LittleToe:
"1...
Steven also saw the Father there, but didn't address Him. He addressed Jesus, even while in the Father's presence."
Well, it was a vision first and foremost. Why Stephen did not address God, is not said, however, Jesus had shown to his disciples that he was God's chief representative, that there was no other man by whom they could be saved. So, naturally Jesus took central focus as the one who has 'revealed' the Father. We could argue this all day, but I do not regard this as praying in the usual sense of the word. At the end of the Revelation (a vision), John said, "Come, Lord Jesus" (paraphrasing here) since it was like he was naturally conversing with Jesus, and this is the way I see the account of Stephen. So, here we will have to agree to disagree.
When I pray, I pray to my God and Jesus' God, to my Father and Jesus' Father according to what the scriptures as a whole tell me to do, but I recognise in my prayers the inseparable role that Jesus plays in my personal relationship with God. My relationship with Jesus is as an extremely young sibling being taken by the hand by his unfathomably more experienced older brother, which is in harmony with the scriptures:
"It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should, in bringing many sons to glory, make perfect through suffering the leader of their salvation. For consecrator and consecrated are all of the same stock; that is why he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them
brothers, in the text:
I shall proclaim your name to my brothers, praise you in full assembly; or in the text:
I shall put my hope in him; followed by
Look, I and the children whom God has given me." - Hebrews 2:10-13 (
New Jerusalem Bible)
"2... But this is EXACTLY the same word used for worship of the Father, isn't it? How are you determining usage, by context or doctrinal bias?"
And that exactly is the point that I made concerning the fact that the Greek word thus rendered has a number of applications. As far as scriptural context is concerned, it is imperative that understanding of a verse is done on the basis of not just the surrounding verses (local context), but the scriptures as a
whole (universal context). It is the universal context that tells me that any 'worship' done to Jesus is a relative 'worship'. In fact sometimes translaters have rendered 'proskuneo' ('worship') in relation to Jesus as 'adore', which is a very apt word, for Christians out of a sense of extreme gratitude would certainly want to adore the one who gave his life on their behalf! That is why the illustration about the dog and his master sums up the submissive, yet affectionate nature a Christian should have with his 'older' brother Jesus Christ.
"3... The point isn't about Jesus having a God, it's whether or not he is worthy of worship."
But this scripture has a bearing on that question, because if Jesus calls the Father, "my God", and Thomas is actually refering to Jesus as "my God", then it is obvious that the use of 'god' ('theos') is
relative. Thus any 'worship' to Jesus as 'god' is also relative. The universal context which gives us the overall picture of Jesus Christ (as opposed to isolated scriptures), tells us plainly of the submissive nature and dependence he has on God. When the Jews falsely accused Jesus of making himself equal to God (
John 5:18), Jesus tried to reassure them that this was certainly not the case, that anyone who was truly equal to God would on no account be dependent on Him. And this is indeed the 'gut' feeling I get from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the 'Son of God', no more, no less, and I refuse to let a doctrine that has its base in Greek metaphysical thought to take away the simple, refreshing truth that Jesus is God's Son indeed, and not some mystical entity that requires mental gymnastics to justify.
"4.
'non-trinitarian' - If it makes you more comfortable, I'm happy to accomodate that."It is not a case of making me feel comfortable, but a case of not using terms that do not apply. That Jesus Christ is not God was just one aspect of Arian belief, there were others things they said of Jesus that I certainly do not agree with. So, I'm just asking that one be more careful in how one applies certain names.
I have no intention of debating this subject any more here, although I feel it my duty to bring to people's attention certain things that they may not be aware of, and will continue to do so elsewhere as and when the need arises. If others want to worship (in its fullest meaning) Jesus, that is up to them. Likewise, if I wish to worship (in its fullest meaning) only God, the Father, then that is up to me and according to my understanding based on universal scriptural context. While I have been willing to give much study to 'orthodox' understanding of God and Jesus Christ, it has never felt right, it has always felt strange, like something out of the dark ages. My 'gut' feelings have warned me away from the 'orthodox' view, and I am content to practise my faith as it stands, until such time as God reveals to me otherwise. I know I will stand alone in some of my beliefs (and these don't just relate to what we might call religious views), but then that has never been a great concern to me. It is my belief that a servant of God should never believe anything just to fit in with the 'orthodox' view (whatever that may be), but a real, living personal faith is based upon what we ourselves are convinced of -
i.e. not a borrowed belief system, whether from the WTS or any other religious body, no matter how far their tradition of belief goes back.
Kind regards.P.S. Members in general: Please do not post any messages to me personally here in this forum (
my email address is listed in my profile), as I won't see them. This is definitely my last post. I have spent far too much time posting on this forum, to the detriment of more important things. I plan to spend a more balanced amount of time online in the future and on a forum or forums that are not exclusively related to JWs.
(Edited to correct typos)Edited by - NewWay on 13 August 2002 17:7:43
