Can a person not believe in the God of Abraham and be a Christian?

[Eddi]

If you're saying that you think Jesus was a cool dude who said a bunch of wise things and that his words still effect the world today, but you don't believe he died - at least for a long weekend - and was resurrected to pay for the sins of humanity then I don't see why you would call yourself a Christian.

I believe Jesus is divine in nature and died and rose and then ascended

So I don't really see how I can't be a Christian

 

[QuestioningMind]

I believe Jesus is divine in nature and died and rose and then ascended

So I don't really see how I can't be a Christian

That's why I said IF... from your post it wasn't clear. I guess I'm confused by the concept of believing that a being died for people's sins while not believing in the being that defines what sin is.

 

[Eddi]

That's why I said IF... from your post it wasn't clear. I guess I'm confused by the concept of believing that a being died for people's sins while not believing in the being that defines what sin is.

I do believe in God

But a Pantheist God rather than a Monotheistic God

However I think that if we were each to point to our God then we would point to the same thing

But with different understandings

 

[QuestioningMind]

I do believe in God

But a Pantheist God rather than a Monotheistic God

However I think that if we were each to point to our God then we would point to the same thing

But with different understandings

I've yet to be presented with sufficient verifiable evidence to conclude that any kind of a god being exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are some verses in the Bible that imply Jesus is just a man, and other verses that imply he is God, meaning that in the first century this question was disputed. By the second century, the common dogma accepted that he was God, but was Modalism.

Remember that at this time, there was NO New Testament. The gospels and various epistles were being passed around (along with many other documents that never made it into the Bible) but they were not considered scripture that this point.

Later in history, Arius began dredging up the old ideas that he was not God. This created friction in the church. In addition to this, there was the hairy problem of "If Jesus is God, what does that mean? Is there more than one god? Is Jesus the Father?" etc. The purpose of the council of Nicea was to address all these issues.

The "big chunk of the Christian canon" I was talking about was the Old Testament (i.e. what we were just talking about). I assumed that this would be obvious

That's just baloney. I have never met a Trinitarian that didn't care about their beliefs matching with the New Testament.

Christian scripture includes more than the New Testament.

This seems to be a simply ugly slam by you towards a group you dislike.

No, it's just an acknowledgement that mainstream Christian beliefs are often not actually derived from the Bible, so arguing that some new approach should be derived from the Bible is inconsistent with the general approach of the religion.

Christianity is pretty diverse when it comes to theology. Whatever one's personal view on what the "right" answer is, we can acknowledge that the spectrum of Christianity covers ideas as diverse as Mormon tritheism to the modalism of the Oneness Pentecostals to the partialism of a lot of confused Christians who think they're trinitarians to whatever it is that the Archbishop of Canterbury believes in. Even full-on atheism is part of that diversity, even though it's relatively rare (uncloseted) among Christians... for instance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do believe in God

But a Pantheist God rather than a Monotheistic God

If you believe in exactly one god, pantheist or otherwise, you're a monotheist.

Your beliefs about that god might be different from those of any particular church, but it sounds like you do believe in a monotheistic god.

 

[Eddi]

If you believe in exactly one god, pantheist or otherwise, you're a monotheist.

Your beliefs about that god might be different from those of any particular church, but it sounds like you do believe in a monotheistic god.

Maybe

However my God Concept differs from that of most Monotheists so in a way it is not the God of the Monotheists, although it is in other regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe

However my God Concept differs from that of most Monotheists so in a way it is not the God of the Monotheists, although it is in other regards

Two monotheists can believe in different gods and still both be monotheists.

 

[Eddi]

Two monotheists can believe in different gods and still both be monotheists.

Well, I don't identify as a Monotheist

To me that term carries a lot of baggage

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I don't identify as a Monotheist

To me that term carries a lot of baggage

Heh... less baggage than "Christian"?

 

[Koldo]

I do believe in God

But a Pantheist God rather than a Monotheistic God

However I think that if we were each to point to our God then we would point to the same thing

But with different understandings

I believe Jesus is divine in nature and died and rose and then ascended

So I don't really see how I can't be a Christian

Do you mean you don't believe in God the father, but only in God the son?

 

[Eddi]

Do you mean you don't believe in God the father, but only in God the son?

Sort of

I see the Father and Son as being more or less the same thing

It's quite complicated but that's the gist of it

 

[Koldo]

Sort of

I see the Father and Son as being more or less the same thing

It's quite complicated but that's the gist of it

What's the relation between the Son and the pan(theism)?

 

[paarsurrey]

Can a person not believe in the God of Abraham and be a Christian?

Aren't all the Pauline-Hellenist-Christians of 45000+ denominations (including JWs and LDS aka Mormons) already praying and worshipping other than the G-d of Abraham, Jacob-Israel and Moses, please, right?

Any of the Pauline-Christians to kindly mention the denomination he belongs to and to prove that they exactly pray to G-d and worship Him as did Abraham, please, right?
any, please

Regards

 

[InChrist]

In Genesis' Garden story, what in your view did the snake say to Eve that was deceptive?

