• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

Is belief in Jesus's divinity necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kenan
  • Start date Start date
[quote:8bb81]At any rate, this isn't the forum in which to debate whether or not God is real, but rather if the Son was God.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We're talking about CS Lewis' Trilemma, and the assumption of his argument is that there IS a God, and furthermore that this God is the Jewish God. So, this assumption cannot be ignored when speaking to whether or not Jesus is God or of God, etc.[/quote:8bb81]
Handy is the Mod. She respectfully requested we not engage in a debate over whether or not God is real. You may discuss that at the many agnostic and atheist sites on the Net.

The topic is:

Is belief in Jesus's divinity necessary?
 
vic C. said:
The topic is:

Is belief in Jesus's divinity necessary?
Click to expand...

If staying on topic is of the utmost importance, why haven't I been asked to stop talking about Rubin and Hoffman?
 
Consider it asked. Stay on topic.
 
Potluck said:
Why is there the absolute need to fully understand the Word of God, His witness to mankind, before you would be willing to accept it?
Click to expand...

Because the other option--which most people tend towards--is both theologically and intellectually lazy. That's why.
 
Voyageur said:
Potluck said:
Why is there the absolute need to fully understand the Word of God, His witness to mankind, before you would be willing to accept it?
Click to expand...

Because the other option--which most people tend towards--is both theologically and intellectually lazy. That's why.
Click to expand...

NO, it's NOT necessarily LAZINESS that KEEPS one from a COMPLETE understanding of ANYTHING. Some have the CAPACITY to understand what OTHERS are UNABLE to at times. We are EACH given according to our 'ABILITY' TO understand.

Just as SCIENCE is ONLY able to GUESS at the 'formation' of this universe, so too are MANY that BELIEVE in God unable to FULLY understand His EXACT nature. For we ARE merely humans with limited intellect and understanding EVEN AT OUR FINEST.

So, laziness may CERTAINLY account for SOME not having a 'better understanding', but even those that 'religiously SEEK' a FULL understanding are not ALWAYS able to acheive such.

So YOUR argument in this respect is CERTAINLY no more valid than those that would defend that which they CANNOT always fully understand.

That God has NOT revealed Himself to YOU does NOT negate His existence. For SOME will NOT heed the message NO MATTER how much evidence is offered them. Some MUST be their OWN gods and therefore unable to accept or realize that it CAN BE any other way.

And I CAN offer this, IF you insist upon DENIAL, then you will LIKELY NEVER have an understanding of the Creator or even His existence UNTIL it is ULTIMATELY revealed TO YOU. For one day, ALL KNEES WILL BOW. One day ALL will KNOW that there IS a God and Creator of mankind.

MEC
 
So far as the topic is concerned:

IF it IS 'necessary' to BELIEVE that Jesus IS God, then it is OBVIOUS that NO Jews will BE 'saved'. And it is ALSO obvious that Paul, who NEVER stated that Jesus IS God Himself, will be denied Salvation as well. Along with THOUSANDS of those that actually FOLLOWED Christ while He walked on this planet.

For we can CLEARLY see through scripture and history that it took hundreds of years for even the BISHOPS to agree upon this concept. And even when it was FORCED upon the 'churches', MANY STILL for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of years STILL didn't and DON'T believe that Jesus IS God Himself.

It is VERY misleading when one ask such a question to STATE that 'something IS' required when those OFFERING such understanding don't even have evidence that it IS. We have NO evidence that Luke, or Matthew or Peter, or James, or any other apostles other than John offered anything remotely indicating that Jesus IS God Himself.

I think EVERYONE that accepts Christ's existence KNOWS that He is a 'part of God'. BEING The Son most CERTAINLY makes Him a 'part' of God. But we KNOW that God IS The Father. We KNOW that Christ IS The Son. The Holy Spirit WOULD make THREE if this had ANY bearing on our understanding. I don't believe that it does. We either accept what The Spirit offers or we DON'T. But ADDING the Spirit to a 'trinity' has NEVER been a 'given' so far as scripture is concerned. YES, one could INVENT or defend it through a FEW words offered in scripture, but to do so is to REFUTE MANY others.

