NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

The most expansive versions of Christianity hold that all you have to do is follow Jesus's teachings to be considered christian. You don't need to believe in his divinity or resurrection or any of that. By that extremely loose construction, you could call me a christian while I say I'm an atheist. All depends on how far you want to stretch the definition.

However, most people who call themselves christians will not recognize you as one if you don't accept the divinity of Christ. How important is it to you?

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

Well, doesn't the bible say that Christ claimed to be God/the son of God? If so, you either regard the bible as inaccurate, or do not believe Christ was telling the truth.

The most expansive versions of Christianity hold that all you have to do is follow Jesus's teachings to be considered christian. You don't need to believe in his divinity or resurrection or any of that. By that extremely loose construction, you could call me a christian while I say I'm an atheist. All depends on how far you want to stretch the definition.

However, most people who call themselves christians will not recognize you as one if you don't accept the divinity of Christ. How important is it to you?

I believe him to be divine by merit of him being sinless and God sent his spirit down into him...ANd it matters to me, because I am going to be a missionary, and I don't want to lead any one astray. But how am I to lead if I don't even know what to believe?

Well, doesn't the bible say that Christ claimed to be God/the son of God? If so, you either regard the bible as inaccurate, or do not believe Christ was telling the truth.

I believe most of the bible, but its the Gospel of John I have a problem with. Its so radically different from the rest of the gospels. And its in the Gospel of John that he claims to be all these holy divine things, like the bread of life, son of God, etc.. But if you look in Mark, for example, you see Jesus saying he was the "son of man", with a little less divinity attributed to him.

The most expansive versions of Christianity hold that all you have to do is follow Jesus's teachings to be considered christian. You don't need to believe in his divinity or resurrection or any of that. By that extremely loose construction, you could call me a christian while I say I'm an atheist. All depends on how far you want to stretch the definition.

However, most people who call themselves christians will not recognize you as one if you don't accept the divinity of Christ. How important is it to you?

Doesn't Judaism follow the teachings of Christ but not in his divinity?

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and also in the Ressurrection.

I agree with Zilam. The quality of a "Christian" is better measured by their following of his "teachings": peace, brotherhood, generosity. I would sooner call a man who follows this path, but professes to be atheist a "Christian", than I would a bigot who says Christ was the physical incarnation of God on Earth.

But if you want to follow the literal interpretation...Most Christian doctrine states that their followers profess the belief that Christ WAS God, and that he could do miracles, that he died on the Cross for our sins, rose again, and will return at the Judgement Day.

I tend to be a little more flexible.

I believe him to be divine by merit of him being sinless and God sent his spirit down into him...ANd it matters to me, because I am going to be a missionary, and I don't want to lead any one astray. But how am I to lead if I don't even know what to believe?

I agree with Ashmoria, you need to pray and listen to what God tells you.

well it puts you in some strange company.

the jehova's witnesses have jesus as one of the archangels. the mormons have him as the son of god (but not the only son of god) and seperate from him.

some of the original sects of christianity had beliefs about jesus that did not include the trinity.

maybe you should read up on the unitarians....

in any case it makes you a christian heretic. sounds bad but since no one can burn you at the stake for it, its between you and god.

in any case it makes you a christian heretic. sounds bad but since no one can burn you at the stake for it, its between you and god.

Ach! In the end, you have to find God your own way.

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

This means you're either a Jacobite Christian or a Coptic? Not sure about the last one, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

have a look at the 'celtic' church. they don't believe that either - if they still exist, i think they might have all been burnt by the pope.

I believe him to be divine by merit of him being sinless and God sent his spirit down into him...ANd it matters to me, because I am going to be a missionary, and I don't want to lead any one astray. But how am I to lead if I don't even know what to believe?

You're in a tough spot if you're looking to be a missionary and you're having this kind of doubt. Wish I could help you, but I'm probably the wrong one to give advice on this sort of thing.

