Talk to a JW: What defines "Christianity?"

[Mysteryman]

Lest we forget, that God is not the author of confusion. So that only leaves one dude who is the author of confusion - the adversary of God !

Nowhere in scripture does God intentionally try and make us misunderstand His Word. On the contrary, He continually tries to encourage us to stay within a sound mind. The parables were said in such a way,that those who were not ready or capable of understanding spiritual matters. Would only see the parables as literal conversation pieces. But God never intended the parable to be just conversations pieces. They were intended for two purposes. One - so that those who hear, who do not have ears to hear (understand) will take the parables as being confounding. While those who do have ears to hear, will grasp the understanding from a spiritual point of view.

The word - "Word" within our bibles, comes from the greek word - "logos", which is where we get our word - Logical - from. And the "word" was made flesh. Means the promise of God has become flesh. God promised to send a messiah, to be the saviour. He would be the anointed one. Anointed of God, not anointed of himself < That would be illogical !

The phrase - "God sent his Son" < Guess what this means ? No , don't guess ! It means what it says and says what it means ---- "God sent his Son", not himself. God sent a representitive. And His representitive was given power and authority from God himself. He didn't give power and authority unto himself < This would be illogical !

I heard a preacher on TV this morning claim that Jesus never said that his Father was God. Apparently this preacher never read John 20:17. He must not read the seven church epistles either, because Paul has said more than once this phrase - " The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". So it is apparent, that this preacher wants not only to call Jesus a liar, but he also wants to call Paul a liar.

But how far will these kinds of preachers go ? How many lies go about without anyone taking them to task about what they have just said ? And would they be willing to tell another lie, if someone did take them to task on this ? More than likely , they would. Because the way in which to defend a lie, is with another lie.

I John 4:18 - "There is no fear in love ; but perfect love casteth out fear : because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love"

I John 5:20 - "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him (God/Father) that is true, and we are in him (Christ) that is true, in his Son Christ Jesus. This is the true God, and eternal life"

 

[Mike]

Still, this is all circular reasoning. You define Christianity by the trinity because all Christians believe in the Trinity because without believing in the trinity, you can't be a Christian because all Christians (by this definition of Christianity) believe in it. I.e. "You must because we do."

Chris, I've stated that the Trinity is difficult for anyone in the flesh to fully grasp. That said, there are Christians who have different understandings of the nature or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I stop short of not including those who don't believe in the Trinity as I do: Three Persons in One God, as long as they acknowledge that Jesus was fully God. There are many threads that have adequately discussed the Trinity that can be continued by posting today.

Rather than get into the specific topic of the Trinity here, I'll return to my stance that one can not say they are a Christian if do not accept Jesus as fully God. And to that point, I could point to John 1:1-3, but this is where we have different verbiage. Many more examples that have already been given.

I don't think I ever said I define Christianity by the actual Trinity, but by claiming Jesus as God. Although, I do see this as the True nature of God. This not to say, "Keep out of our club!" I would invite you to share in the full peace and confidence in salvation that comes with accepting the Gospel. This is an element of our discussions that has been sorely missing from me. Unless you open your heart to accepting the revelation of Jesus, your heart will be closed to Him in his Fullness. As I've said, I can't speak to the Grace and Wisdom of God as it relates to your salvation. But, there is security is fully experiencing Him. Chris, I don't doubt your faith in God and your willingness to follow Jesus, but this is not the same as naming him your Lord, Savior, and yes, God. As JW's have tried to persuade me, I am imploring you to open your heart. My words can only fall flat, but the Lord working in a willing heart will do what I can't.

Mysterman, I'll respond to you in a separate post!

 

[Free]

I believe that Christianity is based upon the Love of the one true God. This is why we are to whorship God in Spirit and in truth.

Which merely begs the question of who the one true God is. How can we all be worshiping God "in Spirit and in truth" if our beliefs of who God is are completely contradictory? It is easy to quote Scripture and say that we need to believe Jesus is the Christ and we need to love him and follow him, but who he is is intimately tied with belief in him; you cannot divorce one from the other.

Who Jesus is is absolutely central to Christianity.

I think this is an important point.

I believe "the one True God" is the one Jesus told us was the one True God. I don't see why inference has to be added to the bible when Jesus' teachings were so simple and clear. Why do we HAVE to develop "divine mysteries" that cannot be comprehended, yet must be unquestionably accepted in order to be acknowledged as a Christian?

