Do you view Christian worship as an activity only for Sunday and maybe a few special holidays? Perhaps as a formal set of actions and prayers repeated during a service in your house of worship?

It's interesting that the Bible does not give a strict definition of worship. Although many view it as a formal act done in a church, mosque or temple, Bible teachings and examples show that it involves our entire life--what we say, what we think and especially what we do. For Christians, the model for proper worship is Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:21)

Many worship Jesus as God, yet the Bible shows that Jesus worshipped his father as God. He prayed to his father and obeyed him, even putting God's will ahead of his own. (Matthew 26:39; John 5:30; Matthew 6:9-10) Shouldn't Christians follow his example?

Chris

I don't think worship should be only for Sundays. What people fail to realize is that true Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship with their Savior. Since it is a relationship, time and effort should be placed in it. So therefore,
Worship should be done at all times whenever you canand wherever you can. It can be done in many different ways. Your right, the Bible doesn't give a strict definition of worship but it does give ways to worship (pray, sing, dance, etc.).
Christians, should follow Jesus' example. He was sent down to this earth as man to become our Savior and Lord leaving His deity in Heaven. By Him being sent on Earth as human like us gives us the perfect example so instead of following Jesus as God and thinking we could not live up to this we can say "Jesus looked up to the Father as we should look up to the Father". But because Jesus died for our sins on the cross we can worship Jesus thanking Him for His sacrifice. I will leave it at that for now and let others add to this.

Only One Way In My Bible, "in Spirit And In Truth." ;)

Only One Way In My Bible, "in Spirit And In Truth."
I agree. Worship must be firmly based on truth. God tolerates no falsehood in his worship.

But you will find that some professed Christians claim that you cannot rely on your Bible to tell you the whole spiritual truth.

A big question on this forum--and for everyone, really--is, what is your standard for truth? There are those who say the teachings of their church are the higher authority. I believe the Bible is the only basis for truth and is the highest authority for Christians. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) The authority of any church or congregation is therefore relative and based solely on their faithfulness to God's Word. If they abandon the Bible, they also abandon any claim to truth or authority.

What do you think: should your worship of God be based on scripture or traditional church teachings?

Put another way: should you be concerned if your church teaches something that contradicts the scriptures? Is it possible for an entire church or congregation to be apostate? Should we be careful about what our congregation teaches? It's interesting to note a few of the many warnings in the scriptures on this matter. For example: Matthew 7:15-16; Matthew 15:12-14; Matthew 16:6-12; Matthew 24:10-11; Acts 20:29-31; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-15; Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 1:3-4; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; James 1:26-27; 1 John 4:1, etc.

Blindly accepting the teachings of any church is unscriptural. Worship must measure up to the Bible in order to be acceptable to God.

Chris

I think it is dangerous ground to feel that their church is the sole higher authority without lining up their teachings with the Word of God. That is worse than a someone not believing in God and doing their own thing. Jesus even stated that He didn't want lukewarm Christians (paraphrasing of course). However, with that said, I do realize that you do tend to go by the teachings or doctrine of your church more than would another church. I don't think that is necessarily wrong as long as you are true to your conviction and also not judge someone else for what they believe. I think that even goes for worship. Some have their way of worshipping God. As I stated in an earlier posting, the bible does give ways the early church worshipped (pray, dance sing, etc.). There is not a wrong way to worship, but you shouldn't hurt others or interrupt others in their worship.

Jesus Said, "i Am The Way, The Truth And The Life."

Controversies. The Bible Is The Backbone Of Out Teachings.

Here are some terrific sites that will answer some of your questions.

http://www.myfortress.org

http://bible.gospelcom.net

http://www.gotquestions.org

Hope your find these helpful.


"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."

