier Jewish understanding was that these were angels. And probably the original Jewish understanding was that these were other gods in a polytheistic pantheon of gods. The Canaanites had a father god named El with many sons including Baal. There is a story where El turn over the lordship of the Earth to Baal. This is where some scholars think the vision in Daniel of the "ancient of days" and the "son of man" originates.

There is also the Book of Enoch which includes "son of man" verses. That was an important religious text for the Essene Jews, and I suspect many of the earliest Christians were Essenes.

 

[radhead]

My impression from the Bible is that Ezekiel was an elite from the priestly class whose family had been taken to Babylon with the rest of the aristocracy. These exiles were probably treated like Babylonian aristocrats. The goal was to make them loyal servants of the emperor, so they could govern the province of Judah more effectively than foreigners. That is what eventually happened.

That sounds a lot like what I read on Wikipedia after I posted my reply. Have you even read Ezekiel? I have read it several times. You might get a different impression.

 

[radhead]

There are different theories on the meaning of "sons of god" and "son of man". The theory I find most believable is that "son of" meant "of the same species". So I might call a Chevrolet "a son of a Ford", because they are both automobiles.

The modern Jewish understanding of "sons of God" is that these were merely human judges. An earlier Jewish understanding was that these were angels. And probably the original Jewish understanding was that these were other gods in a polytheistic pantheon of gods. The Canaanites had a father god named El with many sons including Baal. There is a story where El turn over the lordship of the Earth to Baal. This is where some scholars think the vision in Daniel of the "ancient of days" and the "son of man" originates.

There is also the Book of Enoch which includes "son of man" verses. That was an important religious text for the Essene Jews, and I suspect many of the earliest Christians were Essenes.

I appreciate that you are considering the Jewish understanding, because that would be more correct than the Christian one. But anyone can respond with that kind of commentary. I would have wanted to know your impressions from reading it on your own.

Personally, there is no Bible commentary that I have any respect for whatsoever.

 

[cloudyday2]

That sounds a lot like what I read on Wikipedia after I posted my reply. Have you even read Ezekiel? I have read it several times. You might get a different impression.

I read it several times when I used to be a Christian, but each time my eyes glazed over LOL.

 

[cloudyday2]

I appreciate that you are considering the Jewish understanding, because that would be more correct than the Christian one. But anyone can respond with that kind of commentary. I would have wanted to know your impressions from reading it on your own.

Personally, there is no Bible commentary that I have any respect for whatsoever.

Hmmm. It depends if you are trying to decide what the Bible says to you personally or if you are trying to decide what the various writers and editors intended to say.

I would never read a commentary written by a religious person, because their judgment it tainted. I would agree with you if that is what you mean. Atheist historians are worth reading IMO.

 

[radhead]

"Son of man" is not some big secret. I think it's pretty clear in the Bible that it refers to someone of a low worldly position. The message is that they are often of higher positions spiritually as a result. Suffering can develop character and wisdom.

And if that is true, then "gods" would refer to those in powerful positions. Even the families and children of powerful people. The tower of Babel story doesn't make sense anyone other way to me.

 

[Rajni]

Their imagery is one of the son of the king seated at the right hand of the king. In this case it is Jesus seated next to the Father. The natural conclusion is that Jesus will one day replace the Father in heaven.

Personally, I never felt any fear of God. Not until I first heard the dogma of evangelical Christianity. Before that my image was of a loving God.

Do Christians really desire to kill/remove/replace the image of God so much? Isn't it possible that their image of God is FALSE?

Why do they seem to want God to be removed from his position?

I'm not sure that Jesus takes God from His position, but rather quite the opposite:

"Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)​

 

[radhead]

I'm not sure that Jesus takes God from His position, but rather quite the opposite:

"Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)​

I've had doubts about 1 Cor 15 before. And this just reinforces them. It just wraps everything up too neatly...but not really. Why would God need to do this? Is this just something on this particular planet? Is there a Martian Jesus or equivalent for all the other life forms on all the other planets? Honestly I'm not trying to ridicule anyone's beliefs when I ask these things. I'm sorry, but none of it makes sense to me when it's taken literally the way Christians have done.

 

[Rajni]

I've had doubts about 1 Cor 15 before. And this just reinforces them. It just wraps everything up too neatly...but not really. Why would God need to do this? Is this just something on this particular planet? Is there a Martian Jesus or equivalent for all the other life forms on all the other planets? Honestly I'm not trying to ridicule anyone's beliefs when I ask these things. I'm sorry, but none of it makes sense to me when it's taken literally the way Christians have done.

That's fine. I'm simply pointing out that the notion that Jesus takes God's place -- the concern expressed in the OP -- isn't something to lose sleep over.

 

[Strong in Him]

Their imagery is one of the son of the king seated at the right hand of the king. In this case it is Jesus seated next to the Father. The natural conclusion is that Jesus will one day replace the Father in heaven.

You can't replace God with Jesus; Jesus is God.