Even to MAKE Christ God Himself is to refute MUCH that is offered in scripture. For I have posed NUMEROUS questions that CANNOT be answered THROUGH 'trinity'. They MUST be either ignored or accepted as UNABLE to BE understood in order to ACCEPT a 'trinity'.

ANY set of 'three' ANYTHING can CERTAINLY be 'called' triune or a 'trinity'. But that there is a 'Holy Trinity' has NEVER been offered except by the men that 'created it'.

And think about THIS: IF God IS The Father. PERIOD. Imagine how difficult it would be for HIM to accept mankind's MISUNDERSTANDING of His will. For the Jews have always KNOWN that there is but ONE God. And they were waiting of a KING; SENT by God to BE their leader and defender. There is LITTLE that is offered in scripture that INDICATES anything other than their 'awaiting a Messiah'. NOT God in the Flesh. But God among us through the 'Anointed ONe. Even MOSES offered that a 'prophet' GREATER than Him would one day come. But HE didn't offer that it would BE God in the Flesh. And 'God among us' is NOT a statement that MEANS that when a 'prophet OR the Son of God' visits that they would BE God.

Christ sits at the 'Right Hand of God'. There is SIGNIFICANCE to this offering. Significance that 'trinity' would DENY. For we have NO indication that The Spirit sits at His LEFT. If ALL three WERE God Himself, wouldn't The Spirit BE as important AS The Father or The Son? Yet even 'trinity' admits that they ARE three SEPARATE entities. Separate but the SAME. A contradiction in terms if I have EVER heard one.

One other point: We DO NOT KNOW that Christ has ALWAYS 'been'. We DO KNOW that He existed BEFORE man, but we DO NOT KNOW that He has existed for ETERNITY. That He IS NOW eternal does NOT mean that He has ALWAYS BEEN. So IF Christ has NOT 'always been' then He is NOT of the EXACT essence of God Himself. But GIVEN what He is BY The Father: God. And we KNOW through the words of Christ HIMSELF that the WORDS that He offered WERE 'given Him BY The Father'. That MUCH of His KNOWLEDGE or WISDOM was ''AS HE OBSERVED IT FROM THE FATHER". Now HOW could Christ have LEARNED or been GIVEN 'anything' if He WERE God Himself?

MEC
 
Locked for review and cleanup of nonessential posts.
 
MEC, I haven't forgotten about this thread. There are just a lot of things going on right now and I've been busy with some other things here on the board as well. I do want to go deeper into what Jesus meant when He said "Before Abraham, I AM."

Just an aside though, Paul did state that Jesus was God, and obviously many Jews embraced Jesus as the Savior and are indeed saved.

More on this later though, I really am busy and am prioritizing some of the things I'm doing around here. I want to give this subject the attention it deserves and not just speak 'off the cuff'. Plus, need some brain candy! I've been up too late at night with the cows! :D
 
Looking forward to your reply.

But take into consideration that what we discuss here is NOT so much; IS Jesus GOD Himself, but IS this UNDERSTANDING or BELIEF in Christ AS God IS necessary for a relationship with God THROUGH His Son or necessary to receive the gift that has been offered.

Since I PERSONALLY have not, do not, nor believe I EVER WILL 'believe' that Christ IS God Himself, I CANNOT 'attest' to ANY such necessity for Salvation. What I have read and DO understand and ACCEPT whole heartedly is THIS:

The Word states that we ARE to 'confess' that Jesus Christ IS The Son of God. NEVER does the Word offer ANY such necessity as 'we MUST confess that Jesus Christ IS God'. NOT ONCE in all it's words is this 'concept stated'. JUST THE OPPOSITE in FACT; That Christ IS The Son.

MEC
 
Imagican said:
The Word states that we ARE to 'confess' that Jesus Christ IS The Son of God. NEVER does the Word offer ANY such necessity as 'we MUST confess that Jesus Christ IS God'.
Click to expand...
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Imagican said:
NOT ONCE in all it's words is this 'concept stated'. JUST THE OPPOSITE in FACT; That Christ IS The Son.
Click to expand...
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

The Jews understood that being the Son of God meant that Jesus was God, why don't you?
 