Jeremiah 29:13

However, with that said, I do realize that you do tend to go by the teachings or doctrine of your church more than would another church. I don't think that is necessarily wrong as long as you are true to your conviction and also not judge someone else for what they believe.
It's true we must have strong convictions and sincerity, but it is possible to be sincerely convinced of something--and still be wrong. After all, at one time or another many were sincerely convinced that the earth was flat, ivory-billed woodpeckers were extinct and Paul McCartney was dead. ;)

But consider this scripture:


Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. -- Acts 18:24-26 (NKJV)
Here we meet Apollos, a man of conviction ("fervent in spirit") who "spoke and taught accurately" but had an incomplete understanding of the faith. Now, if we only need conviction or zeal and are free to worship God in our own way, why did Aquila and Priscilla take Apollos aside and teach him "the way of God more accurately"?

Surely it is because our manner of worship does matter to God, and that our zeal must be according to Bible truth. Otherwise, Aquila and Priscilla would simply have said, "Apollos, you have fine zeal and conviction. Go get 'em, my brother!"

But they didn't, because what Apollos taught and believed mattered. This standard applies to us as well. Our faith must be based on knowledge, not ignorance--even unintentional ignorance as in Apollos' case.

If you're interested in researching this topic, you may find these interesting too: Romans 10:1-3; Galatians 6:1-3; Matthew 7:21-23; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; Proverbs 3:5-7

Chris

It's true we must have strong convictions and sincerity, but it is possible to be sincerely convinced of something--and still be wrong. After all, at one time or another many were sincerely convinced that the earth was flat, ivory-billed woodpeckers were extinct and Paul McCartney was dead. ;)

Chris


I agree with that. For example, Someone could be convinced that killing someone is right (either by belief or something else) but it is still wrong. I am not saying if one believes something that he is necessarily right, what I meant is basically, let your yes be yes, and your no be no. However, if you are being led by the Holy Spirit, then you also must do that, testing the spirits and making sure the Word of God lines up with that. If I mislead anyone, I apologize. For the sake of time and that fact I am writing this at work, I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. Maybe, I should have gone STONY's route and kept it that simple (nice job by the way). Christianity is not supposed to be a complicated thing, humans just make it that way. I am learning that we over analyse everything and therefore make the wrong impression with people. I am jot sure if this cleared anything up or made it worse. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into the deep discussions but it is interesting to read these. I just thought I would put my 2 cents in.

Do you view Christian worship as an activity only for Sunday and maybe a few special holidays? Perhaps as a formal set of actions and prayers repeated during a service in your house of worship?

It's interesting that the Bible does not give a strict definition of worship. Although many view it as a formal act done in a church, mosque or temple, Bible teachings and examples show that it involves our entire life--what we say, what we think and especially what we do. For Christians, the model for proper worship is Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:21)

Many worship Jesus as God, yet the Bible shows that Jesus worshipped his father as God. He prayed to his father and obeyed him, even putting God's will ahead of his own. (Matthew 26:39; John 5:30; Matthew 6:9-10) Shouldn't Christians follow his example?

Chris


To worship God is to serve him, including formally in worship services and sacred rites, and also in loving his children as we love ourselves.

We cannot love God and neglect his children.


MORGANITE

Morganite, As One Matures It Seems That What Comes From The Heart Is More Important Than The Parameters Of The Service.
Nothing Against Catholics, I Have A Bunch Of Them In My Mothers Family, But They Seem So Hung Up On Rituals And Not Enough On Relationship With Jesus Christ. God Doesn't Care How Many "hail Mary's" I Can Recite But He Does Care That I Maintain A Love Relationship With Him.

Many worship Jesus as God, yet the Bible shows that Jesus worshipped his father as God. He prayed to his father and obeyed him, even putting God's will ahead of his own. (Matthew 26:39; John 5:30; Matthew 6:9-10) Shouldn't Christians follow his example?

Chris

From this quote I assume that you are a Jehovah's Witness? I this correct?

From this quote I assume that you are a Jehovah's Witness? I this correct?
Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Chris

Morganite, As One Matures It Seems That What Comes From The Heart Is More Important Than The Parameters Of The Service.
Nothing Against Catholics, I Have A Bunch Of Them In My Mothers Family, But They Seem So Hung Up On Rituals And Not Enough On Relationship With Jesus Christ. God Doesn't Care How Many "hail Mary's" I Can Recite But He Does Care That I Maintain A Love Relationship With Him.