I believe most of the bible, but its the Gospel of John I have a problem with. Its so radically different from the rest of the gospels. And its in the Gospel of John that he claims to be all these holy divine things, like the bread of life, son of God, etc.. But if you look in Mark, for example, you see Jesus saying he was the "son of man", with a little less divinity attributed to him.

you might think of john as a kind of poetry. it uses its own language and own meanings and own metaphors. and read up on gnosticism. john is very influenced by gnostic thought.

well it puts you in some strange company.

the jehova's witnesses have jesus as one of the archangels.
The Witnesses have him as the Son of God, number two in the ranks, not co-equal. That's the one religion I can speak with a great deal of authority on. ;)

Well if God exists, the only way for sure you will know if your beliefs are accurate is to wait for death and have the big man tell you Himself.

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

You're certainly still a Christian, in that you are following the teachings of Christ to a large extent.

The problem would be a practical one, that at best, folks will see your views as watered down and unscriptural. At worst, they'll ostracise you entirely in a most likely rather unloving way. Mmmm, irony.

Because I see the essence of Christianity as following the two commandments Jesus gave (love God and love others as yourself), which people of all faiths and those who claim none can partake of, I can't dispute that you are christian with a little "c". I might not call you Christian with a big "C" though, because you hold to a form of Low Christology.

maybe it'd be easier for me to just not believe in anything. I'd feel less guilty about it, I am sure.

maybe it'd be easier for me to just not believe in anything. I'd feel less guilty about it, I am sure.

That's what I ended up doing. Though admittedly, being a lapsed Hindu is significantly easier than being a lapsed Catholic...

...for one thing, there's less Guilt.

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

If you believe that the teachings of Christ come from the divine, and that a person should follow them to have a relationship with God and achieve salvation, then I'd say you're a Christian. The debate over the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, and how the two might interact has been around since the beginning of the church. As far as the Roman Catholic Church and most other denominations are concerned, the question has been settled, but theologians still discuss it. Your beliefs are not what you might call "mainstream Christianity," but they are Christianity.

I believe him to be divine by merit of him being sinless and God sent his spirit down into him...ANd it matters to me, because I am going to be a missionary, and I don't want to lead any one astray. But how am I to lead if I don't even know what to believe?

None of us will know everything. The fact that you question these things and retain your faith says to me that you are strong in faith, and thus could be a good example for one who might wish to seek the truth through Christianity.

I don't think the role of a missionary is to give a complete religion to someone on a silver platter. Your role, in my opinion, is to live by example, to open up questions those you minister to might not have yet asked, and to guide them on where to seek out more information if they are interested. If you try to tell them exactly what to believe, they are unlikely to develop their own faith, instead relying upon yours. If anything, especially if you are with others who may view the question differently, having different viewpoints on Christianity could help any new converts to find their own paths.

maybe it'd be easier for me to just not believe in anything. I'd feel less guilty about it, I am sure.

If you're going to experiment with nihilism, go ahead. It probably won't take you long to figure out that it ain't gonna work for you.

If you're going to experiment with nihilism, go ahead. It probably won't take you long to figure out that it ain't gonna work for you.

D'oh. I thought he meant atheism.

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(
The bible clearly outlines you must beleive in Jesus is your lord and savior and that he died on the cross (and was resurrected) for your sins.

maybe it'd be easier for me to just not believe in anything. I'd feel less guilty about it, I am sure.
Beleiving in anythign isnt easy Zilam you have to work to beleive in anything. Dont give up just because it is hard or because something else is easier.

D'oh. I thought he meant atheism.

Atheists generally have quite a few beliefs. Just not theistic ones. Zilam specifically mentioned not believing in "anything".

"Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused."

This stance is known as Arianism, and was quite popular between about 350 - 700 in German-speaking nations of the Time (Ostrogothia, West-Gothia, Bourgundy, The Vandal kingdom, the empire of Odoacer, Langobardia -=Lombardia- and others)

Also, the extremely liberal churches in Western Europe have shifted the focus from Jesus' miracles (and his exact connection with God) to His words and the general concern of His actions: "to emancipate just about everyone" (Benjamins' words, not mine).

If you want to be inspired by His words and deeds rather than by His exact affiliation with God, if you still believe that God loves you in spite of all your doubt - and He probably does! - and keep praying, than

just give yourself a break from dogmas. I don't actually approve of what you apparently believe in, but I suppose I understand why you and others take this stance.

