Of course it matters. It makes all the difference between you being able to acknowledge that I’m a Jewish Christian and not being able to acknowledge me as a Christian at all.
The curious case of John 5:4
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Of course it matters. It makes all the difference between you being able to acknowledge that I’m a Jewish Christian and not being able to acknowledge me as a Christian at all.
So, let's see....
Joseph is not the biological father....
and you don't believe God intervened miraculously (and neither does Apak)
so,,,
WHO is the father of Jesus?
It's not up to me M.
I just don't like that everyone defines themselves as Christian even if they don't believe Christian IDEAS that were promulgated from just after Jesus died and while He was still alive.
It makes the term CHRISTIAN be of no meaning whatsoever.
THIS is the reason we need a definition...not so we could discuss creeds.
Have to leave till much later...
and I doubt there's any more to say on this...
Unless you want to explain who the father of Jesus is.
I do believe God intervened miraculously. God himself caused the virgin to conceive, not Joseph.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ.”
Yahweh is the father of Jesus.
WE are MERE MEN compared to God.
Since I believe only God can be worshipped, using today's definition...
then, yes, we are MERE MEN, and should not be worshipped.
"WHO ARE YOUI OH MAN...."
Romans 9:20 (and I'm not a calvinist).
Oh,,,then why your question as to whether or not God intervened in Jesus' conception?
Maybe I misunderstood your post no. 781 where you asked this:
Does the Apostles’ Creed suggest to others the idea that God interacted miraculously / supernaturally with the virgin to breed a God? It doesn’t to me.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Okay; prostrating oneself before an official out of respect (and fear?) was definitely a thing in ancient Jewish as well as Persian, Greek, and Roman cultures. See Proskynesis, from which the biblical word for "worship" (proskuneo) is derived. Don't want to diss the king or you might lose your head. We don't do that in the 21st century Western world, and I'll refrain from making political commentary. But is there a heart-attitude difference in "worship"? Not just fear and respect, but awe, wonder, reverence (to borrow from Rabbi Heschel's definition of yirah), and maybe love?
Last edited:
That’s right. Whether you consider me to be a Christian or not makes no difference.
Jesus and the Apostles are Jewish monotheists. The concept of Jewish monotheism isn’t the concept of Nicene Christianity. That Nicene Christianity labels Jewish monotheism heresy establishes the fact.
The first century Christians were Jewish monotheists. I’m a first century Christian, not a fourth century Christian. It doesn’t trouble me that you don’t like it.
“Christian” is a term used in the first century in reference to members of the Jewish sect - which included Jews and gentiles - founded by the Christ.
The biblical definition should be sufficient. Their was no Nicene Creed litmus test / definition in the first century.
The father of Jesus is his God and my God., his Father and my Father.
The father of Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It can’t be otherwise because there is no God heside the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
That’s right.
That’s not right.
God intervened miraculously.
God.
You did misunderstand. I agree that God intervened. I don’t believe that God intervened miraculously / supernaturally to breed a God.
I’ve met other Christians who believe as you do and I was asking if anyone else here believes what you believe. So far ni one has come forward to say that they do.
This is a critical point that you’re making.
If we define words differently than the way they defined words then when we use the words they used we don’t mean what they meant. Our understanding would be different from theirs. The concept / idea isn’t the same.
For me it isn’t different, and can’t be. For you it is different, and has to be.
When I use the word “worship” I mean what the first century Christians meant when they use the word. It isn’t me who has redefined the word to mean something different. You’re using a definition that is different from theirs / mine and it produces a different meaning from theirs / mine.
So “man” and “mere man” are synonymous terms.
There it is again -> “using today’s definition”.
Scripture doesn’t use what you are calling “today’s definition”. You’re understanding of “worship” is narrower than theirs.
For example, the same Hebrew word used for worship applies to homage paid to God and to homage paid to man. There is no negativity associated with the word in the Bible unless it is used in reference to an idol.
When the people worshipped both God and King David, no one imagined that they were acknowledging that David himself is God himself.
Yes,,,,we are MERE CREATURES.
As to worship...
The OT definition of worship could have been applied to persons.
It was a physical worship...
either out of respect
or
to not get your head cut off. (as @Lambano mentioned).
By the NT and up to this day....we worship IN SPIRIT...
By the time of the NT,,,,worship, as expressed by the writers, took on a different meaning...
a meaning that was meant for GOD ONLY.
John 4:24
24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Romans 12:1
1I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Hebrews 12:28
Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,
Romans 14:11
11For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
Yes. And is. The same in the New Testament.
Worshipping in spirit doesn’t change the meaning of OT and NT definition of worship.
That’s not correct.
You agree that God intervened but not miraculously??
What does this mean??
EVERY Christian believes that God intervened miraculously...
The alternative is physically...unless you could provide a 3rd method.
Luke 1:35
35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
No of course not. Read Matthias' response again.
God does not breed other (G) gods! God, the Father is the only one true God. He cannot create another God with independent divinity etc, as the Father is the only source. Yes, he can create immortal beings however....
Explain why it's not correct.
In the NT...worship was reserved for God only.
I gave scripture.
Could you do the same?
HOW were men worshipped ACCORDING TO THE BELIEFS OF THE APOSTLES....?
They worshipped only God and Jesus since He's God.
No man is worshipped by the Apostles.
I agree that God intervened miraculously.
I’m a Christian.
I’ve ruled out physically and I don’t know of any third method.
Yes. Another important point here is that the angel says that it if for this reason that Jesus is called the Son of God.
That's not the reason your theology gives for Jesus being the Son of God.. That the reason that my theology - Jewish monotheism - gives. This is the origin of the Son of God.
The Hebrew word for worship has the same meaning as the Greek words for worship.
Similar threads