I was addressing the question as it was asked. I did not mention Catholics.

To determine, as you have, that ritual and relationship are mutually exclusive is to claim powers as great as God's.

I made two major points. First, that you serve God through formal an dpersonal worsahip, whatever form that takes in your particular denomination, and second, that you also serve him by serving his children.

"Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as you love yourself," is not an invitation to idleness or to cosy yourself up with Jesus to the extent that you shut everyone else out. That is not, and never can be, worship.

The story of the Good Samaritan tells it as Jesus wants us to understand it.


MORGANITE


:)

Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Chris

Well Chris, you said earlier in this thread, "A big question on this forum--and for everyone, really--is, what is your standard for truth? There are those who say the teachings of their church are the higher authority. I believe the Bible is the only basis for truth and is the highest authority for Christians. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) The authority of any church or congregation is therefore relative and based solely on their faithfulness to God's Word. If they abandon the Bible, they also abandon any claim to truth or authority." In as much as you are a Jehovah's witness I have to take issue with this statement. As you well know, the WTBTS felt it necessary to rewrite the bible (the New World Translation) which changes the original wording to correspond with preconceived doctrine. This is not believing the bible as the only basis for truth, Chris. Quite the opposite. It is attempting to make the bible say what the WTBTS already believes instead of forming your beliefs from what the bible already says.

I am well aware that you reject what I have just said, but for the sake of others reading your post I felt it needed saying.

As you well know, the WTBTS felt it necessary to rewrite the bible (the New World Translation) which changes the original wording to correspond with preconceived doctrine. This is not believing the bible as the only basis for truth, Chris. Quite the opposite. It is attempting to make the bible say what the WTBTS already believes instead of forming your beliefs from what the bible already says.
:rolleyes: OK, what specifically is it that I have said that you believe is not scriptural? Or do you intend to just stick to ad hominen attacks?

The accusations you make about the New World Translation have long since been answered far more completely than I could, so I won't bother with it here. (There are many places to research this if you are open-minded and honest. For a more scholarly defense of the New World Translation, you might start with http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/index.htm and for a general real-world view of Bible versions and translations try http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm) By now, anyone who holds this view in the face of such answers is either uninformed or willfully ignorant. In short, it comes down to criticism of doctrine, not quality of the translation, as your accusation clearly shows.

Still, I recognize that such opinions exist (even if they are groundless) and I have exclusively used other Bible versions and translations when quoting to avoid accusations such as yours. So how is it that you accuse me of using the NWT? Is this not ad hominem prejudice?

So then, what translation do you accept as authoritative?

Your post makes me question if you were truthful in your introductory letter:

I am not here to argue with anyone. I don't want to banter or name call or any of the other childish things I've experienced on other sites such as this. I love our Lord Jesus Christ and the blble. If anyone wants to discuss this, I am open. If you simply want to promote your brand (or your groups) of dogma you'll have to find another pigeon. I am willing to discuss the merits of your dogma and welcome your assessments of mine, but I will not argue for the sake of arguing. I will state my points, try and understand yours, and leave it at that.
But I'll assume that you were honest about yourself, and I'll agree with you to the extent that I'm not here to argue. I come to (mildly) debate religious points, state my views and direct people to what the Bible says. But not to argue with those who are hostile or prejudiced.


... for the sake of others reading your post I felt it needed saying.
And I feel this needs saying: I invite everyone to observe how you respond to others on this forum, and judge if you are fair and balanced, or if you reserve such prejudice, hostility and criticism only for Jehovah's Witnesses. (See Matthew 5:10-12 in any translation)

Chris

Chris,

I am not in the least bit hostile toward you or any other individual. Please accept my apologies if my questioning the WTBS's transliteration of the bible appeared to be a personal attack. It was not personal.

