• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus: God or not? (Christians only)

Jesus: a god or not.

  • Jesus is God, as one being. (He is a "full god" on earth.)

    Votes: 14 35.9%

  • Jesus is an incarnation of God when on earth.

    Votes: 10 25.6%

  • God divided himself, and send part of him to earth.

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Jesus is not God, but he is God's son (in a literal sense; hence a demi-god).

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • Jesus was only created, when Mary conceived. (Which mean, he didn't exist before he was born.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Jesus is neither God nor the son of God.

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Jesus is just human and a prophet.

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Jesus is just human, and he is no prophet.

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • No of the above.

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Others.

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • Total voters
    39
Anti-Constantine

Anti-Constantine

Non-Creedal
Katzpur said:
Don't apologize. I would have asked the same question had you used the word "essence." I just have a hard time grasping the concept of how the Father and the Son could be distinct persons and yet one essence, and I'm pretty sure it's because the word "essence" is one my religion doesn't use. I'm just not comfortable with it.

So each person is not a separate being?

So, could we say that the essence of both the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost, for that matter) is those qualities that make them divine -- their perfect love, knowledge, power, etc?

Not a great deal, to be perfectly honest. But I do appreciate the effort. Again, it's the word "essence" and the word "substance" that I have a difficult time with, and since they are so integral to an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, no matter how many times I try to get it, I always end up giving up.
Click to expand...

The Trinitarian concept is very close to our view of the Godhead. The difference is that the Three beings that compose the Godhead are together eternally God, past, present and future, whereas our view is that Christ is a God separate from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Often the degree of difference is exaggerated, but it is a difference.


But in reference to the OP, I voted other as I am also LDS and had not read Katzpur's posts at that point.


Demi-God implies less than completely God. LDS believe Christ is and was entirely God. Using the term Demi-God would lessen Christ in our estimation.
 
W

wlkngwthgod

Member
My beliefs on this subject are a bit confusing, so I'm not sure how to put them into words. But I'll try my best.

I believe that Jesus is God, but then again He isn't. While He was on earth, God was still in Heaven. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit, He obviously was God's Son, but not God Himself. Yet He still had/has all of His Father's power. Does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
E

elijah7

New Member
Concerning the question of is Jesus God, I have spent dozens of hours researching this question for a presentation. You have put on the relevant Biblical passages together on this topic to get a clear picture.

A wise Bible teacher once said that you must go to the beginning of the story to get the complete picture. If you just read the N.T., it is like walking into the middle of an epic film like "Gone With The Wind". You would not understand why Atlanta is burning, what "Tara" is and so forth.

If we go to Genesis 1:1 and check the original Hebrew, we see that the first word is for God in the Hebrew is plural (Elohim). It is the plural of EL . In the next chapter, we see that this divine being makes the statement: "Let us make man in OUR likeness..." If the Bible is inspired, there has to be at least two beings here. My belief it is the ones we now call God the Father and God The Son. (not their names at the time).

If Christ were not a separate being, who was he praying to when he asked for help to get through to crucifixion?

Some modern translations say that "Christ was emptied of his divine perogatives". That is he was not in Spirit form, completely unlimited as before. I think that is correct. He felt pain as we do. He was "tempted in all points, yet without sin".

I believe that Christ was and always has been a God being. (However he did have some limitations when took on human form). But NOT THE ONLY ONE!

When the prophet Daniel recieved a vision of heaven, he SAW TWO DIVINE BEINGS. NOT THREE.
I believe it is in Dan. ch. 7 or 9.

When Stephen was about to be martyred in the book of Acts, HE SAW TWO DIVINE BEINGS, NOT THREE.

All you trinitarians give that some thought.
 
Bennettresearch

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Dirty Penguin said:
It's all good. I'm involved in a few other post on this very subject.

I do have questions.......

If Yeshua is to be considered God then how can the statement in Rev. 3:12 be explained?
Click to expand...

Hi,

That's easy, Gospel of John 5:26-27. The Trinity doesn't hold up too well when compared to statements like these in the NT.

Craig
 
Bennettresearch

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
wlkngwthgod said:
My beliefs on this subject are a bit confusing, so I'm not sure how to put them into words. But I'll try my best.

I believe that Jesus is God, but then again He isn't. While He was on earth, God was still in Heaven. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit, He obviously was God's Son, but not God Himself. Yet He still had/has all of His Father's power. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Our religion is based upon the belief that it is not possible for a mortal human to be so in touch with the Holy Spirit. The literalists also take statements like "Son of God" and represent it as non metaphoric. The myths that influenced the propaganda stated in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, helped to give imaginations a whirl as the doctrine of the Church developed. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus had intense mental power, but to go so far as to defy physics, I don't think so. You'll notice I left out John with the other Gospels. John doesn't have a lot of the propaganda that the other three have. Scholars says the first three are basically from the same source.

Craig
 
M

Mon Jihad

Misanthropic Christian
Being a little new to this all I have learned that I think the first two make the most sense to me. I think the incarnation of Jesus as God is the same as him being God fully. I myself really do not see a difference between the two.
 
C

CSBerne

Stryke
It really doesn't matter which He was, or is. The point is not whether Jesus was the Son of God or God himself when He was born. The point is that at some point before His ministry began (this is what I believe) Jesus became what no other man or woman has ever achieved or ever will achieve without the metaphysical aid of His sacrifice- God's equal (or One with God). It's just like evolution of creation- it doesn't matter how it happened! What matters is THAT it happened and that God was behind it.
 
R

raibeart

Member
I personally don't see how so many people can believe that Jesus was in fact the son of G-D, when he is not from the house of David like the Messiah is suppose to be. All Christians believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. If this is in fact true, then how is it that he can be from Davids blood line? It is impossible. I mean there are so many examples in the Bible (OT+NT) that actually point to Jesus not being the Son of G-D. I am a firm believer that not only was Jesus not G-D or in any form G-D, that we not even a prophet.

He did not fullfill any of the prophesies that are key to the Messiah. Many Christians believe that in his second coming he will perform these tasks. I don't believe this either. Nowhere in the OT does it say that the Messiah will come twice. It in fact point to the Messiah performing all these tasks on one coming. And he will be born from the house of David (David's Blood Line), and will infact bring world peace as Prophecied.
 
eccentricjdo

eccentricjdo

Eclectic Intelectual
raibeart said:
I personally don't see how so many people can believe that Jesus was in fact the son of G-D, when he is not from the house of David like the Messiah is suppose to be. All Christians believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. If this is in fact true, then how is it that he can be from Davids blood line? It is impossible. I mean there are so many examples in the Bible (OT+NT) ...
Click to expand...

Zechariah 12-14.
 
R

raibeart

Member
eccentricjdo said:
Zechariah 12-14.
Click to expand...

Ah.. you use this reference, but you are looking at it as since he was peirced with the spear, that this must be proof. Well what if he wasn't pierced by the spear would you then think that he was in fact the Son of God? And if you would still believe that he is even if he didn't get 'pierced', then why would you look at this 'prophecy' as not being fulfilled, and still consider him the Messiah, since there are other prophecies he did not fulfill yet you still look at him as the Messiah?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top