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

[Desert Snake]

John 3:36

Theres one...

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Those are completely different deity concepts. Objectively to what basis? What are you basing this on? It's clearly subjective to your understanding of the religion, and reflects a lack of understanding concerning the very nature of the religion.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

So? You realize that " father, pater, and presumed abba , are not the same as G- d , Elohim and related words, & Theos, Theon, the words aren't the same, they have different meaning.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

some things " aren't the same religion", just the way it is.

 

[pearl]

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.

Not by the 1st cent mindset.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Because anyone can use the label "Christian", but those who want to follow Jesus, not their imagination, adhere to the principles of the Bible. It's that simple IMHO.

 

[shunyadragon]

Those are completely different deity concepts. Objectively to what basis? What are you basing this on? It's clearly subjective to your understanding of the religion, and reflects a lack of understanding concerning the very nature of the religion.

What you call 'completely different deity concepts' is subjective from the fallible human perspective of the interpretation of the scriptures of the different churches and variations, each claiming they are true and right belief system.

If you want to compare 'different deity concepts' the concept of God in the Old Testament is not the Trinity, and those that believe in the Trinity have to use a very creative interpretation of OT scripture that the scholars of Judaism in history would not remotely accept based on the original Hebrew text.

The very nature of the different religions of the world is not based on the narrow perspective of any one church, sect, nor division that claims their version is 'True' and all others are false.

 

[sealchan]

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?

Some terms have a broad scope and others a narrow scope. You are describing two different churches under the broad category of Christian churches. If the Methodist church splits over its recognition of LGBTQ people as pastors you could ask the same question.

What about a brand of Christianity that says everyone is (a child of) God?

 

[shunyadragon]

What about a brand of Christianity that says everyone is (a child of) God?

Too much of a broad and ambiguous statement to reflect the scripture of the Bible, and the reality of Christianity over the millennia. The best you can do is propose that everyone is potentially a child of God.

 

[sealchan]

Too much of a broad and ambiguous statement to reflect the scripture of the Bible, and the reality of Christianity over the millennia. The best you can do is propose that everyone is potentially a child of God.

Yes, the Jewish Testament is perhaps too tribal and the New Testament too political...but the both borrowed heavily from other traditions so they have the flavor of a more universal mystical perspective in spite of themselves I think.

 

[viole]

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?

Obviously, they are not the same. On pure logical ground, having property X and not having property X are mutually exclusive.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the Jewish Testament is perhaps too tribal and the New Testament too political...but the both borrowed heavily from other traditions so they have the flavor of a more universal mystical perspective in spite of themselves I think.

In my view all the religions have the flavor(?) of a more universal mystical, and spiritual perspective at their heart, which is in part why I am a Baha'i.

 

[PureX]

Didn't he say to baptize, and other things also? You are just arbitrarily choosing something to justify 'same religion'.

Jesus made it quite clear on a number of occasions that he was not God. But he also stated on a number of occasions that he represented God's mind, will and spirit, on Earth. It's what he and others meant by referring to him as the "son of God". The son of a family patriarch in that culture was considered the living proxy for the patriarch. Promises made by the son were considered binding on the father, and likewise. For Jesus to be the "son of God" meant that he was a living proxy for God's mind, will, and spirit, on Earth.

 

[sealchan]

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?

Thinking that a detail although significant defines a religion or that placing more value on belief than in character or behavior places you in a different religion than mine.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus made it quite clear on a number of occasions that he was not God. But he also stated on a number of occasions that he represented God's mind, will and spirit, on Earth. It's what he and others meant by referring to him as the "son of God". The son of a family patriarch in that culture was considered the living proxy for the patriarch. Promises made by the son were considered binding on the father, and likewise. For Jesus to be the "son of God" meant that he was a living proxy for God's mind, will, and spirit, on Earth.

Then you need to 'define' Christianity, in more than a vague way.

Thinking that a detail although significant defines a religion or that placing more value on belief than in character or behavior places you in a different religion than mine.

Then you need to 'define' Christianity, it seems, though you do seem to be somewhat agreeing, here.