To many people this is a transitional stance (cf. Fowler), to be followed by a new and unbreakable kind of believing. This new kind of believing might be what Jesus Himself referred to as "becoming like a child", so don't despare: you might just be on the way to something good.

Blessings to you.

Zilam... hold the thought. I am also training for ministerial responsibilities within the Australian Army. Hang on while I compose a response worthy of your time to read...

The bible clearly outlines you must beleive in Jesus is your lord and savior and that he died on the cross (and was resurrected) for your sins.

But the bible(as we know it now) was constructed by a group of men that had nothing to do with Jesus, and had pagan influences. Do you trust their judgement?

Atheists generally have quite a few beliefs. Just not theistic ones. Zilam specifically mentioned not believing in "anything".

Oh I know, I just didn't realize he was being literal. I assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that he meant "any god".

Oh I know, I just didn't realize he was being literal. I assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that he meant "any god".

I dunno. That seems awfully limited. If it was just "any god" he could still belong to a non-theistic religion and have all sorts of really wacky beliefs.

Oh, thanks Neu Heidelberg. I was wondering about something like that.

I don't believe in the full accuracy of the bible myself (mainly since almost ALL translations from one language to another then to lose things, not to mention it takes one person way back when to fudge copying it...) and I consider myself an Agnostic, but A) if the Christian God does exist and B) he's the compassionate version versus the "smite all the sinners with earthquakes, frogs, etc." in the Old Testament, then he's supposed to be all forgiving of pretty much everything, right?

So I would imagine that he would "like" people more on how they thought of his son, rather then them saying they are followers, but not acting like them. I believe in his teachings (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, give things to the poor, etc.) and try to practice them, mainly because I feel those are good tenets to hold.

And even if he wasn't divine, and actually did die and not be resurrected, he died for something he believed in with his whole being. I personally think that it's more impressive to have done that because it shows that even if he wasn't the Son of God, he cared about everyone that much. I don't know many people with even CLOSE to that much compassion. So while I may not believe in his divinity, I believe in his message, his pure compassion. But according to most Christians, I'll probably go to hell just for my doubts.

But at least I'll have plenty of company :p

(Sorry for the long winded speech)

I dunno. That seems awfully limited. If it was just "any god" he could still belong to a non-theistic religion and have all sorts of really wacky beliefs.

Yes, but that would make him a-theist, if he was non-theist. I didn't say he couldn't have spiritual beliefs.

Yes, but that would make him a-theist, if he was non-theist. I didn't say he couldn't have spiritual beliefs.

Right. It would just be odd to use the general term "believe" for a specific class of beliefs as in theism.

Right. It would just be odd to use the general term "believe" for a specific class of beliefs as in theism.

Good point.

This is something I wrote for a religion class the other day. It details why I believe what I do. Forgive any spelling or grammatical errors :p


Also, i mention marcus borg and NT wright. This paper was based off of a question I had after reading their book "The Meaning of Jesus"

Thomas Pigg
Religion 380
2/21/07
Jesus: A Man Made Into God, or God Made Man?

Perhaps the most argued aspect of Christianity is that of Jesus’ divinity, and
relationship with the monotheistic Jewish God. It is common among most of the Christians today to believe that Jesus was God in a man’s body, or at least he was the “son” of God. There is a smaller minority that believes that Jesus himself was not God, but a man with a higher sense of God. Although it might always remain unclear what Jesus was, there are clues and hints to be found in the Bible, and historical texts that can lead one closer to an answer.
I believe whole heartedly that Jesus was of God, but not in the traditional
sense as most Christians see him. I don’t see Jesus as how the Gospel of John
portrays him. The way I view Jesus is a man born of a miracle, a man following after God’s heart, and a man that ultimately gained enough love and strength from God to perform an act of selflessness, that act being of course dying on the Cross for the sins of mankind. I wish to examine post-Easter Christological imagery, the Trinity, and a few physicalities and technicalities that don’t seem to make sense, in order to better understand why Jesus was not God, but rather a man of God.

