• 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 is God, vs Jesus isn't g- d, same religion?[no

Same religion? Jesus is God vs Jesus isn't g- d


  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There is a big difference between churches that say, Jesus, is G- d, and Jesus, isn't G- d. I won't associate my religious beliefs with churches who say that Jesus isn't God, in fact, I'm more likely to just call Jesus God, than Jesus.

Are these religions the same? They don't seem to be, why are they considered the same religion?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Both are saying the same thing. All you need to do is understand the nature of the Trinity. This can be understood with a practical example.

Say we have a man called Joe. Joe is a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a child to his parents. Joe is one person, who has three different behavioral persona, based on which of these circumstances he is in. To his parents, wife, and children a different set of needs will arise.

When he is alone with his wife, discussing the day, Joe narrows down who he is, so he can best relate intimately with his wife. He is still Joe the father and Joe the son, but he become more specialize to the needs of his wife.

To Joe's friends and colleagues at work, he is Joe, who likes to laugh and who talks about his parents, wife and children. They all know him in terms of all he is, but they are not as acquainted with all the intimate details of his three persona, while Joe is at home. This is only for his family.

The way various churches describe Jesus and God is based on how they know him, and how he relates to them. Some see dad and some see a colleague; friend in Jesus.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Just as described in the premise, " denominations", or " churches".

The diversity of the denominations and churches that consider the Bible as some sort of Revelation from God and Jesus Christ as the Messiah come under the general religion of Christianity.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
In the path of enlightenment, some people will come to the conclusion Jesus is God. Other people will come to the conclusion Jesus is human. It's important to have both options, for the sake of enlightenment.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Both are saying the same thing. All you need to do is understand the nature of the Trinity. This can be understood with a practical example.

Say we have a man called Joe. Joe is a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a child to his parents. Joe is one person, who has three different behavioral persona, based on which of these circumstances he is in. To his parents, wife, and children a different set of needs will arise.

When he is alone with his wife, discussing the day, Joe narrows down who he is, so he can best relate intimately with his wife. He is still Joe the father and Joe the son, but he become more specialize to the needs of his wife.

To Joe's friends and colleagues at work, he is Joe, who likes to laugh and who talks about his parents, wife and children. They all know him in terms of all he is, but they are not as acquainted with all the intimate details of his three persona, while Joe is at home. This is only for his family.

The simplistic example fails miserable. Mundane examples are useless The different 'behavioral persona' is not a parallel of three distinct 'persons (Gods?) as one God, The main issue does the church or denomination believe and teach the dogma of the Trinity or not?

Analogies like these only make sense to those that already believe.

The way various churches describe Jesus and God is based on how they know him, and how he relates to them. Some see dad and some see a colleague; friend in Jesus.

This is more of a personal anecdotal example, and does not reflect the beliefs and dogma of the churches.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
The way various churches describe Jesus and God is based on how they know him, and how he relates to them. Some see dad and some see a colleague; friend in Jesus.

Jesus is never the Father, but the Son and Mediator. As Catholics if we simply refer to God it is the Father referred to.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The diversity of the denominations and churches that consider the Bible as some sort of Revelation from God and Jesus Christ as the Messiah come under the general religion of Christianity.

That's a very broad definition, and as basically only 'textual', the question is still, are they the 'same religion'.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There is a big difference between churches that say, Jesus, is G- d, and Jesus, isn't G- d. I won't associate my religious beliefs with churches who say that Jesus isn't God, in fact, I'm more likely to just call Jesus God, than Jesus.

Are these religions the same? They don't seem to be, why are they considered the same religion?
They are called the same religion because Jesus both is and is not "God" depending on how we choose to perceive him. Jesus (the Christ) is the embodiment/expression of God's divine spirit on Earth, in human form. He was HUMAN. He was A MAN. ... Not God. And he said so. And yet he was also the embodiment of God's spirit, and thereby human representation of that spirit (a living representation of "God"), and he said so.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That's a very broad definition, and as basically only 'textual', the question is still, are they the 'same religion'.