Because Jesus also equated himself with God and so did some of those closest to him and his ministry. We don't have to develop anything but the fact that it is taught in Scripture and we should try to make sense of it.

The word - "Word" within our bibles, comes from the greek word - "logos", which is where we get our word - Logical - from. And the "word" was made flesh. Means the promise of God has become flesh. God promised to send a messiah, to be the saviour. He would be the anointed one. Anointed of God, not anointed of himself < That would be illogical !

This is a far too simplistic definition of what the Greeks meant by logos.

The phrase - "God sent his Son" < Guess what this means ? No , don't guess ! It means what it says and says what it means ---- "God sent his Son", not himself. God sent a representitive. And His representitive was given power and authority from God himself. He didn't give power and authority unto himself < This would be illogical !

And what son is not like his father? What son has a nature that is wholly other than his father's?


As I have always stated, the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that the Scriptures reveal about God and the nature of Christ. Every other position does not, as is evidenced by the continual ignoring or changing of many key passages, while focusing only on passages that show Jesus' humanity, which no trinitarian will deny.

Arguments such as:

"Although I'm sure trinitarians have some explanation as to why a specific translation of certain verses may imply the opposite... why should people have their faiths insulted for simply following the simple interpretation of the above commandment? That Jehovah alone is God... and that no one else is God."

are ignoring the fact that one of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism.

 

[Mysteryman]

[quote="Mohrb"

I believe that Christianity is based upon the Love of the one true God. This is why we are to whorship God in Spirit and in truth.

Which merely begs the question of who the one true God is. How can we all be worshiping God "in Spirit and in truth" if our beliefs of who God is are completely contradictory? It is easy to quote Scripture and say that we need to believe Jesus is the Christ and we need to love him and follow him, but who he is is intimately tied with belief in him; you cannot divorce one from the other.

Who Jesus is is absolutely central to Christianity.

I think this is an important point.

I believe "the one True God" is the one Jesus told us was the one True God. I don't see why inference has to be added to the bible when Jesus' teachings were so simple and clear. Why do we HAVE to develop "divine mysteries" that cannot be comprehended, yet must be unquestionably accepted in order to be acknowledged as a Christian?[/quote]
Because Jesus also equated himself with God and so did some of those closest to him and his ministry. We don't have to develop anything but the fact that it is taught in Scripture and we should try to make sense of it.

The word - "Word" within our bibles, comes from the greek word - "logos", which is where we get our word - Logical - from. And the "word" was made flesh. Means the promise of God has become flesh. God promised to send a messiah, to be the saviour. He would be the anointed one. Anointed of God, not anointed of himself < That would be illogical !

This is a far too simplistic definition of what the Greeks meant by logos.

The phrase - "God sent his Son" < Guess what this means ? No , don't guess ! It means what it says and says what it means ---- "God sent his Son", not himself. God sent a representitive. And His representitive was given power and authority from God himself. He didn't give power and authority unto himself < This would be illogical !

And what son is not like his father? What son has a nature that is wholly other than his father's?


As I have always stated, the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that the Scriptures reveal about God and the nature of Christ. Every other position does not, as is evidenced by the continual ignoring or changing of many key passages, while focusing only on passages that show Jesus' humanity, which no trinitarian will deny.

Arguments such as:

"Although I'm sure trinitarians have some explanation as to why a specific translation of certain verses may imply the opposite... why should people have their faiths insulted for simply following the simple interpretation of the above commandment? That Jehovah alone is God... and that no one else is God."

are ignoring the fact that one of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism.[/quote]



Hi Free

mono - meaning - one

Tri - meaning - three

Sometimes its best to keep things simple.

 

[Free]

mono - meaning - one

Tri - meaning - three

Sometimes its best to keep things simple.

Yes, I am well aware of what those words mean. Try not to misrepresent the trinitarian position as being polytheism even though it makes it easier to argue against.

 

[Mike]

Mysteryman, at the very least, you keep things interesting. A mystery, wrapped by a riddle, wrapped by a puzzle...

