Then what is to stop us, after being lifted up to a greater form of personal existence (the resurrection), from looking in the mirror and not worshiping OURSELVES?
A narcissistic love is as inferior in heaven as it is here. Your conception of essentially self-love amongst the Trinity is problematic. A parallel, solitary (self only) love would rule out worship (the highest form of love) within the Trinity - a love for and amongst equals in the ability to love perfectly.
A solitary god cannot love anything other than himself. A human marriage is then the superior love as the two become one in their love for each other - a love, you say God is incapable of.
Well, in all honesty it’s been my study of what Scripture teaches about who/how many God is (which included my investigation of the different views and their respective arguments) that has led me to conclude that Yahweh God is a solitary Person (i.e., the Father), and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not persons who, together with the Father, make up a triune Being. And my method was very similar to how I came to embrace UR: I did my best to “start from scratch” (so to speak) by trying to let go of as many of my presuppositions as I could, and began my study in the OT. When I did that, I became convinced that it taught neither eternal torment nor a multi-personal idea of God (among other things). So then I went through the NT starting with the assumptions I had gained from my study of the OT, and found it to be consistent with my previous findings.
And like I said, I found my intuitions to be consistent with the conclusions to which I came - one intuition being that I don’t know what it feels like to be an infinite, self-existent Being. I know what it feels like to be a human being with needs and limitations, but I don’t know what it’s like to be a Being without needs and limitations. There are certain aspects of God’s experience and existence that we will never be able to fully understand or experience - all we can know about who God is and what he experiences is what he chooses to reveal to us. Now, even many Trinitarians will admit that, when starting with the OT, the evidence that God is a rational, self-aware being is far more overwhelming and conclusive than is the evidence that he consists of more than one person. But I would suggest that, while the former is taught throughout Scripture in such a way that it would be impossible to miss or ignore, the latter can only be seen in certain texts when the idea is already presupposed and then read back into the text (which is what I think is being done when, say, a person reads the “us” and “our” of Genesis 1:26 and sees this as support for the Trinity).
If I did find it taught in Scripture that there are three self-existent divine persons who have been in eternal loving fellowship with each other (though, if that were the case, I would be more inclined to understand them as being three distinct but co-equal Gods, and not one God), I would be able to say, “Well that’s one more thing that I have in common with Deity, other than the fact that we both have rational self-awareness.” But since I don’t find it taught, I don’t feel at liberty to say, “Since this is my experience as a human being, it must surely be God’s experience as well,” or (to go even further) “If this were not also God’s experience, then I could not but see his experience as deficit and less beautiful.” While it’s wonderful to know what the Creator and his creatures have in common (based on what has been revealed to us), I don’t think we are in a position to assume or believe (apart from revelation) that what is most beautiful about human existence is necessarily what is most beautiful about God’s existence. However, if one’s study of Scripture has confirmed this for them (as seems to be the case for you and Jason), then that’s fine. While I don’t agree with your conclusions, I still know you arrived at them through honest and sincere study and reflection, and a desire to know the truth. And I respect that.
Again, I think we can conclude that God is a rational self-aware being based on how he speaks of himself (and is spoken of) in Scripture, but I don’t think we can assume what God is or should be like from our own experience as a human. When I find that Scripture teaches that God is both rational and self-aware, I think, “Hey, God’s a person like me - at least in that respect.” But I see no reason to then go on to assume that what makes my experience as a person most beautiful and worthwhile is also what makes God’s experience as a person most beautiful and worthwhile. And unless one finds it revealed in Scripture that God does in fact exist as a trinity of persons, then I think the only thing we can conclude is that this fact about human experience is just one more thing that makes our existence dissimilar from God’s; it’s one more thing that separates the creature from the Creator. And since I don’t find a multi-person God taught in Scripture, that’s what I’ve concluded.
Ran, since I think we’re really just talking past each other at this point, I want to keep this question as simple as possible: can you please tell me how you define “worship” (i.e., as it appears in Scripture)? That would really help me understand your position better.
You said earlier that worshiping something less than God is acceptable to God - namely, the Godly resurrected Man - Christ.
I’ll be a Godly resurrected Man. And if the highest perfect love is solitary in quality, why wouldn’t He find self-love or self-worship acceptable?
