"Consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge - Jesus"

[A_Son_of_God]

The heading here is a quote from the Bible. It is Paul telling his anointed brothers - brothers of Christ - that they should consider Jesus, who was considered an apostle and high priest. (Hebrews 3:1)

Based on this, let's ask a few questions, and hopefully get some answers.

1) If Jesus is God, then how can God be an apostle?
2) If Jesus is God, then how can God be a high priest?
3) Why did Paul ask us his anointed brothers to consider Jesus in such a way?

 

[Moriarty]

An Apostle in its linguistic meaning is One who is sent.
A High Priest is one who has knowledge of gods will and communes with him directly above and beyond that of the masses, a gnostic.
Paul asked his brothers to simply believe that Jesus was a manifestation of God on earth.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

An Apostle in its linguistic meaning is One who is sent.
A High Priest is one who has knowledge of gods will and communes with him directly above and beyond that of the masses, a gnostic.
Paul asked his brothers to simply believe that Jesus was a manifestation of God on earth.

Firstly, thanks for your response. It's good to have a person with genuine desire to discuss things. Here is my response.

Point 1
You are correct on the definition of "apostle".
Although this was relating specifically to Jesus, and not the apostles themselves, we can consider how the apostles were to Jesus, and relate it to how Jesus was an apostle to God.
For example, Jesus sent forward his apostles. They were not, nor did they become "equal" to Jesus, nor will they ever, even though they will sit on "twelve thrones" in heaven, and are called Jesus' "Brothers". Neither were they "Jesus" in another form.
Still, it sets the pattern. If Jesus was sent, there was one who sent him. It states later in the book of Hebrews - Hebrews 4:14-16 - that although Jesus has passed through the heavens, he is still identified as "Jesus the Son of God", and not God himself. Hebrews 6:20 for instance states that Jesus became a high priest by his faithful actions, and not that he was one while on earth. It actually took his death and offering to be appointed as "high priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek forever."

Point 2
A high priest - specifically the high priest as spoken about here - is explained in detail in the book of Hebrews of which this quote was from. It refers not to a high priest of any religion other than that of the instructions given to the people while Moses was their leader. The high priest was not a gnostic, but also an Israelite, with even more specifics that they had to do. These are written for us in the book of Leviticus. In fact, the very next verse refers to this, Hebrews 3:2, when it says, "He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One." Reading through to verse six, you'll see the correlation, and the idea for using the terms as mentioned in this forum post. The high priest in the days of Moses was one of Moses' "brothers", but never did Moses think he was equal to God, nor that God was another part of him. The Gnostics as a people, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, came about around the second century, C.E. Paul, as a former Jew, and now a Christian, was speaking of a high priest from the Israelite standpoint.

Point 3
Also, you are correct in stating Jesus' manifestation of God. Jesus wasn't God himself, but he reflected God's glory, in the same way the moon reflects the light of the sun. "If we have seen" Christ - the Bible states - "we have seen the Father", (John 14:9), even though it is also written, "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father" (John 6:42-65) It is also stated, "No man has seen God..." at John 1:18. Hence why the Scriptures also state that Jesus came as God's representative (John 16:27). Jesus reflected the way his Father thinks, feels and acts, with the exception that Jesus was always obedient to his Father.

 

[Moriarty]

I think we are attempting to linguistically create something which needs no abstact thought.
If we accept the divine exists, how can we limit its comprehension to human reality?
We assume as simple humans that there is only the individual.
Yet how can we question that god can exist as both spiritual and physical manifestaions at the same time.
Cannot these circumstances both exist?

We are limiting our thinking to what we believe and can relate to.
You or I cannot be both human and spiritual at the same time.
Does god have that problem?
It's our perception that is flawed, not gods being.
When people refer to Jesus as Gods son, is that because we cannot grasp that god transcends our belief in the primacy of physicality as truth?

An interesting theological and philisophical debate, yet one we have avoided for millenia.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I think we are attempting to linguistically create something which needs no abstact thought.
If we accept the divine exists, how can we limit its comprehension to human reality?
We assume as simple humans that there is only the individual.
Yet how can we question that god can exist as both spiritual and physical manifestaions at the same time.
Cannot these circumstances both exist?

We are limiting our thinking to what we believe and can relate to.
You or I cannot be both human and spiritual at the same time.
Does god have that problem?
It's our perception that is flawed, not gods being.
When people refer to Jesus as Gods son, is that because we cannot grasp that god transcends our belief in the primacy of physicality as truth?