We've made our amends and played nice, and I don't want to degrade our conversation again, but I just don't know what to make of you. In one of our first discussions, you said you are hard to pin down. The thing is, not knowing what you actually believe makes it hard for me to have a starting point from which to begin. It would be nice to know to which point we are in agreement and where you stray. I think someone could read what you had to say a few posts up and draw several contradictory conclusions, but maybe I'm just having difficulty connecting with you.

In a few threads that I was engaging with Chris about Jesus' divinity, you entered and took issue with my stance that disbelief in Him as fully God separates Christians and non-Christians. I started out by understanding you had difficulty with the concept of the Trinity, but color me slow. I never gleaned that you did not consider Jesus to be God as well. So with each discussion we have unveils more of your disbelief, to me anyway.

If you're interested in doing this, it would help me. Take the Nicene Creed and tell me where you find flaw. While it's not Inspired, it is a good breakdown of the core biblical Christian beliefs.

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried.
And the third day He rose again
according to the Scriptures
and ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead,
whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified,
who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If you're not inclined, that's fine. As a Christian, I am always eager to share my faith. I don't know why, but there seems to be many board members who are guarded with what they believe.

Hi Free

mono - meaning - one

Tri - meaning - three

Sometimes its best to keep things simple.

God is not "simple". A god that was simple to fully understand, IMO, he wouldn't be much of a god. His complexity is also evidence that He wasn't man-made. To that point, you can refer to my signature verse; one of my favorites. :yes

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Mike:

I am one who takes his beliefs from the scriptures, and as such, believe what the scriptures tell me.

I believe in the one true God, because the Word states that God is a jealous God and to have no other gods before him. However, God wants us to love both our Lord Jesus Christ , the only begotten Son of God, and to love God who is his Father ..

God is simple, and only complicated where we ourselves lack in our understanding. This is why the Word tells us -- "The simplicity that is in Christ Jesus".

Simplicity is a greater tool in understanding the One true God. The more complicated one makes understanding God, the less one truely does understand God.

For instance, you are an intelligent person, there is no doubt about this. So in dealing with your ability to reason, we know what the word "image" means, correct ? Simply, an image, is a reflection of something. For no man has seen God at any time. < Either this is true or it is a lie. The simple understanding, is that it is true. No man has seen God at any time. Man has only been allowed to see the image of God. A reflection of him. An image is a likeness. Like looking in a mirror.

II Corinthians 4:4 - "the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God"

Colossians 1:15 - "Who is the image of the invisible God"

I Corinth. 11:7 - "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head , forasmuch as he (man) is the image and glory of God" < This is why we call and pray to God in this manner > "Our Father who art in heaven"

When Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. The Father is God, and here there is no disagreement among the brethren. Where we disagree, is when someone takes the words of Jesus too literally. As The Father is God, and no man has seen God at any time, we then see the Father through his Son. Misconception comes, when one takes a statement from scripture and defines it primarily upon a doctrine that comes from outside of scripture.

I will never try and convince you . I will merely point out the simple, but true statements from scripture.

As I have tried to explain to you, that I do believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. But I believe, that our definition of deity might be different. Deity means authority given. Joseph had deity in the OT, and so did Moses, etc. The power and authority to speak for God. The OT Prophets had the deity of God as well. Jesus Christ was not only the Son of God, but he was a Prophet of God as well. One who spoke with power and authority of/from God. As Jesus always did the will of the Father, his Father, and not his own will. Jesus never abused his authority, as he could have. He could have called twelve legions of angels any time he wanted them. However, he humbled himself to the will of the Father that sent him.

Lets look at the words of Jesus unto his disciples before he was crucified.

John 16:1 - 3

1) - "These things have I spoken unto you , that ye should not be offended"

2) - "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service"

3) - "And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father , nor me"

Notice in verse 3 how the words of Jesus show two - 1. Father and 2. me (the Son)

Also notice in verse 2, that some believe they are doing service to God, by killing the disciples. Stephen is an example of this.

One more example and I will end this post.

John 16:27 and 28

27) - "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God"

28) - "I came forth from the Father , and am come into the world : again, I leave the world and go to the Father"

I will end this post with these two verses.

Bless

 

[Mohrb]

1: MM, very well put. I liked your examples.

2:

Chris, I've stated that the Trinity is difficult for anyone in the flesh to fully grasp. That said, there are Christians who have different understandings of the nature or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I stop short of not including those who don't believe in the Trinity as I do: Three Persons in One God, as long as they acknowledge that Jesus was fully God. There are many threads that have adequately discussed the Trinity that can be continued by posting today.