According to countless passages in the Gospel of John, Jesus is seen as a man with a large ego, walking around being self absorbed and filled with ideas of grandeur. Marcus Borg claims that instead of Jesus making these claims about being God, among other things, the early community added in their thoughts of what Jesus meant to them. At first, this idea seemed heretical to me, based on my traditional background, and thought it would take away meaning from Christ’s life and purpose. However, it would seem strange to have a man that preached the ideas of humility, to go around with so much pride. Borg’s thought, on the other hand, makes me appreciate the early Christians a lot, as they were expressing their heartfelt feelings about Jesus. They were showing their love and desire for what Jesus did for them. Borg continues on to talk about Christological imagery in the sense that it was purely metaphoric, that is to say, Jesus wasn’t really the True Vine for example, but that’s how the community expressed that they saw him as such . One of the main examples Borg uses is the language and meaning surrounding the phrase “Son of God”. Several times in the Old Testament, the writers used the phrase Son of God to describe prophets, kings, Israel, and angels. Borg says that this is because Son of God does not refer to the literal sense of Jesus being begotten by God, but rather that all “sons of God” are those people who are in a very intimate and deep relationship with God . This is a role that Jesus fits very well, so it is clear why the writers of the Gospels would use this familiar language. This is how the Jewish raised men knew the concept. As I will discuss in a bit, looking at Jesus from Jewish eyes is necessary when recognizing that Jesus is not God.

As Christianity grew, we see that it grew further and further away from its
Jewish roots, and started taking on Pagan ideas. The Christianity we see today is the result of that. So instead of seeing the religion from a Jewish
perspective, we have to look from a Pagan perspective to understand some
concepts. One of such concepts is that of the Trinity. While Borg and Wright
both affirm the Trinity, I simply cannot. However, I will pick up on bits and
pieces from both authors. I agree with what Wright mentions about looking at
Jesus and the idea of his divinity, from a Jewish perspective . To do other
wise would be about as logical as a car mechanic critiquing a cook book.
Combine that idea with what Borg says about Jesus not being a second God , and you start to wonder how the idea of the Trinity got implanted into
Christianity. The Trinity belief is that there is a three being/person Godhead,
made of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit of God. It also states that God and
Jesus are the same, and there tends to be some technicality problems with that, which I will cover further along. However, the point is that the Trinity does not fit at all with monotheistic Jewish thought. I hypothesize that at the
council of Nicaea, the Roman leaders allowed the influence of polytheism to
slip into Christian theology as a way to win over the hearts of the many Pagans living in the empire at the time. This would give more power to the church, and ultimately to the Roman state. I believe that this idea was falsely given to the people, and has polluted the church ever since then.

I believe, on the other hand, that Jesus was a man filled with the spirit of
God, but not God incarnate. The reason I believe this is because there are too many technicalities that are brought to mind, if Christ was actually God. I wish that Borg and Wright would have brought some of these ideas up, because they are very interesting. For example, if God and Jesus were indeed the same, does that mean God killed himself? If God and Jesus are the same, then it is implied that because God sent Jesus to die on the cross, that God sent himself to die on the cross, which in a logical sense, can be seen as a form of suicide. I doubt it that God killed himself. Another question that keeps me from logically believing that Jesus was God goes along with the death. If God can know no sin as the scriptures claim, then how did Jesus take the sins of the world when he died on the cross, if he was God? To have it that way would be totally contradictory, and illogical. Another question, again going back to death would ask how God could raise himself (Jesus) if he was dead. Again, a problem that shows why equating Jesus and God is illogical. Obviously, if something is dead, then it would have no power to do anything, let alone resuscitating itself. There are many more questions that come into my mind, but to me, these are the ones that stand out the most in showing that it would be impossible for Jesus and God to be the same being.