 

[Desert Snake]

Obviously, they are not the same. On pure logical ground, having property X and not having property X are mutually exclusive.

Ciao

- viole

Agreed.

 

[rrobs]

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.

I'm afraid this is not a good analogy of the trinity. According to trinity logic Joe would be Joe, his wife and his son, all wrapped up in one. Of course, assuming words have any meaning at all, that is an absolutely unthinkable situation.

There are no good analogies for the trinity because it defies all logic, reason, and language.

The scriptures declare Jesus to be the son of God. God is Jesus' father. We all know that a son and a father can not possibly be the same person, so how can God and Jesus be the same person? God knows what a son is and He knows what a father is. He communicates to us with words and those words must make sense. He never once used any trinitarian verbiage in the scriptures. "God the Son," "co-eternal," "co-substantial," "God nature," "man nature," "hypostasis," etc. etc. They are all man made illogical and unmeaning terms used in an attempt to describe something that doesn't exist.

What really blows my mind is that the trinity is supposedly the absolute cornerstone of Christianity. I can't imagine a God who would be so vague on the most important aspect of salvation. Oh, actually, yes I can. It would be a Babylonian god! Not my God for sure. He loved me enough to send his only begotten son and ask him to die for me. That's right; he asked Jesus to sacrifice himself. He didn't force him. That's not how love works, and if anybody loves, it's God.

Jesus had the same free will as you and I. Just be thankful Jesus didn't accept the devil's offer of all the kingdoms in the world. I must confess I may have done just that. Adam did. He thought he could be God and look where that got us. A man got us into the mess and it had to be a man that got us out. Again, thank God for His love and thank Jesus for his love and his perfect obedience, including a horrible death, despite his having been tempted exactly like you and I (Heb 4:15). Do you have a consciousness of being God when tempted? Then neither did Jesus! He's not God. He's the son of God. Why is that so complicated? I can give you a million reasons why the trinity is complicated though.

 

[MJFlores]

I believe man has the duty and the responsibility to search for the true beliefs and the true faith.
I believe man should distinguish carefully his basis of religion.
Most are nonchalant and apathetic to what they believe simply because they were born that way.

Before we conclude if the Lord Jesus Christ is God or not, we should define first who is God and then afterwards proceed to examine the nature of Christ Jesus.

We simply could not continue to blindly accept a belief it is not verified, no basis and of human reasoning. If we blindly accept a belief when we know it is wrong, then what have we become? Mindless zombies, unthinking and unreasoning.



We should keep an open mind, we might be zombies all along.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In the Bible Jesus describes His relationship with God as a son to a father. But nowhere does He say ‘I am the Father’ because He is not claiming to be God in essence but only to be at one with Him. He says Christians can also be at one with Him and the Father clearly not inferring they are God but at one with God.

John 10:30

I and my Father are one

John 17:22

That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.

In John 17:22 unity and oneness is referred to as Christians cannot be God but can be at one with God as Jesus was meaning, to be united in God.

John 1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Here it’s clear that son of God is a title conveying closeness to God by believing in Him. It is a spiritual relationship not a physical one and the title is trying to convey the closeness of the relationship.

 

[Desert Snake]

In the Bible Jesus describes His relationship with God as a son to a father. But nowhere does He say ‘I am the Father’ because He is not claiming to be God in essence but only to be at one with Him. He says Christians can also be at one with Him and the Father clearly not inferring they are God but at one with God.

John 10:30

I and my Father are one

John 17:22

That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.

In John 17:22 unity and oneness is referred to as Christians cannot be God but can be at one with God as Jesus was meaning, to be united in God.

John 1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Here it’s clear that son of God is a title conveying closeness to God by believing in Him. It is a spiritual relationship not a physical one and the title is trying to convey the closeness of the relationship.

If you read the discussion, 'father', pater and postulated Abba. ' G- d', Elohim and related words, Theos, Theon.

Different words.

Different meanings.

If you are going to use the word 'G- d' for the father, it's contextual, not directly implied.