So, you would be OK calling someone a Christian if they believed Jesus was fully God and that there was no Father... that Jesus simply was the only God? In spite of everything Jesus taught about giving glory to his God and Father, would you call someone a "Christian" if they completely replaced the Father with the Son?

What about if a group believed that the Son was fully God like the Father, but there were just plain 3 Gods (rather than 3 in 1). Would you call someone who was directly polytheist "Christian?"

I understand that you believe Jesus being "Fully God" is what defines a person as Christian... but why can a person NOT be a Christian if they read Jesus saying "The Father is greater than I" ... and simply believe it? Why, in order to be a Christian, MUST we assume to know better than Jesus (while simultaneously calling him God)? Why can a person ONLY be called a "Christian" if they assume Jesus meant "The Father is greater than I (am in human form, although I'm still fully God and equal with the Father at the same time)"?

I understand that different people must have an explanation that satisfies them about what Jesus meant by "The Father is greater than I." ... But why can a person NOT be a Christian if they see Jesus say such a simple statement and take it to mean exactly what he said?

 

[Mohrb]

I believe "the one True God" is the one Jesus told us was the one True God. I don't see why inference has to be added to the bible when Jesus' teachings were so simple and clear. Why do we HAVE to develop "divine mysteries" that cannot be comprehended, yet must be unquestionably accepted in order to be acknowledged as a Christian?

Because Jesus also equated himself with God and so did some of those closest to him and his ministry. We don't have to develop anything but the fact that it is taught in Scripture and we should try to make sense of it.

So, we can ignore Jesus directly calling the Father "You, the only true God" ... because "well somewhere else in the bible the Jews tried to stone him, which proves he must have been claiming to be God, because when else did the Jews EVER want to stone someone to death?" :biglaugh

I understand that people may weigh the two passages differently... but this thread isn't about which viewpoint is more valid... but why is it that a person CAN NOT be considered Christian at all if they weigh Christ's direct teaching as more meaningful than the reactions of imperfect humans?

are ignoring the fact that one of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism.

"monotheism" is "one God... period." The trinity is a number other than one. It's "3 yet 1, yet neither 3 nor 1, yet both." ... this is not "1." If a trinitarian believed that there was only one person that was God... then yes, he would be a monotheist. But, that's incompatable with the trinity unless you go with modalism (suggesting that there is only one actual "person" of God, but that God plays multiple rolls, and the same actual person switches between being the Father and Son and Holy spirit)... of course, most trinitarians consider modalism heresy... plus the bible mentions plenty of times where the Father speaks to the Son and vice versa, where the Son asks the Father for help, where the Son actually asks why the Father forsook him, plus the bible specifies that there is knowledge that ONLY the Father has (specifically "not even the Son")... therefore the Father and Son can't be the same person.

 

[Mike]

Hi Mike:

I am one who takes his beliefs from the scriptures, and as such, believe what the scriptures tell me.

MM, the reason I didn't get into scripture was that I didn't see this as a question to validate our beliefs. The question posed by Chris originally was "What defines Christianity?", not "Why do you believe what you believe?" So, my purpose was to take the Nicene Creed, which is our "statement of faith". In today's corporate vernacular, it is our "mission statement"; our purpose. If we're going to take it upon ourselves to use scripture to defend all the points that separate us, we could write volumes and, in doing so, take the discussion away from the point of the thread. Certainly, I'm not opposed to citing scripture in threads that purposes to defend our belief to another. And we would need to break it down to specific areas, as Chris did in other threads. That being said, I'll respond to the rest of your post accordingly.

I believe in the one true God, because the Word states that God is a jealous God and to have no other gods before him. However, God wants us to love both our Lord Jesus Christ , the only begotten Son of God, and to love God who is his Father ..

I understand what you believe as you reject the Trinity. In accepting the Trinity, I don't believe any other god is above our God.

God is simple, and only complicated where we ourselves lack in our understanding. This is why the Word tells us -- "The simplicity that is in Christ Jesus".

Simplicity is a greater tool in understanding the One true God. The more complicated one makes understanding God, the less one truely does understand God.