I think that based on the information I have presented it would be hard to
still claim Jesus and God are logically the same person. In the gospels, when
he supposedly went around talking highly of himself as God and messiah, one
should read that as the early Christian community expressing what Jesus meant to them. Furthermore, Jesus cannot be God, in the sense of how the Trinity idea claims, because that would be totally out of character for a first century Jewish rabbi to claim, as it is blasphemous to the ideas of his religion. So it would seem that the Trinity idea was created by the Nicene Council in order to win over Pagans, in order to gain power. Ultimately, I think that the
technicalities involved with the whole thing would be enough to disprove the
idea of Jesus being God. It is in my whole hearted belief that Jesus was not
God, but a man made perfect through a miracle of God. That man grew up to
become a person searching after God’s own heart, and was ultimately filled with the agape style love of God, which led Jesus, a sinless man, to the cross, in order to sacrifice himself for mankind. I think that he did this, not because he had to, but because he wanted us to have that same passion for, and closeness with God, through his selfless example. As mentioned before, it can never be determined fully whether or not God and Jesus are the same, but it just makes more sense to believe that they were not.

A lot of Evangelicals will call your Christianity into question as a result of your not accepting the Trinity.

Don't feel bad. They say the same thing about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Anyway, back to the original question: As others have said, it depends on your definition of "Christian". I grew up Catholic, and in the eyes of the Catholic Church, you would not be a Christian. This holds true for both Roman and Orthodox Catholicism, and most Protestant denominations would probably agree.

What you are, then, would depend on a number of other things. You might very well be Unitarian; back when the Unitarians actually had beliefs, one of the key ones was that god was one and indivisible (hence the name "Unitarian"). (And before all the Unitarians jump down my throat, I attend a Unitarian church myself. And jumping down someone's throat would be so un-Unitarian. :D)

Or there are a number of other religions that recognize Jesus as a prophet and/or holy man, but not necessarily as the son of God - or at least, not the son of God; there's more than one that allow that we're all equally children of God. I'd suggest doing a bit of research until you find something that resonates with you. Try Beliefnet (http://www.beliefnet.com/); they have some good resources.

And good luck. It can be hard to find a spiritual home when you don't fit in with any of the organized religions, but if you keep looking, you should find some fellow seekers to share the journey with.

A lot of Evangelicals will call your Christianity into question as a result of your not accepting the Trinity.

Don't feel bad. They say the same thing about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Well, the mormons also have the whole baptism of the dead thing, which is both unnerving and unScriptural.

Well, the mormons also have the whole baptism of the dead thing, which is both unnerving and unScriptural.

In the several dozen debates I was engaged in with Evangelicals when I used to make a habit of debating this stuff a lot, the #1 gripe was about the Trinity. It was the one thing that there was no way to compromise on, no possibility of agreeing to disagree. To them, that was the one thing that meant all the difference between Christianity and cult. The other stuff was just accessory by comparison.

What I always found ironic was that these same people tend to bash Catholics, and it is Catholicism that first brought up the Trinity.

You'd probably disagree with me on that, just as I disagree with your statement about Baptism for the Dead. In the interest of not hijacking the thread, I propose we leave it at that.

Not wanting to hijack the thread myself, but I mentioned this argument to my fiancee, and he says he doesn't consider Mormons to be Christians, much like Jews aren't Christians, mainly because the difference between Jews and Christians is an extra book, and the beliefs therein. And what's the difference between Mormons and Christians? Three books.

Not wanting to hijack the thread myself, but I mentioned this argument to my fiancee, and he says he doesn't consider Mormons to be Christians, much like Jews aren't Christians, mainly because the difference between Jews and Christians is an extra book, and the beliefs therein. And what's the difference between Mormons and Christians? Three books.

Yeah saw a lot of that one, too... But it always left me wondering what was inherently wrong with just having more to read...

The answer, of course, was a mis-interpretation of one of the last lines in Revelations where John the Revelator warns against adding to or subtracting from what was written in this book. He's clearly referring to Revelations itself, since it would be another 300 years before the Bible was compiled... yet you'd be amazed at how many people insist that's a clear prohibition against actually adding to the Bible itself. :rolleyes:

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(
I know what you mean and how you feel - but I'm afraid I can't offer you any advice but to ask Him for guidance and revelation.

I follow Jesus' teachings as good as I can and pray directly to God, yet I don't care much for the church, although I was babtized and confirmed Lutheran.

Anyway, good luck on your spiritual quest. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/JesusShades.gif And don't worry about a thing, 'cause every little thing is gonna be all right.

i give Jesus the benefit of the doubt on this one personally, but i try to focus on what he was sayong more than what he actually was.