I am more than willing to explain the faults, errors, and outright mis-translations of the New World Translation for anyone who is interested. The answers you tout have been equally refuted by reptuable biblical language linguist as well. The fact of poor transtlation of the NWT is well established. Perhaps you do use other versions in your posts (being new here I have not had the opportunity to view these as of yet), but I am certain that you, being a Jehovah's Witness, do use the NWT as a translation "more correct" than all others. That being the case I took issue with your statement that you regard the bible as ultimate truth since the NWT has changed a number of passages, against the rules of interpretation, to fit its dogma. This was not an attack on you, but a challenge to the WTBTS's chosen version of "ultimate truth."

I do not know you, Chris. I don't even know if "Chris" if masculine or feminin gender. I do not dislike you, hate you, or disdain you. I have every reason to believe that you are very sincere in your beliefs, but I believe some of those beliefs to be in serious error, and therefore, I challenge them (not you personally).

This thread of yours was designed to communicate your belief that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. It was disengenuious to use your question to promote your doctrine, which I believe to be quite unbiblical.

Were I to start a thread that said "What Jehovah's Witness' believe is wrong" wouldn't you enter the thread with your objections to that? Of course you would. I would not take that as a personal attack, Chris, but rather a challenge to a doctrinal belief.

Finally, Chris, clearly we disagree, but please take that as a personal attack no longer. I challenge your doctrine that Jesus is not Yahweh incarnate, but I do not challenge your person. I have the utmost respect for everyone on this board even if I challenge their beliefs or they challenge mine.

May Yahweh richly bless you,

Phil

To those who might be wondering what kind of person PD is, I can say in all honesty that I have 'known' him for at least three years on different boards, and can speak for his outstanding Christian character.

He is a firm believer in what he believes, and you will find him gracious in debate and well informed on his subject.

He is a good man and makes a good friend.

Enjoy your debates with him.



MORGANITE


:)

This thread of yours was designed to communicate your belief that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God.
Am I not entitled to communicate my belief? I respect what others believe, but I also ask them to consider what the Bible says. Just like Jesus did.

Really now, criticisms of JWs or the NWT have absolutely no bearing on the issue in question. In a debate class, you would be fairly accused of a common ad hominen fallacy: "See? He's one of Jehovah's Witnesses! Therefore, his argument has no merit." Bah--I have no patience for such nonsense. It is the same tactic that the chief priests and Pharisees used against Jesus and his disciples:


Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn't you bring him in?" "No one ever spoke the way this man does," the guards declared. "You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted. "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them." Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?" They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee." -- John 7:45-52 (NIV)
Stupid Galileans! So easily duped. You just can't trust 'em...


I challenge your doctrine that Jesus is not Yahweh incarnate
I'm not interested in arguing about the trinity with anyone: it's a huge expenditure of time and effort that usually goes nowhere. I believe that the contradictions of the trinity are self-evident. Those who prayerfully look into all the scriptural evidence and consider it with an open mind will come to the right conclusion. But when someone has already made up their mind no amount of arguing/debating will change it.

In my own case, every time I turn a page of the Bible I find something else that makes the trinity doctrine even more illogical (if that were possible ;) ). I can see how the trinity would make it difficult to trust--let alone understand--the Bible. It is a huge stumbling block. So it comes down to this: is the Bible incomprehensible or is the trinity doctrine incorrect? My faith lies with the Bible and, sure enough, when the trinity doctrine is discarded, a great many supposed inconsistencies vanish.


Finally, Chris, clearly we disagree, but please take that as a personal attack no longer. I challenge your doctrine that Jesus is not Yahweh incarnate, but I do not challenge your person. I have the utmost respect for everyone on this board even if I challenge their beliefs or they challenge mine.
Sounds good. I apologize if I misjudged you, but you are suspiciously harsh in your attacks on JWs...

Chris

Chris,

It is painfully obvious to me that while you advocate having an open mind you keep yours quite closed. The scripture clearly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God (the one God). You discard it because you cannot understand it. To you it is not "logical." You reject the doctrine of the trinity because it is not logical, not because it is not in scripture.

Once again you accuse me of attacking "JW's." This time I am offended by the accusation. I do not attack JW's. I do not attack Mormons. I do challenge many of the doctrines of both of these groups (and quite a number of other groups as well). That is not an attack on anyone, Chris. It is a defense of the scripture.