Okay, I'll break my own rule only because this scripture states it better than I ever could. As my signature verse says in Romans 11...
33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"[j]
35"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"[k]
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

When Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. The Father is God, and here there is no disagreement among the brethren. Where we disagree, is when someone takes the words of Jesus too literally. As The Father is God, and no man has seen God at any time, we then see the Father through his Son. Misconception comes, when one takes a statement from scripture and defines it primarily upon a doctrine that comes from outside of scripture.

While I don't understand how you can read the entire New Testament (using accepted Christian Bible versions) and come away with the notion that Jesus is not fully God, I now know where you are coming from.

It is the understanding of Christians that the entire purpose of the New Testament is to reveal God in Jesus, His sacrifice to bring reconciliation with His creation, bring us to secure faith in His plan of salvation and point to the fulfillment of the New Jerusalem.

 

[Mike]

So, you would be OK calling someone a Christian if they believed Jesus was fully God and that there was no Father... that Jesus simply was the only God? In spite of everything Jesus taught about giving glory to his God and Father, would you call someone a "Christian" if they completely replaced the Father with the Son?

Not "replace" the Father. In and with God the Father is God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The mystery of the Trinity is difficult to "comprehend", but we can "apprehend" it. We can claim it. I understand that you find it impossible to grasp the Triune God, but He is 1 God. You've said Christians ignore God the Father. Not so!!! Personally, I focused our discussions on Jesus, because His divinity is the major source of our disagreement. Consider what I posed to MM and notice how it begins:

If you're interested in doing this, it would help me. Take the Nicene Creed and tell me where you find flaw. While it's not Inspired, it is a good breakdown of the core biblical Christian beliefs.

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried.
And the third day He rose again
according to the Scriptures
and ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead,
whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified,
who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Christians in no way ignore the Father. I hope I at least put this notion to rest.

I understand that you believe Jesus being "Fully God" is what defines a person as Christian... but why can a person NOT be a Christian if they read Jesus saying "The Father is greater than I" ... and simply believe it? Why, in order to be a Christian, MUST we assume to know better than Jesus (while simultaneously calling him God)? Why can a person ONLY be called a "Christian" if they assume Jesus meant "The Father is greater than I (am in human form, although I'm still fully God and equal with the Father at the same time)"?

I understand that different people must have an explanation that satisfies them about what Jesus meant by "The Father is greater than I." ... But why can a person NOT be a Christian if they see Jesus say such a simple statement and take it to mean exactly what he said?

Chris, do you believe the entire Bible is Inspired? I assume you do. By Inspired we would hold that God is speaking through the pen of the writer. That said, the Words of Jesus within the Word of God are not distinct from the rest of the Bible. Christians believe that the entire New Testament clearly states that Jesus was and is fully God. So goes the opinion that those who don't accept His Divinity are not Christians.

 

[Free]

I believe "the one True God" is the one Jesus told us was the one True God. I don't see why inference has to be added to the bible when Jesus' teachings were so simple and clear. Why do we HAVE to develop "divine mysteries" that cannot be comprehended, yet must be unquestionably accepted in order to be acknowledged as a Christian?

Because Jesus also equated himself with God and so did some of those closest to him and his ministry. We don't have to develop anything but the fact that it is taught in Scripture and we should try to make sense of it.

So, we can ignore Jesus directly calling the Father "You, the only true God" ... because "well somewhere else in the bible the Jews tried to stone him, which proves he must have been claiming to be God, because when else did the Jews EVER want to stone someone to death?" :biglaugh

That is but one passage that shows Jesus to be God. To take only a couple of verses and ignore the rest of Scripture is to take them out of context. Everything must be taken together to get the full context.

I understand that people may weigh the two passages differently... but this thread isn't about which viewpoint is more valid... but why is it that a person CAN NOT be considered Christian at all if they weigh Christ's direct teaching as more meaningful than the reactions of imperfect humans?

Why are you basing such an argument on one passage? And a passage in which you want to brush aside the Jews' response as that merely "the reactions of imperfect humans," completely ignoring that they were Jews, as was Jesus, and they fully understood the implications of what Jesus meant. In other words, you want to think that you, or your church, knows better what Jesus said than the Jews who were actually there.

are ignoring the fact that one of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism.