The answer is 'objectively' they are the same religion. I realize that 'some' believers,and churches assert that those that believe differently and do not fit their criteria for being a 'true' believer,. . . but that is not an objective way to view religions and belief systems objectively without the bias of the perspective of a believer.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned in Matthew's baptismal creed long before any thought of, or formulation of the Trinity.

Two, possibilities as with all references throughout the NT; (1) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this reference do not refer to separate distinct 'persons' as the Trinity does. (2) The reference is later added like I John 5:7

From: 1 John 5:7 And Matthew 28:19 – Fabricated Trinity Verses

Eusebius (260 – 339 CE) was a Roman Christian historian and is regarded as a well learned Christian scholar. He became the Bishop of Caesarea in 314 CE. He quotes many verses in his works, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. 17 times in his works prior to Nicaea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” without mentioning the Trinity baptism formula.

1. George H. Gilbert Quotes Mr Conybeare and says the following on Matthew 28:19:

“There is important external evidence against the existence of this formula in manuscripts current before the time of Eusebius, and various recent writers have urge that the practice of baptism in Acts and Epistles of Paul is utterly incompatible with the view that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (E.g., Martineau, The Seat of Authority in religion, page 515; Percy Gardener, Exploratio Evangilica, page 445; Sabatier, Religions of Authority and Religion of Spirit, page 52; Harnack, History of Dogma Volume 1, 79, note).”


.Concerning John 5:7

Brooke F. Westcott gave a long essay on 1 John 5:7 he then made the following Summary on 1 John 5:7

“…THE WORDS ARE NOT FOUND:
(1) In any independent Greek MS (more than 180 MSS and 50 Lectionaries are quoted). Both the late MS which contain it have unquestionably been modified by the Latin Vulgate.
(2) In any independent Greek writer. The very few Greek writers who make use of the words derived their knowledge of them from the Latin (not in Ir Cl.Al Orig Did Athan Bas Greg. Naz Cyr.Al).
(3) In any Latin Father earlier than Victor Vitensis or Vigilius Tapsensis (not in Tert Cypr Hil Ambr Hier Aug Leo).(4) Not in any ancient version except the Latin; and it was not found in the Old Latin in its early form (Tert Cypr Aug), or (b) in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome (Codd. Am fuld or (c) as revised by Alcuin (Cod. Vallicell).” [7]
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this reference do not refer to separate distinct 'persons' as the Trinity does.

Right, in no NT passage is there the concept of three divine Persons and one divine Nature and would not be understood as such in 1st cent. But it reflects the practice of the church which preceded the Gospels.

Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
They are called the same religion because Jesus both is and is not "God" depending on how we choose to perceive him. Jesus (the Christ) is the embodiment/expression of God's divine spirit on Earth, in human form. He was HUMAN. He was A MAN. ... Not God. And he said so. And yet he was also the embodiment of God's spirit, and thereby human representation of that spirit (a living representation of "God"), and he said so.
Didn't he say to baptize, and other things also? You are just arbitrarily choosing something to justify 'same religion'.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Right, in no NT passage is there the concept of three divine Persons and one divine Nature and would not be understood as such in 1st cent. But it reflects the practice of the church which preceded the Gospels.

Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.
One divine nature not understood , what? That is the only thing that would give Jesus authority, that is the one thing that would have to be understood.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Right, in no NT passage is there the concept of three divine Persons and one divine Nature and would not be understood as such in 1st cent. But it reflects the practice of the church which preceded the Gospels.

You're not understanding something. No one, who is just a rabbi, or a teacher, no matter how 'holy', or whatever, would ever be associated as 'G- d ', unless believed to be an aspect of God. As in , literally. Would never happen.

" metaphor" isn't used in Israelite description of God. [ in the literal sense
 
Top