Regarding the "Omnis"

[Rian]

what do you mean by "worship"?

Another interesting question. The term used in the NT for worship is proskyneō. And the Hebrew term that's translated proskyneō in the LXX is shachah. This term is used throughout the OT for reverence to God, yes, but it's also used to show reverence to Kings, masters, etc. and is often translated "bowed to." So the question is, why did the Magi initially "worship" the child Jesus in Matthew 2:2? Was it because they knew He was "God" or was it because they thought He was the anticipated "King of the Jews" as they acknowledge in the verse? What about the others who worshipped Jesus? The term worship from how I see it used in Scripture is simply varying degrees of reverence. Because God doesn't seem to be concerned with the 'shachah' of men in the OT and in the NT in Rev 3:9, He just seems to care when someone is shachah'ing an idol as another "God," I don't see that it's an issue to have reverence for God as the one true God and also have reverence for Jesus as my Savior and Lord, whom God instructed his angels (Heb 1:6) and us (Phil 2:10-11) to worship.

No, no, no - what do YOU mean by "worship"? When you say you "worship" God, what is it that YOU are doing? What does it mean to YOU?

[ChristianHeretic]

No, no, no - what do YOU mean by "worship"? When you say you "worship" God, what is it that YOU are doing? What does it mean to YOU?

I guess I would define my worship as reverence for God. Combination for me of awe, appreciation, love, fear and allegiance. A healthy portion of admiration and thankfulness. My reverence for Jesus is similar, but different somewhat. As the Lord of my life, I have given Him authority over my actions and perspectives. That reverence is definitely filled with appreciation, respect and admiration, but it's not necessarily for who He is, but more for what He has done. I would say He earned the right to be called my Lord, rather than God, who is, by nature, worthy of awe and admiration. Also, I would say that Lordship requires a more active submission to another, rather than the natural recognition that a being is worthy of worship, as God is.

[Rian]

Very interesting - you expressed that really nicely. It had the personal details and nuances that I was looking for. I'm glad I asked!

There were a coupla other things I wanted to ask about your previous post - but not tonight - gotta balance the checkbook first!

[ChristianHeretic]

As you're asking about the other things, let me know how you would describe your worship...

[Rian]

Hmm, very much like yours, except I would add that it's two types : an active choice to focus on worship, and the rest of the time just living in that reverence, awe, appreciation, love, fear, allegiance, admiration, thankfulness. IOW, there are times when I stop other activities and worship God, and there are times when I'm worshipping God while doing other things.

It's big and little. I love to compliment God on, say, a pretty flower I see while walking along, and then turn around and struggle and wrestle with God in deep, painful issues. I'm entirely, completely honest with God, but in a reverent way, because of who he is and what he's done for us. I guess I "speak the truth in love", like it says in the Bible, even with God!

I started something a few years ago during communion, which for me is a very worshipful time. Our current church serves communion every week. For the longest time, I would hold the elements reverently and pray over them for some time because of the greatness of Christ's sacrifice. It was very solemn and beautiful. Then I realized that I need him so badly that I started to take them quickly, which was worshipping in a different way. Now I like to take the bread quickly, showing my absolute need and dependence on him, and pause over the wine in reverence and awe, not taking it "lightly".

Anyway, does that give you a picture? It looks like we're pretty similar.

[ChristianHeretic]

Yes, I would say so. I'd be interested though in how your reverence for Jesus differs, if at all, from your reverence for God. And along the lines of the topic to the thread, do you agree with mitch that Jesus never exercised divine powers while here with us? So Jesus somehow either didn't have or "gave up" the omni's of God?

[jordanws]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I thought I would put in my two cents.... I'm new, so go easy on me!

I think a big problem with the Omnis is that they take a Hebrew relational God and try to squish him into a box made out of classical greek logic. I don't define my relationship with my wife through logical arguments - why should I try and define my relationship with my God that way? I honestly don't care if God is the uncaused cause or the most powerful of all beings - I care that he desires a relationship with me.

the Hebrew God often appears inconsistent to us today because we are continually looking for a God who behaves in the way we expect a God with the omnis to behave. Is it possible that we have based our ideas about God on Greek thought and philosophy, rather than on what Scripture actually says about God?