An interesting theological and philisophical debate, yet one we have avoided for millenia.

We can all have interpretations. That's fine. But limiting the comprehension by saying "it means this or that" is not good for us to do without the context of which it was stated. Many are currently misled through narrations. Others by tricky wording of the deceitful. Yet, that said, there is a true interpretation, and that can be emphasised by the one putting it there. The Bible is inspired of God, so it is His interpretation that matters. Not mine, nor yours, nor anyone elses, if these are out of harmony with the way the person who stated it meant it. If we misunderstand a law, then although the law may potentially be reviewed as to how it is written, it does not infer that our interpretation was correct when we broke it. There is definitely a correct and an incorrect way to view what things are meant by what is said.

The term "God's son" is a specific teaching, and it also referred not only to Jesus, but to the angels in the heavens (Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). Additionally, it refers to humans who have proven faithful to God. Some of these will be rulers with Jesus in the heavens (Romans 8:19), whereas others will be those of us who live on the earth in the future (Matthew 6:9).

I also agree with the point that this kind of thing should be discussed, as the problem lies in not discussing it. In fact, false religion thrived in an environment where only the "experts" (self-appointed seat of righteousness too, mind you) claimed to be able to understand it.

 

[Moriarty]

We can all have interpretations. That's fine. But limiting the comprehension by saying "it means this or that" is not good for us to do without the context of which it was stated. Many are currently misled through narrations. Others by tricky wording of the deceitful. Yet, that said, there is a true interpretation, and that can be emphasised by the one putting it there. The Bible is inspired of God, so it is His interpretation that matters. Not mine, nor yours, nor anyone elses, if these are out of harmony with the way the person who stated it meant it. If we misunderstand a law, then although the law may potentially be reviewed as to how it is written, it does not infer that our interpretation was correct when we broke it. There is definitely a correct and an incorrect way to view what things are meant by what is said.

The term "God's son" is a specific teaching, and it also referred not only to Jesus, but to the angels in the heavens (Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). Additionally, it refers to humans who have proven faithful to God. Some of these will be rulers with Jesus in the heavens, whereas others will be those of us who live on the earth in the future.

I also agree with the point that this kind of thing should be discussed, as the problem lies in not discussing it. In fact, false religion thrived in an environment where only the "experts" (self-appointed seat of righteousness too, mind you) claimed to be able to understand it.

Thats the problem.
The Bible is the interpretation of gods will writ large for the benefit of those which intepret it and use it to placate the mass.
His teachings are clear in the simple reading of it, not to take everything said as truth as it was written by man, but to understand the simplicity of goodness and faith.
One can try to follow God without a religous text ruling every choice one makes.
God is faith, belief in something greater than ourselves and a willingness to do moral good in the world.

I had a Jehovas Witness call at my door a few years ago and said to him:-
God grants us life, yet religion, society and belief structures need us to pay for it.
Who are we proclaiming as rightous, Gods will or our own interpretation of it?

The same guys still visits me, we chat a lot, yet he leaves no leaflets these days.

Proverbs 1:18.

 

[xxwhite_dovexx]

The heading here is a quote from the Bible. It is Paul telling his anointed brothers - brothers of Christ - that they should consider Jesus, who was considered an apostle and high priest. (Hebrews 3:1)

Based on this, let's ask a few questions, and hopefully get some answers.

1) If Jesus is God, then how can God be an apostle?
2) If Jesus is God, then how can God be a high priest?
3) Why did Paul ask us his anointed brothers to consider Jesus in such a way?

God is all that and more ! Next question ,plz

 

[xxwhite_dovexx]

Oh I question Paul altogether I mean he just took over and we haven't record of any other apostles writing books . I'm sticking with Red Letters

 

[Shortstuff02]

The heading here is a quote from the Bible. It is Paul telling his anointed brothers - brothers of Christ - that they should consider Jesus, who was considered an apostle and high priest. (Hebrews 3:1)

Based on this, let's ask a few questions, and hopefully get some answers.

1) If Jesus is God, then how can God be an apostle?
2) If Jesus is God, then how can God be a high priest?
3) Why did Paul ask us his anointed brothers to consider Jesus in such a way?

God Is johovh Paul is an apostle

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Thats the problem.
The Bible is the interpretation of gods will writ large for the benefit of those which intepret it and use it to placate the mass.
His teachings are clear in the simple reading of it, not to take everything said as truth as it was written by man, but to understand the simplicity of goodness and faith.
One can try to follow God without a religous text ruling every choice one makes.
God is faith, belief in something greater than ourselves and a willingness to do moral good in the world.