Not wanting to hijack the thread myself, but I mentioned this argument to my fiancee, and he says he doesn't consider Mormons to be Christians, much like Jews aren't Christians, mainly because the difference between Jews and Christians is an extra book, and the beliefs therein. And what's the difference between Mormons and Christians? Three books.

It isn't really a matter of books to me, but further prophets and religious leaders that took the religion in an entirely different direction. To me, Mormons are Christians much like Christians are Jews. One religion grew out of the other, but there is simply too much added - with a new prophet/leader/etc. to add it - to simply be a part of the same category.

The Witnesses have him as the Son of God, number two in the ranks, not co-equal. That's the one religion I can speak with a great deal of authority on. ;)

i was only going by what a JW told me. she even pointed out some verses to support it. if you tell me that thats not JW beilef, i have no reason to doubt you. ill consider her an idiot from now on.

but if jesus isnt the only begotten son of god existing as part of the trinity, what the heck IS he? he cant be another god, that would make it a polytheistic religion. is he divine at all? im at a loss to think of what they might believe about this.

i was only going by what a JW told me. she even pointed out some verses to support it. if you tell me that thats not JW beilef, i have no reason to doubt you. ill consider her an idiot from now on.

but if jesus isnt the only begotten son of god existing as part of the trinity, what the heck IS he? he cant be another god, that would make it a polytheistic religion. is he divine at all? im at a loss to think of what they might believe about this.

http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm

For a person to be a Christian I believe there are few basic things they must believe

1. That God created the world (I'm not saying in this any specific way, but the world exists now because of what God has done to create it)

2. Both as a body corprate (ie all of humanity) and individually we stuff up and do things wrong

3. Only Jesus, who was sent by "God the Father", can reconcile us back away from sin as he lived a perfect life and then taking the subsitutionary death that we all deserve upon himself

4. Jesus rose from the dead and will come back again to take those who have faith into heaven where he is.

....

Here are a few scriptures that I think are important.

John 3:16-17: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him would not perish but everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world, through him, might be saved"

Ephessians 2:8-9

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not by works, lest any man should boast." (KJ21)

James 2:17-18

'Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. ea, a man may say,
"Thou hast faith, and I have works." Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.'

Hebrews 11:6

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him[God]. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. "


Hope those help... As for the Bible. I can only say this... either believe that as it was written it was God's message to us. Or not. This is something that you have to decide for yourself. No one else can do it for you.

EDIT: To see what Faith looks like read the rest of Hebrews 11

http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm

is that an offical jehovas witnesses site? according to the link

Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah in creating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391.

Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15, 1963, p. 307; The New World, 284.

is that an offical jehovas witnesses site? according to the link

no, it's an apologetics site.

here is an official JW site http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

Is it possible that I am still a Christian, although I don't believe Christ and God to be one in the same, or even have Jesus as the literal "Son" of God? I know most Christians will see me as a heretic, and many people will think that my line of thought is similar to Islam, but Im not a muslim as I don't accept the prophet mohammed(pbuh).

I'm so confused. :(

Didn't you ask something similar to this awhile back?

EDIT: Here it is (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518026). Now it just sounds like you're doing a 180 -- back then, you were saying you believed in a unitary Godhead, now you say that God and Jesus are not "one in the same".

My advice: Don't worry about such theological/semantic nitpicking and worry more about being a good person. That's what it all comes down to in the end, anyway, regardless of your religion (or lack thereof).

yeah i looked at it and it didnt really help me. its probably there but since i cant be bothered to read every word my skimming through various articles missed it. or maybe i just asked the wrong question.

not that it matters, i am just curious.

thanks for the links.

if you scroll down on the second link there is a table of basic JW beliefs, where they say that Jesus is not equal to God but is his son, and stuff.

it requires less reading, it also gives their scriptural backing for those beliefs.

no, it's an apologetics site.

here is an official JW site http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

yeah i looked at it and it didnt really help me. its probably there but since i cant be bothered to read every word my skimming through various articles missed it. or maybe i just asked the wrong question.

not that it matters, i am just curious.

thanks for the links.