[tirtlegrrl]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I thought I would put in my two cents.... I'm new, so go easy on me!

I think a big problem with the Omnis is that they take a Hebrew relational God and try to squish him into a box made out of classical greek logic. I don't define my relationship with my wife through logical arguments - why should I try and define my relationship with my God that way? I honestly don't care if God is the uncaused cause or the most powerful of all beings - I care that he desires a relationship with me.

the Hebrew God often appears inconsistent to us today because we are continually looking for a God who behaves in the way we expect a God with the omnis to behave. Is it possible that we have based our ideas about God on Greek thought and philosophy, rather than on what Scripture actually says about God?

While I agree that too much philosophizing about God will drive one mad, once you limit your ideas about God to the Bible you have to deal with, well, the Bible. There are parts of the Bible I like and parts where I call shenanigans. Serious shenanigans. Like, I'd rather throw those parts out then accept that God actually ordered those things.

[jordanws]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I thought I would put in my two cents.... I'm new, so go easy on me!

I think a big problem with the Omnis is that they take a Hebrew relational God and try to squish him into a box made out of classical greek logic. I don't define my relationship with my wife through logical arguments - why should I try and define my relationship with my God that way? I honestly don't care if God is the uncaused cause or the most powerful of all beings - I care that he desires a relationship with me.

the Hebrew God often appears inconsistent to us today because we are continually looking for a God who behaves in the way we expect a God with the omnis to behave. Is it possible that we have based our ideas about God on Greek thought and philosophy, rather than on what Scripture actually says about God?

While I agree that too much philosophizing about God will drive one mad, once you limit your ideas about God to the Bible you have to deal with, well, the Bible. There are parts of the Bible I like and parts where I call shenanigans. Serious shenanigans. Like, I'd rather throw those parts out then accept that God actually ordered those things.

I don't think it's an either/or. To me, the Bible, especially the OT, is a series of human-written, 'inspired' (meaning to me, we're meant to have them the way we have them), books about God relating to humanity, and humanity trying to comprehend God. There are a couple places where God specifically spells out things that I have a hard time comprehending, but most (that I've read, at least), are humans thinking they're doing what God asked. We assume God condones it because it's in the Bible, but maybe this is an unwise assumption. For example, in Exodus 32, Moses is on the Mountain and Aaron allows the people to make a golden calf, and then use it as an object to worship YHWH. God threatens to destroy them all for turning away from him, but Moses argues with God and convinces God not to destroy His people. Moses then goes down and kills a lot of them by his own volition.

I like this story for a few reasons. First, God changes apparently changes his mind in response to Moses' pleading. He goes from angry to subdued - not something that fits within the Greek 'omni' box. According to the philosophies we've built around God, he can't change his mind. This story (and others, for example when Abraham argues with God's messengers about the destruction of Sodom) refutes that idea of a completely static God.
Second, I think this story is pertinent because after God changes his mind, he issues no command to Moses to do anything to those worshipping the false idol. Moses is the one who enacts vengeance, showing that he lacks the restraint he pleaded for from God.

If I look at other stories, such as Emery's favorite, the Amalakites and Saul, it makes me wonder what the result would have been if Saul had shown humanity and asked God to allow him to not destroy the amalakites. Or perhaps Saul went and killed all the men; what would have happened if he spared the women and children, and then went to God and said 'out of my mercy, I have spared these people - do not turn your wrath towards me.'? Would God have turned his anger from Saul? We don't know, because Saul chose to keep the animals and plunder, showing that at his heart he had neither obedience nor mercy, but power and greed.

Of course a lot of it is inference, but I don't think it's that much of a stretch in light of the evidence. In the OT I see a God engaging with a ornery and stiff-necked people, trying to shape them into a people worthy of being called the People of God, with not much success.