In both versions of my question I am defining ‘worship’ as you seem to do - adoration. The adoration (worship) due only God and the things less (or other) than God that He designates - like a Godly resurrected Man.
As a resurrected son of God myself - then there’s no ontological difference between Christ and I under your scheme - which means that it’s His title which is worshiped, not His Person. Like in the military - you salute the uniform - not the man. If every knee, then, will be merely bowing to the title ‘Lord’ and not to God - then universalism is dead for me. The rankest hyper-calvinist couldn’t come up with anything better to kill universalism than your scheme - in my opinion.
Is it that hard to find? The new testament about God says ‘in him we live and move and have our being.’ and that mankind is ‘in Christ’ - ‘the last Adam, a life-giving spirit’. It’s the same God in those three Persons.
Well, it would take a God/man to get them out of their predicament - which Adam was not.
And, yes, I do mean worship as ‘adoration’ which is ONLY due God. Veneration is considered a type of ‘worship’ for things that are NOTGOD such as the veneration of Mary.
I’m not really trying to “trap” you, RanRan, but is this really your “final answer” in regards to the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “worship” in Scripture? -Even in light of what I’ve already posted about the way in which the words can be used? Do you think the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as “worship” really mean, in every instance, “the adoration which is ONLY due God?” Because I really don’t think that’s what you think. I could be wrong, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
It’s a little embarrassing to be placated like that. What if I am letting you set me up for a trap? Because I know, at least, I think I know where you’re going with this. So, go ahead, bring in Jimmy the Greek for the final word.
While it’s tempting, I don’t want to bring in “Jimmy the Greek” just yet (Jason could probably do it better than me anyway ). I just want a simple yes-or-no (or “I don’t know”) answer to my post. That’s all. And whatever your answer is, I assure you it’s NOT going to prove that I’m right about the Trinity, or deity of Jesus Christ. I could still be completely wrong about this - and I think Jason’s response to my “OT and the Trinity” thread will be extremely helpful in helping me decide this. But until then, a straight-forward response from you would be really helpful in moving this discussion along.
Again, here’s the question (minus the fluff from the original post):
Fear? Are you sure you want to go with the Good God/Mean God concept? Or that we know Christ the Special and don’t or can’t know God the fearful unknowable?
Are you sure you want to go there? It’s your rope…
My Lutheran pastor, a seminary Professor, himself, once told me that elitists depend on tomes and the true theologian (or those who wish to be) on a straightforward sentence. That was 16 years ago.
Ran, of all the posters on this forum you are by far the ballsiest (if I may use somewhat vulgar slang). I have to give you credit for that. Anyway, here’s the one question I’d like you to answer (for right now):
Balls are good if ‘girding up your loins’ for the truth is to retain ANY friggin’ meaning.
I’m not an ancient Hebrew or Greek linguist or scholar. I don’t pretend to be one. You’re not one either, are you?
In other words, I’ll take your Unitarian produced spin on the translation for what it is: Spin and not necessarily scholarship. Awesomeness-fear-unknowable-Christ-can’t-be-God translation - is it that one?
But whatever it is, let’s see how it stands up against the First Commandment given to man by God. The Divine Spin-o-Meter. So, it’s Jimmy the Greek vs God in a knockdown match. So whadaya got? I just told you where I am going with this - so you might better spend your time researching Idolatry - the worship of NOTGOD. That’s where you will ultimately be spiked on the horns of your own dilemma. Why not just go there instead of impressing us with your more ‘serious’ theological talks with Tom? Strawmen are still an evasive tactic, aren’t they?
Arianism is the belief that God the Father and God the Son didn’t co-exist eternally. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t view Jesus as a separate being, except in His humanity. God fashioned a body for Himself. When you understand the tripartate nature of man (spirit, soul, and body), the soul and body is the man Jesus, while the Spirit is God. The soul/body part of Jesus is what suffered and died, but the Spirit is what brought Him to life. But there is no separation between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. That is the communial point between God the Father and God the Son, the Holy Spirit. You will notice that Jesus the man relied on the Spirit in every aspect of ministry. Oft times, as in the example of the woman with the issue of blood, He didn’t know who touched Him but that virtue went out of Him, which is the power of the Holy Spirit. He didn’t know the hour of His coming (though He now does in His resurrected state). The Holy Spirit is the conduit between God the Father in eternity and God the Son in the temporal world (And I suspect some kind of quantum phenomena at play here).