if you scroll down on the second link there is a table of basic JW beliefs, where they say that Jesus is not equal to God but is his son, and stuff.

it requires less reading, it also gives their scriptural backing for those beliefs.

no i read that part but it doesnt answer my question

jesus was the first thing god did (as if the first thing makes any sense with god). god begot jesus. whatever that might mean, i have no clue.

in greek theology, the son of a god is a god. the son of a god and a human (mary) is a demigod. which is fine in a polytheistic system but christianity is monotheistic. so what IS jesus? is he an archangel? and if so, does that mean that archangel is "christian" for demigod? he cant be a god. he existed from the beginning (or just after) so he's not a man even though he was born a man later on.

if you deny the trinity but keep jesus as a divine being of some sort (as oppose to a fully human prophet like isaiah) just what IS he?

Zilam

The authority of the bible appears to be the primary focus of your disillusionment. So I will address this first.

Firstly, by way of example, 70% of our knowledge of the Roman Emperors comes from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote his pieces several hundred years after the event. We have 2 (yes, that's just two) copies of his work, and they are late-medieval copies.

The bible was written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the events... many of them dying in support of their beliefs. Here's a juicy bit... The Romans did not execute someone if they said “no, I recant my beliefs”. That was all it took. So those that refused, and died... well, they really believed. All bar one of the apostles was executed. These were the eyewitnesses. They wrote the books. Not one recanted (apart from Peter's brief fall from grace, which he repented of, and was executed for later), and were executed.

And not just executed. The pain of crucifiction was so great that the Romans invented a new word to describe how bad it was...

Excruciating... (ex-crucis... of the cross)

With me so far? Now for the next bit... we have 2 copies of Tacitus... written hundreds of years later, and 26,000 first and second generation copies of the New Testament from as far afield as Ethiopia and Spain. Primarily in the original Greek (there isn't much Aramaic around). The only difference being in place names (the same way we call the country either Burma or Myanmar, and mean the same place). So while you are correct that things can be lost in translation... the originals are still there. You can read them for yourself... if you learn the Greek.

The four gospels are written from two primary viewpoints, that espoused in John, and that derived from Mark (the Markan gospels). Mark is generally accepted as being the oldest.

Like any eyewitness acount, the witnesses of these events remember things differently. This should actually lend weight to the gospels, not detract from it.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus is the incarnation of the Archangel Michael, but the Book of Hebrews states “The Son is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in Heaven. So he became as much superior to the Angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the Angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father; and he will be my Son'?” -Hebrews 1:3-5

That being the case, to further quote the good book (who, might I add, was one of the three disciples closest to Jesus, those being John, James and Peter), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” - John 1:1.

That Watchtower society until recently claimed that there was an “a” inserted before the last “God”. However, they recently recanted from that position, and recent Watchtower versions have the words above, or very close to.

“Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'” -Genesis 1:26

Who's He talking to? He hasn't made anything sentient yet. He's talking to Jesus, the eternally begotten son, (begotten, not made...) and the Holy Spirit, the two other aspects that make the trinity, the tri-unity that is the totality of God.
Further, the voice during the transfiguration “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” -Matthew 17:5

God sacrificed his son, who He loved, so we could accept him. I know that if my son Logan died saving your arse, and you didn't acknowledge that, and spent your life ignoring both him and me and everything we've both said... then I'd be pretty pissed, and wouldn't be very likely to let you come and party at my place...

God's opened the door. Jesus is holding it open. We just have to say "yes, Jesus", and go in. If we don't go in to His kingdom... then how can we be in His kingdom!?!?!

Feel free to drop me a line if you seek any more information on this or any related point. I'm a busy man... but this is the most important question one can answer, and I will always make time to answer it.

If anyone else reading this wants to ask any questions of me, please feel free to do so.

Cheers all. That's my two cents.

But the bible(as we know it now) was constructed by a group of men that had nothing to do with Jesus, and had pagan influences. Do you trust their judgement?
No it wasnt. Give me proof.

No it wasnt. Give me proof.