Imagican said:
Looking forward to your reply.

But take into consideration that what we discuss here is NOT so much; IS Jesus GOD Himself, but IS this UNDERSTANDING or BELIEF in Christ AS God IS necessary for a relationship with God THROUGH His Son or necessary to receive the gift that has been offered.

Since I PERSONALLY have not, do not, nor believe I EVER WILL 'believe' that Christ IS God Himself, I CANNOT 'attest' to ANY such necessity for Salvation. What I have read and DO understand and ACCEPT whole heartedly is THIS:

The Word states that we ARE to 'confess' that Jesus Christ IS The Son of God. NEVER does the Word offer ANY such necessity as 'we MUST confess that Jesus Christ IS God'. NOT ONCE in all it's words is this 'concept stated'. JUST THE OPPOSITE in FACT; That Christ IS The Son.

MEC
Click to expand...

This is a good answer :)

I just started thinking, are we meant to confess that Jesus is the literal son of God, or that he is a child of God like the all of us and not from Satan?
 
Free,

What you offer in your 'quote' is NOT 'a statement of Christ's IDENTITY', regardless of HOW you have tried to make it so. The statement PLAINLY offers that this was the JEWS who interpreted Christ's words to their OWN misunderstanding.

As PROOF of what I state:

1 Peter 1:


[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
[4] To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
[5] Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

This PLAINLY offers that God IS The Father of Christ. That God IS Christ's God as well as Christ's Father. There is NO MISTAKING what is offered here. It is as PLAIN as ANYTHING can be. And there is absolutely NO doubt in these words.

Now, as has been offered in the past; the ONLY way that we can come to an understanding of Christ's identity is through a totality of scripture. Since scripture CANNOT contradict itself and BE TRUE, then we MUST be able to accept it as fitting JOINTLY together to offer PERFECT unity and truth.

Thomas STATING that Jesus is God does NOT make Christ God. The Jews saying that Jesus MADE Himself God is an ACCUSATION, NOT A STATEMENT OF FAITH. Take these two instances for 'what they ARE', and that leaves almost NOTHING else offered that even INDICATES that Christ IS anything OTHER than what HE offered: The Son of God.

Now, how much MORE do we have that STATES that Christ IS The SON of God? OVER and OVER this is WHAT Christ offered of HIMSELF concerning His identity. The apostles make this SAME statement OVER AND OVER.

So, from a 'trinitarian' point of view, this statement by Peter would offer that God IS the Father of Jesus Christ and therefore Christ IS His OWN Father and OWN God. And that just don't make NO SENSE. Regardless of how one may choose to alter it's meaning through philosophy or mysitcism, the truth exists despite one's inability to accept it.

This doctrine of 'trinity' is NOT a 'doctrine' offered by Christ or His apostles. And we were WARNED that there WOULD come those that would offer doctrine NOT offered by Christ or His apostles and we ARE to avoid it UTTERLY.

We were also offered that there would be those unable to ACCEPT the 'simplicity that IS Christ Jesus'. It doesn't get MUCH SIMPLER than the offering that Christ IS The Son of God. But when 'trinity' becomes introduced into the equation, it gets so muddled that even those that profess a 'belief' in this 'concept', even they are unable to offer a COMPLETE understanding. It becomes SO complex that I have YET to MEET a 'trinitarian' that can adequately explain their understanding of this doctrine.

As has been offered over and over: this 'concept of trinity' was NOT even mentioned until well AFTER a Hundred years AFTER the death of Christ. And it STILL took another TWO hundred years before the CC was ABLE to institute it AS DOCTRINE. So, in essence, this doctrine took over THREE HUNDRED YEARS to come into fruition AFTER the DEATH and ressurection of Christ.

But regardless of all this, for those that would INSIST that one MUST accept "Jesus IS God", please offer scriptural evidence of such TEACHING or belief offered by Christ OR His apostles.

MEC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top