"monotheism" is "one God... period." The trinity is a number other than one. It's "3 yet 1, yet neither 3 nor 1, yet both." ... this is not "1." If a trinitarian believed that there was only one person that was God... then yes, he would be a monotheist. [/quote]
Again, the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly monotheistic. There is one God, no trinitarian will deny that. The doctrine states that the one begin who is God is comprised of three persons. Do not equate the term "person" with "God." There is no "three persons in one person" just as there is no "three gods in one God."

plus the bible mentions plenty of times where the Father speaks to the Son and vice versa, where the Son asks the Father for help, where the Son actually asks why the Father forsook him, plus the bible specifies that there is knowledge that ONLY the Father has (specifically "not even the Son")... therefore the Father and Son can't be the same person.

Exactly. That is what the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote from Mike: "While I don't understand how you can read the entire New Testament (using accepted Christian Bible versions) and come away with the notion that Jesus is not fully God"


Hi Mike

I read your response to my previous post, and copied and pasted this statement that I feel requires a response from me.

As we may both never agree on this topic, as that seems more and more evident by the responses given. However, I would like to say, that when one clings to something from outside of scripture. That person or group of people who cling to such a belief, that can not document such belief with scripture, falls into a guise that is only acceptible by those whoes faith is from outside of the scriptures. And even though the larger group might believe this , does in no wise substantiate its validity.

To say that Jesus is "fully God" in all aspects. It could only be concluded, that God himself is not of a sound mind. To say that God created man in his own image, and then claim that God prays to himself , calling himself both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit all at one time. While claiming that as the Son, he was fully God. Praying to one's self, and talking about one's self, and making one's self appear as three, while claiming to be one , is nothing short of a God that either does not tell the truth, or a God that has been lying to us .

God created man in His own image. Man creates God in his own imaginary conscience, outside of scripture. I am a son of my Father, and I came from the bosom of my Father. My Father and I have the same last name. WE agree as one, but we are not one literally. WE are two totally seperate people. I am fully the son of my Father, and my Father is fully who he is as my Father. He is not me, and I am not him. To deny this, I would have to lie to myself and my sound mind would no longer be a sound mind, if I did deny sound reasoning.

If Jesus was fully God, and died, then God is dead. A dead God can not raise himself from the dead, and still be dead. It takes life to raise the dead unto life. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, by calling him out from the grave. Jesus said, that the things that I do, it is the Father that does those things through me. In other words, The Father and his power raised Lazarus from the dead, through the words of the Lord Jesus Christ for Lazarus to come forth.

The Word of God is clear, that God raised his Son from the dead. That is because His Son was dead ! Only life can raise the dead unto life. God was alive, but Jesus was dead. If Jesus was fully God, then by shear logic, either Jesus didn't die, or Jesus is not God. There is no other choice. And if Jesus didn't die, then we are still in our sins and have no hope of eternal life.

If he did die for our sins, and he did, then he can not be fully God ! He could be a portion of God, the seed portion of his Father. Then and only then do all the scriptures line up perfectly.

Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God. As I am the begotten son of my Father. I am a junior, which means that my first name and last name is the same name as my father. Jesus the Christ said, I came in my Father's name. I likewise can same the exact same as Jesus did. He came in His Father's name, and I of my earthly father came in my father's name.

Jesus would not lie to you Mike. Jesus said, that he did not come to do his will, but the will of the Father which sent him. He prayed to his Father. He did the will of His Father. He died for us , but, because it was the will of his Father, and not his own will.

For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son. As Abraham offered up Isaac. God is not the author of confusion. He is "logos" = logical. God is a God of reason, not unreason.

If Jesus was fully God, when talking with Peter. Jesus asked Peter, who do you say that I am?
Peter replied, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". Jesus was flesh and blood, and had the Spirit of God in him (seed). Yet Jesus said - "Flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you Peter, but from my Father which is in heaven" --- If Jesus was fully God, and the Father and I are one. What is the Father doing in heaven, and the Son being on earth being fully God, and not in heaven, at the very exact same time, and still be fully God ? How can this kind of reasoning be considered - Logical reasoning ?

I look forward to your response.

 

[Mike]

MM, for the purposes of this thread and others who want to weigh in on the original intent, I will just say that Christianity holds that Jesus was fully God, and by rejecting the most core of all core Christian doctrine, I would say that you are not a Christian. This would be what I have been pointing out to Chris. There are many denominations within Christianity that have different peripheral understandings, but the main thing that binds us in the One Christian Church is that God revealed Himself in the Son.