You have every right to present your beliefs here, Chris (though I personally wish you were up front with the post instead of presenting your belief through the back door, so to speak). I have every right to respond to such beliefs (I am sure you agree). In responding I felt it important to discover where that belief came from, hence I revealed your adherence to the WTBTS. I don't think that is an attack, Chris, just a revelation of the source of the belief.

Since you have stated that you don't have any desire to discuss the merits (or lack of merits) of the NWT, and you have no desire to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity, your post presenting your belief that Jesus is not God is only answerable if one agrees with you. I, clearly, do not.

As for my pointing out your background and your groups mistranslation of holy writ not being acceptable in a debate, you are quite mistaken. The reason you have your point of view is quite revelent when debating that point. It is, again, not an attack, but a revelation.

Should you change your mind and want to discuss what the bible says about the Trinity, or why the NWT is or is not a good translation, I am all yours.

Respectfully,

Phil

though I personally wish you were up front with the post instead of presenting your belief through the back door, so to speak
You are truly disturbing. Are you the Official Thought Policeman on this forum or something? I guess you want everyone to preface their statements on this forum with: "Before I begin, I must disclose that I am a [YOUR FAITH HERE]"

Look, you didn't even bother to check what Bible I used and you just started slinging mud at the NWT for no apparent reason. Have you researched my posts at all?

Again, I ask everyone, is he targeting JWs specifically?


The reason you have your point of view is quite revelent when debating that point.
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The truth of any particular statement is not determined by the source. I'd like to see you try to get that standard of truth to fly in a court of law! If you are going to cling to that kind of "logic", nothing constructive can result.


It is, again, not an attack, but a revelation.
Yes, this same kind of "revelation" worked well for McCarthy in the 1950s: "He's a Communist! He has a Communist point of view! What he says is a lie!"

Well, no thanks! I'll take the high ground and just let you accuse. Even Jesus knew when to stay silent before his accusers.


I don't want to banter or name call or any of the other childish things I've experienced on other sites...
:rolleyes:

Chris

Chris,

My, but you are persistent aren't you? I tell you once more, and hopefully for the last time, that I do not and have not targeted Jehovah's Witnesses or any other individuals regardless of what group they adhere to. I have not attacked you. I have not slung any mud. I have not been unkind to you. I will not be unkind to you.

I have stated, albeit indirectly, that your assumption that Jesus is God's Son but not God the Son is unbiblical. I have stated, albeit indirectly, that the WTBTS version of the bible supports this doctrine through mistranslation, and that such translation is not based upon the original language or its context, but upon its preconceived doctrine that Jesus is not God. Neither of these statements is a personal attack upon you or anyone else, Chris.

As for a direct answer to you question as to whether we should rely upon the absolute truth of the bible rather than the teachings of man (my paraphrase of your query); we should rely upon God's holy writ. That is what I do, Chris. That is why I know that Yahweh exists in three persons which the scripture describes as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I cannot explain that to your satisfaction. I cannot make it seem "logical" to you. Neither can I reject it for God has painstakingly placed it in scripture for all to read.

Again, I am more than willing to discuss in greater detail why the NWT is a very poor translation, and what the scripture says about God's identity, with you or anyone else at any time.

In the mean time I would appreciate it if you would quit accusing me of attacking you. Anyone can clearly see by reading my posts in this thread that it is not the case.

May God richly bless you,

Phil Debenham

Response to Matthew 5: 10-12 citing:

Chris,

Matthew 5: 10-12 (NWT)

10 “Happy are those who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.

11 “Happy are YOU when people reproach YOU and persecute YOU and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against YOU for my sake.

12 Rejoice and leap for joy, since YOUR reward is great in the heavens; for in that way they persecuted the prophets prior to YOU.

You posted this reference as an accusation of me persecuting you, and lying to you. How so? Do you truly think that my challenging the WTBTS's version of the bible and your belief that Jesus is not God incarnate is persecuting you? Do you really think that is what Jesus was speaking of in these verses?