When God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul, the life of God went into him. Blood transfers oxygen (as well as nutrients) to every cell in the body. I believe the spirit and soul of man must reside somewhere in the blood metaphysically. There has to be some kind of life generating power in the Blood of Christ in order for the regeneration of the flesh. It is a metaphysical fusion between the human blood of Christ with the Spirit of God is what rengenerated the cells of the decaying Body of Christ into a resurrected, glorified body (else where is the body of Christ now? There had to be some dynamic change to that body to give it the ability to pass through walls and ascend and such, yet able to eat fish and honeycomb) That resurrected body, by the Spirit of God, is alive in some kind of transient energy form, between the spiritual realm and the physical realm, perhaps in some other dimension.
Well, not exactly true. The Comma Johanneum only deals with the apparent insertion of the three witnesses that bear record in heaven, as the King James Version renders,
*"6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." - I John 5:6-8 *
If you prefer, here is the passage as the NIV renders it,
*"6This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.- I John 5:6-8 *
I don’t think this necessarily detracts from my argument, for it is mainly the witnesses of the Spirit , the water, and the blood that bear record *on earth *that was the focus of my discussion. And of course, one can extrapolate the trinitarian concept from other passages. The common point is still the Spirit, regardless.
I’d look forward to your response in the creation thread, Tom.
Dondi: When God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul, the life of God went into him. Blood transfers oxygen (as well as nutrients) to every cell in the body. I believe the spirit and soul of man must reside somewhere in the blood metaphysically.
Tom: I don’t think there’s much I can say to help out here, Dondi.
Instead of answering this rather straight-forward question, you said, “Go ahead, make you presentation on the meaning of worship, if you want to start there.” My past few attempts at trying to explain the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words rendered “worship” have not been very successful, and didn’t really do much to further the conversation. But I’ll try one more time.
The Hebrew word shachah and the Greek word proskuneo (which are basically equivalent in meaning) account for more than 80% of the appearances of the word “worship” in most English translations. A study of these words reveals that they simply mean to kneel or prostrate oneself to do homage, make obeisance or express one’s loyalty. That is, the words denote a posture that a person assumes out of a sense of reverence and respect for one who is thought to be worthy of it. For instance, we read that Lot “worshiped” (shachah) the strangers who came to Sodom even though he had never seen them before. That is, he prostrated himself before them to show them respect (Gen. 19:1). Lot was not worshiping these angels as God, even though the word shachah is the same word that is elsewhere translated “worship” when God is in view (e.g., Ex 34:8).
Similarly, we read that Moses “worshiped” (shachah) his father in law, whom he respected and honored (Ex. 18:7). We also read that Joseph had a dream in which he was “worshiped” (shachah) by his family (Gen 37:5-10; cf. 42:6). Was Joseph dreaming that he was God? No, of course not. In 1 Chron 29:20, we are told that the people of Israel “bowed their heads and paid homage (shachah) to Yahweh and to the king.” That is, the people worshiped God and his anointed king. And no one was guilty of idolatry for doing this. Similarly, in 1 Kings 1:23 we read of how Nathan the prophet, when in the presence of King David, “bowed down” to him. Again, the word for “bowed down” (shachah) is the same word elsewhere translated “worship” (e.g., Josh 5:14). Was Nathan breaking the first two commandments here? Was he worshiping David as God? Of course not. David was God’s anointed king; what Nathan did was totally appropriate. Similarly, we also read of how Abigail “worshiped” (shachah) David (1 Sam 25:23); that is, she honored him by prostrating herself before him. See also 2 Sam 14:22 for a similar example.