I had a Jehovas Witness call at my door a few years ago and said to him:-
God grants us life, yet religion, society and belief structures need us to pay for it.
Who are we proclaiming as rightous, Gods will or our own interpretation of it?

The same guys still visits me, we chat a lot, yet he leaves no leaflets these days.

Proverbs 1:18.

Well, we are all entitled to our own opinions on what something said means, or even whether it means that at all. Some use the Bible to promote warfare for instance, even though Jesus stated clearly to Peter, and even used swords as an object lesson for him to carry with him to Jesus' arrest, to demonstrate he had to now consider a different, non-violent approach to doing God's will.

There are terms in the Bible stating that people who practice or don't practice things will not inherit God's kingdom. Many religions will bend the rules for this by their own interpretation. But yet, if we read the Bible as a letter from God, we will be able to see "contradictions" addressed by what is written in another letter by another person. The Bible has its own interpretation too.

This is the one I wish to use. We're all free to do as we please though.

 

[Moriarty]

Plowshares are sword by a different name.
Just as thought and faith.
They are both made of the same material, yet one is what one needs, another is what one makes war or subjugates with.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Oh I question Paul altogether I mean he just took over and we haven't record of any other apostles writing books . I'm sticking with Red Letters

We do have letters from other apostles. We have gospel accounts from Matthew and from John, and Peter wrote two letters too, of which one of them he acknowledges Paul as both prominent, and as having people trying to twist his words.

Two others are interesting. They are James and Jude. Both of these are half-brothers of Jesus. They didn't become believers until after Jesus had been executed.

 

[Moriarty]

Well, we are all entitled to our own opinions on what something said means, or even whether it means that at all. Some use the Bible to promote warfare for instance, even though Jesus stated clearly to Peter, and even used swords as an object lesson for him to carry with him to Jesus' arrest, to demonstrate he had to now consider a different, non-violent approach to doing God's will.

There are terms in the Bible stating that people who practice or don't practice things will not inherit God's kingdom. Many religions will bend the rules for this by their own interpretation. But yet, if we read the Bible as a letter from God, we will be able to see "contradictions" addressed by what is written in another letter by another person. The Bible has its own interpretation too.

This is the one I wish to use. We're all free to do as we please though.

I can no more trust the Bibile as I can any other religous text.
Although I can accept that it is the basis of Western philosophy.
That the individual is paramount was first laid down in biblical text.
As only the individual can follow god in thier heart.

What I wont accept is that the christian bible is the only one that did this.
Which means I cannot accept only one religious text.
The differences are semantic, which means they are either interpretaions of gods words, or man created them from percieved wisdom.
I cannot know which is factual, interpretations are flawed by nature of langauge.
So how can I believe?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I can no more trust the Bibile as I can any other religous text.
Although I can accept that it is the basis of Western philosophy.
That the individual is paramount was first laid down in biblical text.
As only the individual can follow god in thier heart.

What I wont accept is that the christian bible is the only one that did this.
Which means I cannot accept only one religious text.
The differences are semantic, which means they are either interpretaions of gods words, or man created them from percieved wisdom.
I cannot know which is factual, interpretations are flawed by nature of langauge.
So how can I believe?

Well, you could start by reading a few of the religious texts, and getting answers to some of the questions that you might have. For instance, a good point was raised on here. "Why does God allow suffering?" Getting an answer to that was helpful to me earlier on. Mind you, I didn't find the answer satisfactorily in any other religious text than the Bible. Still, you might. I don't know.

Secondly though, it is one thing to read a religious text, and for a person to believe it is true. But we can't know it's true/false unless it is examined.

So I agree to some extent that there are interpretations, but just because the interpretations are many does not mean they are all true. As already mentioned, this takes examination.

What a waste of time it would be to be wasting away doing something that was a valueless endeavour for our life, when life is so temporary. Yet, that said, what a waste of life it is when we sacrifice forever, for a double digit number of years. It's a valuable examination.

 

[Moriarty]

Well, you could start by reading a few of the religious texts, and getting answers to some of the questions that you might have. For instance, a good point was raised on here. "Why does God allow suffering?" Getting an answer to that was helpful to me earlier on. Mind you, I didn't find the answer satisfactorily in any other religious text than the Bible. Still, you might. I don't know.

Secondly though, it is one thing to read a religious text, and for a person to believe it is true. But we can't know it's true/false unless it is examined.

