Re: the original question, of course Jesus worshiped His Father. In fleshly form, He was setting a perfect example for us. Did Jesus need to be baptised? Isn't baptism a symbol for death to the old nature and sin and rebirth/resurrection to a new nature and holiness, etc...? Yet Jesus was baptised in order to fulfill all righteousness. Even so, He prayed to and worshiped His Father in heaven to fulfill all righteousness, both as an example for us to follow and because He had given up His glorified body to become one of us and die for us. Was it a sin to say "let this cup pass me by"? Absolutely not, but it shows us His humanity. And yet, more importantly, the words "yet not as I will but as you will" show us His spirituality, the priority of God's will over the flesh. Without needing to argue about the specific details of trinitarian doctrine (there are many forms/ideas/versions), there is a big flaw in thinking that Jesus was just a created being/an angel. Firstly, the Bible doesn't outright say "Jesus used to be Michael the Archangel" so as much as the Watchtower tries to infer it from the fact that Michael led a war against the devil, it isn't explicit. It is very dangerous for a group to build a doctrine and teach it as absolutely definite, especially a doctrine crucial to much of the rest of a group's belief system, all based on a supposedly implied idea instead of an outright literal biblical statement. Secondly, Hebrews 1:5 clearly distinguishes between Jesus Christ and ANY of the angels: "For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?" Rhetorical question, God didn't say that to any of the angels. Thirdly, Colossians 1:15-17 says about Jesus, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." To take one word, 'firstborn', out of context and pretend it means first created being is ridiculous. IN context, Paul is setting Jesus up as the HEIR of all things (the other, more commonly intended biblical meaning of the word 'firstborn') and yet also the CREATOR of all things, BEFORE ALL things, and all things consisting by Him. Then 18 and 19 say, "And he is THE HEAD of the body, the church: who is THE BEGINNING, the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD; that IN ALL THINGS he might have THE PREEMINENCE. For it pleased the Father that in him should ALL FULNESS dwell." To say that this is not saying that Jesus is the co-creator and that the Father wants us to rank Him as the highest, i.e. co-equal, is childish and ignorant. Why take a passage that clearly maximizes Jesus' status and try to reduce it? The only reason I didn't believe this all along is because I was programmed otherwise and convinced of a false translation. So in case anybody was wondering, I used to be a JW/Watchtower adherent. For many reasons, I realized that they couldn't possibly be God's chosen organization, largely because of how almost EVERY Hebrew and Greek scholar interprets the Bible as compared to how a few anonymous men in the 50s, without any formal ancient language training, basically reworded the King James Version in more modern English but in a way that supported their own doctrinal biases. Now, I'm a Christian, believing in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. AFTER that true faith, one will be saved (Read Romans 10:9 in ANY translation; it says WILL be saved). Of course, true faith always leads to improvement in works. If there is no improvement in works, your faith wasn't ever genuine, but if your faith is genuine, you don't need to worry that Jehovah might not think you're good enough; that's what grace/UNDESERVED kindness is. The key point is that God is trustworthy with our eternal life, just yet merciful, and MEN do not determine (or, pretty much, even know) another's salvation.
dadroz
JoinedPosts by dadroz
-
77
The Question Non-Jws hate to hear! (Unless they're athiests)
by Mad indid jesus have a god that he worshipped?
-
-
-
77
The Question Non-Jws hate to hear! (Unless they're athiests)
by Mad indid jesus have a god that he worshipped?
-
-
dadroz
Not meaning to be impolite, dawg, but you may be the one to have been fed bull and swallowed it whole. It sounds like you've been reading too much DaVinci Code or some such crap. Anyway, the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written in about A.D. 90 by John, of course when he was VERY old, just before he died. As for the hundreds of other writings that people have labeled gospels and assigned to Philip, Thomas, Judas (curious that he was able to write after he hanged himself), you're right, they're a bunch of bull. No serious historians, Christian or otherwise, have any reason to doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by who they're associated with or at least an amanuensis (scribe/secretary) who accompanied them. As far as we know, Luke wrote Acts, Paul wrote to the Roman church, the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Perhaps Paul, but many scholars say Luke, wrote the letter to the Hebrews, James wrote James, Peter wrote his two letters, John wrote three letters, Jude wrote Jude, and John wrote Revelation. Of course anything after A.D. 90 would be ridiculous to associate with disciples of Christ, which is a huge factor in the fact that any other books were rejected by most churches. If you can find the records of votes for the canon, very few churches voted against Matthew to Revelation, and very few voted for any other writings. Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating As much as people diss wikipedia, they vet the information pretty well for citations and reliability. You can check out plenty of sites that discuss canonicity and dates; they will all tell you what that link says. None of the four biblical gospels were possibly written after A.D. 100, and few seriously think John was written that late. As for the rest of the book IN the New Testament, research it instead of going by heresay and you'll learn more. Peace out.