As I read it, the only deceptive statement was God saying that "in the day that you eat of it you will die" ─ which was simply untrue, exactly as the snake said.

It wasn’t untrue, but true. The scriptures refer to spiritual separation from God, who is the Source of life, as the ultimate death which occurred when Adam and Eve distrusted God and ate the fruit. So the serpent did lie. Besides that, humanity then became susceptible to physical death.

I don't see how obtaining knowledge of good and evil, even if only in a folktale, is corrupting. What problem do you have with it?

It’s one thing to know about the contrast between good and evil, yet another to experience this by experiencing evil itself. One can understand the detrimental effects of fentanyl without trying it… or dying from it. God had Adam and Eve in a beautiful environment free of pain, suffering and evil. God would have educated them with His wisdom, rather than have them experience evil and pain itself, had they trusted His love and obeyed.

Well, you can take your pick of the five versions of Jesus that the NT offers. One (Mark's) was an ordinary Jewish citizen who became 'son of God' by adoption after JtB baptized him. Two (Paul's and John's) pre-existed in heaven with God, created the material universe regardless of what Genesis may say, and came to earth in a manner not described, except that it allowed the claim "descended from David". Two (Matthew's, Luke's) were born of a virgin, but their respective claims to be descended from David are incoherent as well as irreconcilable. What they have in common is that each denies he's God.

Which do you say is the correct one?

I see no incoherent or irreconcilable issues, simply different perspectives given by various witnesses/writers providing deeper insight and a larger picture of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The "big chunk of the Christian canon" I was talking about was the Old Testament (i.e. what we were just talking about). I assumed that this would be obvious

The OT says nothing about Jesus at all.

If you rightly include the OT as part of Christian canon, it is STILL TRUE that some verses imply that Jesus is not God, and others imply that he is. Everything I said in my last post still stands. You cannot say that Trinitarians don't care about being consistent with their Bibles.

Even full-on atheism is part of that diversity, even though it's relatively rare (uncloseted) among Christians... for instance.

I wouldn't go that far. Simply having a Christian culture is not the same as being a Christian.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It’s true that Christian theology was connected to Old Testament Judaism

It's more than connected. It is absolutely a part of their canon. That's why when you buy a Christian Bible, it contains the OT.

but Jesus expressly warned against it.

“1“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.

With the Gospel of Jesus we were to start over fresh, but his Jewish followers attempted to create a seamless transition.

Your verse does not support your point about the Old Testament. It is part of a passage that answers why Jesus' disciples didn't fast. It never mentions scripture.

There are repeated positive appeals to "Moses and the Prophets" both in the gospels and in Paul's epistles. This is a reference to two of three sections of the Tanakh, the three sections being the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

Further, Jesus made a point of embracing the Law. He states that not even a brushstroke will fall away from the Law until heaven and earth pass away. He states that those who teach even the smallest of those laws will be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The OT says nothing about Jesus at all.

The OT has several verses about God not being a man, which has implications for Jesus being both God and man.

If you rightly include the OT as part of Christian canon,

Not me; Christians do.

it is STILL TRUE that some verses imply that Jesus is not God, and others imply that he is. Everything I said in my last post still stands. You cannot say that Trinitarians don't care about being consistent with their Bibles.

Of course I can.

I wouldn't go that far. Simply having a Christian culture is not the same as being a Christian.

I'm not talking about "having a Christian culture." I'm talking about actual Christian atheists: members of Christian communities who identify as Christians andvwho are acknowledged as Christians by the other members of those Christian communities.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course I can.

You can type a text saying so. But it has no legitimacy. It is just bashing Trinitarians.

Look, remember that I'm opposed to Trinitarianism. In my view, God is NEVER that man, or that rock, or that tree. But I would never say something as ridiculous as Trinitarians don't' care what the Bible says.

 

[blü 2]

It wasn’t untrue, but true. The scriptures refer to spiritual separation from God, who is the Source of life, as the ultimate death which occurred when Adam and Eve distrusted God and ate the fruit.

No. At the time each of Adam and Eve at the fruit, as the story makes clear, God had denied them knowledge of good and evil. Therefore each at that time was unable to form an intention to do wrong, hence incapable of sin.

God had Adam and Eve in a beautiful environment free of pain, suffering and evil. God would have educated them with His wisdom, rather than have them experience evil and pain itself, had they trusted His love and obeyed.

No [he] wouldn't ─ the text says nothing of the kind. As I said, Genesis 3:22-23 is where God unambiguously states [his] only reasons for expelling them.

I wish Christians would stop inventing additions to the story to make it comply with Paul's take on it. Nothing in the Tanakh supports Paul, nothing else in the NT supports Paul, and according to my reading, the notion of the Fall was invented in Alexandria around 120 CE by Jewish practitioners of midrash.

And the Garden of Eden is only a folktale anyway.