So I agree to some extent that there are interpretations, but just because the interpretations are many does not mean they are all true. As already mentioned, this takes examination.

What a waste of time it would be to be wasting away doing something that was a valueless endeavour for our life, when life is so temporary. Yet, that said, what a waste of life it is when we sacrifice forever, for a double digit number of years. It's a valuable examination.

I've read quote a few religious texts, to me, they have one thing in common.
That the way to faith is through suffering.
It always appears, to me, that the written texts of religion always seems to take a simple man and make him kneel before god.
Yet did not Jesus wish us to rise up against oppression, did he not want us to bring down those who would suppress our belief's ?
How many churches and temples are wrought with gold while the people suffer ?

The same way that those who wish us to believe in Democracy or Socialism by thier definition seem to always be surrounded with the trappings of the Nobles or Priests of old.

I only believe in a free market of ideas and abilities.
That is what brings us knowledge.
Not Pious Priests or Politicians, they are the same thing these days.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

It always appears, to me, that the written texts of religion always seems to take a simple man and make him kneel before god.
Yet did not Jesus wish us to rise up against oppression, did he not want us to bring down those who would suppress our belief's ?
How many churches and temples are wrought with gold while the people suffer ?

Well, God isn't getting people to kneel before him out of force. In fact, this is why the world is as it is now. Because God is NOT enforcing things on people. People are currently saying all sorts of things against him. Jesus didn't state that God was oppressing the people, and as for bringing them down, no mate. At the time, Jesus' message was about God's kingdom, and Jesus taught people to be honest and upright, whereas people have instead made a million paths.

As for churches and temples, then it is clear to you AND to me, that those religions are simply using God to fleece the people, of which Jesus condemned the actions of. They are not God's people, who fleece the flock.

The same way that those who wish us to believe in Democracy or Socialism by thier definition seem to always be surrounded with the trappings of the Nobles or Priests of old.

I only believe in a free market of ideas and abilities.
That is what brings us knowledge.
Not Pious Priests or Politicians, they are the same thing these days.

We have a free market. We can choose to look at anything we like to examine it to see if it is true/false etc.

Sometimes what is written is different (in fact a lot of times) than what is actually written.
As for pious, two dictionaries have different definitions. Which one did you mean?

pious

1. strongly believing in religion, and living in a way that shows this belief…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Definition of PIOUS

marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship; marked by conspicuous religiosity; sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular : religious… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Moriarty]

Well, God isn't getting people to kneel before him out of force. In fact, this is why the world is as it is now. Because God is NOT enforcing things on people. People are currently saying all sorts of things against him. Jesus didn't state that God was oppressing the people, and as for bringing them down, no mate. At the time, Jesus' message was about God's kingdom, and Jesus taught people to be honest and upright, whereas people have instead made a million paths.

As for churches and temples, then it is clear to you AND to me, that those religions are simply using God to fleece the people, of which Jesus condemned the actions of. They are not God's people, who fleece the flock.


We have a free market. We can choose to look at anything we like to examine it to see if it is true/false etc.

Sometimes what is written is different (in fact a lot of times) than what is actually written.
As for pious, two dictionaries have different definitions. Which one did you mean?

pious

1. strongly believing in religion, and living in a way that shows this belief…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Definition of PIOUS

marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship; marked by conspicuous religiosity; sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular : religious… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Religion gets people to kneel due to fear.
I didnt say god did, just mans written interpretation of his will.

As for Piety are not family and faith intertwined?
Does one need piety above the faith in family for care and support?
Or does piety bring the family together under faith beyond family?

Faith to me is individualist, it is to be accepted not forced.
Otherwise what are we?
We are no better or worse than those who killed for thier belief that "God told them to"
The crusades, Jihad, those who espoused faith as a tool for genocide.

Throughout the world God has brought murder, rape and desolution to those who didnt believe in the "One" god, even though no one can agree which "One" it is.

That is not gods work, that is the work of kings and priests.
It betrays the teachings of god, yet it is accepted.

Is to be Pious to accept what mans will is in the name of god?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Religion gets people to kneel due to fear.
I didnt say god did, just mans written interpretation of his will.

As for Piety are not family and faith intertwined?
Does one need piety above the faith in family for care and support?
Or does piety bring the family together under faith beyond family?

Faith to me is individualist, it is to be accepted not forced.
Otherwise what are we?
We are no better or worse than those who killed for thier belief that "God told them to"
The crusades, Jihad, those who espoused faith as a tool for genocide.