Obviously, God is inherently worthy of the highest honor, reverence and respect; to fail to recognize this fact and instead ascribe worth to something that is not God as if it were God (i.e., something that takes the place of God in one’s life) is idolatry. On the other hand, to fail to appropriately honor those to whom God has conferred a status or office that makes them worthy of respect and reverence is to dishonor both them and God. For instance, if someone in Israel had refused to “bow his head and pay homage to the king” it would have been viewed as rebellion against, and disloyalty to, God himself. Now, Jesus Christ is the ultimate Anointed, Davidic King; God has given him greater honor and authority than he ever gave David or any other king of Israel. Yet your argument has been that, unless Jesus is ontologically equal to the Father, it would be inappropriate to “worship” him! But based on how the words are used in Scripture, that’s simply not true. If David - a sinful man - was worthy of “worship” as the King of Israel, how much more Jesus, God’s ultimate Anointed King to whom God has given “all authority in heaven and on earth?” Jesus doesn’t have to be ontologically equal to the Father to be deserving of our worship. When the “wise men” were seeking Jesus that they might worship him, there is no indication that they or Herod believed him to be Yahweh himself. They rightfully understood him to be the promised “king of the Jews” - that is, the Messiah (Matt 2:1-2). And when the disciples bowed down to Jesus in the boat after he walked on water (Matt 14:33), they were not worshiping him as God; they were worshiping him as the Son of God - i.e., as the Messiah, the ultimate Anointed King. The word translated “worship” in both of these verses is proskuneo, and means the same thing that shachah does in the OT. It appears a few chapters later in a parable, where we are told that a “servant fell on his knees (proskuneo)” before his king and begged for mercy (Matt 18:26).
And as I pointed out before, Jesus says in Rev 3:9, “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie - behold, I will make them come and bow down (proskuneo) before your feet…” Again, this is the same exact word rendered “worship” or “worshiped” in Matt 2:2, 8, 11; 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 28:9, 17 (etc). So does this mean that Jesus is saying the Philadelphian believers are all part of the “Godhead?” Or is he saying he was going to make these “false Jews” mistakenly worship the Philadelphian believers as God, when they really weren’t? Of course not. Similarly, when every knee bows to Jesus (Phil 2:9-11), I don’t believe they will be worshiping Jesus as God, but as God’s Anointed King. And this universal expression of homage and loyalty to the Messiah will be “to the glory of God, the Father” since he is the one who “highly exalted” Jesus and “bestowed on him a name that is above every name.”
You also said earlier:
So you think that when people (such as the kings of Israel who were appointed by God) are represented as being “worshiped,” it was only their “uniform,” so to speak, that was being reverenced and honoured? It was only their “uniform” to which people were doing homage, and not the person themselves? From my reading of Scripture, the person and the title/status they possessed were not viewed as separate “entities” - and I think this would have especially been the case when God himself was the one who bestowed the title/status (as opposed to, say, the U.S. government). Moreover, it is my understanding that all people will be bowing down to Christ because of who he is and what he has done (i.e., he is the sinless Son of God who lived in perfect obedience to God and is going to save everyone from sin and death), and not because of a title or status that could just as easily be given to you or anyone else (Were you prophesied to crush the head of the serpent back in Gen 3:15? Were you miraculously conceived by God in the womb of a virgin? Did you live a sinless life from birth? Did you die for the sins of the world? etc.). So I do think it’s Jesus in his person who is worthy of the worship due the ultimate Anointed King. However, who Jesus is, and what he’s done (and will do), is because of God, the Father (John 5:19; 14:28; Acts 2:22; 10:38). But I take it that for you, the only way Jesus would be worthy of worship is if he, from all eternity, had given himself all authority in heaven and on earth, had made himself Lord, had highly exalted himself, and had bestowed on himself a name that is above every name. However, Scripture doesn’t teach this.
Well, it’s all conjecturing anyway. But you have to think that there is some kind of metousiosis from the corrupt physical bodies we have now to the glorified bodies promised in scripture. There are different theorys as to what that entails. Some believe we become essentially beings of light or energy. Or perhaps we phase into some other dimension. I was just reading the other day evidence that suggests that the whole universe is a hologram. So maybe this isn’t reality, though it sure seems real enough.
). I just want a simple yes-or-no (or “I don’t know”) answer to my post. That’s all. And whatever your answer is, I assure you it’s NOT going to prove that I’m right about the Trinity, or deity of Jesus Christ. 