Who compiled the current Bible? Did Jesus or the apostle sit there and pick which writtings were to be put in the Bible? No, it was made of men that lived way after all the original apostles, and Jesus died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons

Ashmoria, I was a historian first, and a Christian second. I believe it because it makes sense and the historical value is undeniable.

I'm happy to telegram you a fuller response, if you'd like :)

Zilam

The authority of the bible appears to be the primary focus of your disillusionment. So I will address this first.

Firstly, by way of example, 70% of our knowledge of the Roman Emperors comes from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote his pieces several hundred years after the event. We have 2 (yes, that's just two) copies of his work, and they are late-medieval copies.

The bible was written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the events... many of them dying in support of their beliefs. Here's a juicy bit... The Romans did not execute someone if they said “no, I recant my beliefs”. That was all it took. So those that refused, and died... well, they really believed. All bar one of the apostles was executed. These were the eyewitnesses. They wrote the books. Not one recanted (apart from Peter's brief fall from grace, which he repented of, and was executed for later), and were executed.

And not just executed. The pain of crucifiction was so great that the Romans invented a new word to describe how bad it was...

Excruciating... (ex-crucis... of the cross)

With me so far? Now for the next bit... we have 2 copies of Tacitus... written hundreds of years later, and 26,000 first and second generation copies of the New Testament from as far afield as Ethiopia and Spain. Primarily in the original Greek (there isn't much Aramaic around). The only difference being in place names (the same way we call the country either Burma or Myanmar, and mean the same place). So while you are correct that things can be lost in translation... the originals are still there. You can read them for yourself... if you learn the Greek.

The four gospels are written from two primary viewpoints, that espoused in John, and that derived from Mark (the Markan gospels). Mark is generally accepted as being the oldest.

Like any eyewitness acount, the witnesses of these events remember things differently. This should actually lend weight to the gospels, not detract from it.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus is the incarnation of the Archangel Michael, but the Book of Hebrews states “The Son is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in Heaven. So he became as much superior to the Angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the Angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father; and he will be my Son'?” -Hebrews 1:3-5

That being the case, to further quote the good book (who, might I add, was one of the three disciples closest to Jesus, those being John, James and Peter), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” - John 1:1.

That Watchtower society until recently claimed that there was an “a” inserted before the last “God”. However, they recently recanted from that position, and recent Watchtower versions have the words above, or very close to.

“Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'” -Genesis 1:26

Who's He talking to? He hasn't made anything sentient yet. He's talking to Jesus, the eternally begotten son, (begotten, not made...) and the Holy Spirit, the two other aspects that make the trinity, the tri-unity that is the totality of God.
Further, the voice during the transfiguration “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” -Matthew 17:5

God sacrificed his son, who He loved, so we could accept him. I know that if my son Logan died saving your arse, and you didn't acknowledge that, and spent your life ignoring both him and me and everything we've both said... then I'd be pretty pissed, and wouldn't be very likely to let you come and party at my place...

God's opened the door. Jesus is holding it open. We just have to say "yes, Jesus", and go in. If we don't go in to His kingdom... then how can we be in His kingdom!?!?!

Feel free to drop me a line if you seek any more information on this or any related point. I'm a busy man... but this is the most important question one can answer, and I will always make time to answer it.

If anyone else reading this wants to ask any questions of me, please feel free to do so.

Cheers all. That's my two cents.

if you are going to try to teach people about the history of the bible, you should read up on it first. faith isnt the same as history. you believing it or being taught it in church doesnt automatically make it historically true.

are you a jehovah's witness or were you refuting their teachings? zilam is not a jw, btw.

Who compiled the current Bible? Did Jesus or the apostle sit there and pick which writtings were to be put in the Bible? No, it was made of men that lived way after all the original apostles, and Jesus died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons

not only that but there were hundreds of early christian writings, different gospels, different acts, different letters, different apocalypses that could have been included. the final decision was made by committee.

The final decision at Nicea was a consensus, a quasi-official recognition of what was already in place.

The books selected for the New Testament were the ones that the churches around the Mediterranean had accepted. They didn't just throw out books or put them in for the fun of it, lol.

One can still read most of the early Christian writings. Many of them are quite useful. Some less so. But they were not regarded by the majority of Christians of the time as being the word of God.