By saying this wouldn't make sense to he who doesn't accept it is evidence of the Holy Spirit giving insight to those who do accept it. Throughout our discussion in the longer JW thread, you were disputing my stance on this same issue. I guess I mistakenly assumed that you accepted it but felt I was not being inclusive enough with others. You never suggested that you didn't believe Jesus was fully God.

As Christians, we have to be protective of such basic a belief. Otherwise, we minimize the impact of that Truth and allow for something that is not allowable. That is to deny the divinity of Jesus.

I will say what I said to Chris. If you hold that the Bible is Inspired, then you hold that the entire Bible is authored by God. All of it has to be weighed equally whether quoting Jesus or not. If you don't believe Jesus was God, then why would what He said carry any more weight than anything else. The entire New Testament is wrapped around the statement that Jesus is fully God. If you want to discuss this point using scripture, I would suggest that you create another thread where that is the intended purpose and members can point to evidence either way.

Among other things that define a Christian, the belief that Jesus was and is fully God is essential.

Mike

 

[Mysteryman]

MM, for the purposes of this thread and others who want to weigh in on the original intent, I will just say that Christianity holds that Jesus was fully God, and by rejecting the most core of all core Christian doctrine, I would say that you are not a Christian. This would be what I have been pointing out to Chris. There are many denominations within Christianity that have different peripheral understandings, but the main thing that binds us in the One Christian Church is that God revealed Himself in the Son.

By saying this wouldn't make sense to he who doesn't accept it is evidence of the Holy Spirit giving insight to those who do accept it. Throughout our discussion in the longer JW thread, you were disputing my stance on this same issue. I guess I mistakenly assumed that you accepted it but felt I was not being inclusive enough with others. You never suggested that you didn't believe Jesus was fully God.

As Christians, we have to be protective of such basic a belief. Otherwise, we minimize the impact of that Truth and allow for something that is not allowable. That is to deny the divinity of Jesus.

I will say what I said to Chris. If you hold that the Bible is Inspired, then you hold that the entire Bible is authored by God. All of it has to be weighed equally whether quoting Jesus or not. If you don't believe Jesus was God, then why would what He said carry any more weight than anything else. The entire New Testament is wrapped around the statement that Jesus is fully God. If you want to discuss this point using scripture, I would suggest that you create another thread where that is the intended purpose and members can point to evidence either way.

Among other things that define a Christian, the belief that Jesus was and is fully God is essential.

Mike

Hi Mike

Well, to say the least, I am a little disappointed in your reply. Because basically, your reply only stands on the premise of what "you" call a core belief. Your claim without scripture, that the New testament is wrapped around the statment that Jesus was fully God, is either flawed, or you just do not want to supply scripture to support such a claim.

You claim to be a Christian and I claim to be a Christian. And I have already given you scripture as to what makes one a Christian. And it has nothing to do with core beliefs from outside of scripture. Either you have Christ in you , as I do, or you don't. And if you do, and you claim to have Christ in you, as I do, that makes both of us Christians, and not one is and one is not. < Romans 8:9 - 15.

I believe that you are a Christian. I also believe that you love God and the Lord Jesus Christ, as I do also. However, what causes division, is this so called core belief you hold too.

Maybe you can not see this at this time in your life. Unity of the Spirit causes unity. Carnal thinking causes division and strife - I Corinth. 3:3. Which do you desire at this time ?

As I have said, I do believe that God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , is revealed through His Son. Image !

 

[Mike]

MM, I disappointed too. But I have reason to be. You have watched and participated with discussions knowing my stance all along, so you can't be surprised or disappointed. I'm sticking to topic here, but we shared a lot of scripture in the other thread pointing to Jesus' Divinity. In fact in one post, you claimed that we were using too much scripture and not speaking from our hearts. I'm disappointed, because you never let on that this was your belief during our entire JW discussion for almost 200 posts. I don't know why you would do that, knowing exactly what my stance was.

If you want to start all over in a thread intended to use scripture to demonstrate respective beliefs, that would be fine. I challenge you to come right out and say in your title, "Jesus is Not Fully God" and defend your point. It would be good if you didn't start with statements like "I don't accept the Trinity". I would put it in the Theology forum to give it more exposure to people who don't necessarily follow "Other Religions" discussions. Not making a list of demands, but ideas to get a substantive discussion started on the main point.