Throughout the world God has brought murder, rape and desolution to those who didnt believe in the "One" god, even though no one can agree which "One" it is.

That is not gods work, that is the work of kings and priests.
It betrays the teachings of god, yet it is accepted.

Is to be Pious to accept what mans will is in the name of god?

So, again, when you say, "Piety", what do you mean?

Why go on with building on top of an undetermined footing? Why do you and other people do this, instead of clarifying, and then fixing the base so that what is built on top of it is more secure.

I asked you for a reason mate. I don't understand your definition of piety, as the word really isn't used much these days, but gives me a "holier than thou" attitude by my opinion of the word. So if this is what you mean, where do I have a holier than thou attitude? And if you don't mean it, why go on with paragraphs without first clarifiying your meaning on it?

So how can I answer accurately whether "piety" means that family and faith are intertwined?

That is why I posted the two dictionary definitions...although they appeared the same, if the actual links weren't looked at.

So, again, what do you mean by piety? It is not a word I use, as I have explained why above.

Once, I understand what you mean, then I can go ahead and address your points to the best of my ability.

 

[Moriarty]

Yeah I suppose I didn't quantify what I believe as Piety above and beyond the simple and confusing langauge used by dictionary definitions.

To me, this is simply an opinion which may or may not be backed by such definitions, I see Piety as a means to live our lives simply by existing in our given reality, yet with the knowledge that we dont know if there is something greater than ourselves but trusting some things we do know.

Faith, irrespective of whether others believe it or not, accept it or not, respect it or not, it is individual, it is mine alone.

I may or may not share the belief structure that match yours, however, if I adhere to to my own faith, or you to yours, are we both not pious?

I have faith in my family, I have faith in my friends because we chose to accept each other with the tempered reality that we are different, that we hold different beliefs.
Yet I know they would be here for me if I needed them, as I would be for them.
That is a physical, material belief, yet it is faith based.
I believe they would.

My world view has always been to treasure those who god or the randomness of nature gave you and believe in them.
I have faith in them as they have with me.
The same way that those who have faith in God, yet mine is reciprical.

Piety, to me is what the real world can show you as gods gifts, whether or not god was involved.

So simply, being Pious is to be faithful to what you believe is true with regard to the reality one lives in.
I believe in the material value of family and friends, of love and understanding amongst people.
I have faith it that, yet I also have a questionable faith that there is another hand at work, possibly divine.

Do I have to identify my faith as that, perhaps we, my family and friends were drawn together by an unseen force?
I cannot prove or disprove it.
If that brings us together, to help and support each other, how can not one defend that belief, how can one not support that belief.
How cannot we wonder if some external force brought us together as a family or friends?

Supporting and defending a faith is peity.
Whether it is right or wrong, it is indvidual, yet it can support, save or kill depening on the faith it is based on.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Yeah I suppose I didn't quantify what I believe as Piety above and beyond the simple and confusing langauge used by dictionary definitions.

To me, this is simply an opinion which may or may not be backed by such definitions, I see Piety as a means to live our lives simply by existing in our given reality, yet with the knowledge that we dont know if there is something greater than ourselves but trusting some things we do know.

Faith, irrespective of whether others believe it or not, accept it or not, respect it or not, it is individual, it is mine alone.

I may or may not share the belief structure that match yours, however, if I adhere to to my own faith, or you to yours, are we both not pious?

I have faith in my family, I have faith in my friends because we chose to accept each other with the tempered reality that we are different, that we hold different beliefs.
Yet I know they would be here for me if I needed them, as I would be for them.
That is a physical, material belief, yet it is faith based.
I believe they would.

My world view has always been to treasure those who god or the randomness of nature gave you and believe in them.
I have faith in them as they have with me.
The same way that those who have faith in God, yet mine is reciprical.

Piety, to me is what the real world can show you as gods gifts, whether or not god was involved.

So simply, being Pious is to be faithful to what you believe is true with regard to the reality one lives in.
I believe in the material value of family and friends, of love and understanding amongst people.
I have faith it that, yet I also have a questionable faith that there is another hand at work, possibly divine.

Do I have to identify my faith as that, perhaps we, my family and friends were drawn together by an unseen force?
I cannot prove or disprove it.
If that brings us together, to help and support each other, how can not one defend that belief, how can one not support that belief.
How cannot we wonder if some external force brought us together as a family or friends?

Supporting and defending a faith is peity.
Whether it is right or wrong, it is indvidual, yet it can support, save or kill depening on the faith it is based on.

Nice one mate