I am sorry, MM. But, you knew exactly how I felt. I don't know how you could have thought I would say otherwise. If you're disappointed that I didn't get into scripture to back up my point, that discussion has been had, but start that thread and let's do it again. You clearly have a heart for the Lord, but I don't know how or why you would want anyone but God in your heart. I'm having a hard time understanding that.

 

[Mysteryman]

MM, I disappointed too. But I have reason to be. You have watched and participated with discussions knowing my stance all along, so you can't be surprised or disappointed. I'm sticking to topic here, but we shared a lot of scripture in the other thread pointing to Jesus' Divinity. In fact in one post, you claimed that we were using too much scripture and not speaking from our hearts. I'm disappointed, because you never let on that this was your belief during our entire JW discussion for almost 200 posts. I don't know why you would do that, knowing exactly what my stance was.

If you want to start all over in a thread intended to use scripture to demonstrate respective beliefs, that would be fine. I challenge you to come right out and say in your title, "Jesus is Not Fully God" and defend your point. It would be good if you didn't start with statements like "I don't accept the Trinity". I would put it in the Theology forum to give it more exposure to people who don't necessarily follow "Other Religions" discussions. Not making a list of demands, but ideas to get a substantive discussion started on the main point.

I am sorry, MM. But, you knew exactly how I felt. I don't know how you could have thought I would say otherwise. If you're disappointed that I didn't get into scripture to back up my point, that discussion has been had, but start that thread and let's do it again. You clearly have a heart for the Lord, but I don't know how or why you would want anyone but God in your heart. I'm having a hard time understanding that.

Hi Mike

I am not going to argue with you. I merely pointed out scripture which supports my stance. Which is something that you feel you do not need to do. A discussion such as this is not about feelings, Mike. It is about what the scriptures say . You have a habit of going around these threads telling people who are and who is not a Christian. These are serious statements by you Mike, in case you do not realize this. Isn't that up to God, as to whom is a Christian and who is not ? And has not God already explained within scripture that one who has the Spirit of Christ in them, is indeed a Christian = Christ in ?

I was expecting more from you , as you proposed that scripture supported your stance. Yet, you do not support your stance with scripture. How can one have a discussion , using scripture, when the oppossing poster will not use scripture in support of their stance ?

No, you are not sticking to the topic of this thread. You say you are, but you are not ! I am not a JW, but I still feel, that my JW brethren should not be put down in such a manner. This is the reason I even entered this thread. I believe that they have many errors within their understandings of scripture. But I also believe , that many Christians hold to an divisive stance, just to cause division among the brethren. Such is the case here.

I still consider you a Christian, but you can not pull yourself away from your strong carnal stance and see how destructive your comments have become. You might want to believe that Jesus is fully God, and you might not want to change from that stance. And that is fine, but only for you my friend.

I love the Lord Jesus Christ and I worship and love the Lord my God. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. If I have misquoted scripture, please , by all means correct me. But don't just sit there and claim what your feelings are. Feelings come and go. I am 62 years old, and once upon a time, I also thought the trinity was correct. I also believed that Jesus was fully God. But that is before I studied the scriptures and prayed that God open up the eyes of my understanding. What I was taught as a child, from my parents, and from the denomination that I grew up in. They taught me what they thought I should believe. I hold no animosity towards either the church I grew up in, nor my parents.

Come to find out, as much as I love my parents, and those whom I went to church with. The truth of the scriptures, and the proper worship of God must come first. I must lay aside any friendships, and any realtionships with my family, if it is the difference between loving God, or loving mankind. I still love my family very much. But I will not waver from my greater love for God. And the scriptures must support this love I have for God, or else everything is just a waste of my time.

God Bless

 

[Mike]

I am not going to argue with you. I merely pointed out scripture which supports my stance. Which is something that you feel you do not need to do. A discussion such as this is not about feelings, Mike. It is about what the scriptures say . You have a habit of going around these threads telling people who are and who is not a Christian. These are serious statements by you Mike, in case you do not realize this. Isn't that up to God, as to whom is a Christian and who is not ? And has not God already explained within scripture that one who has the Spirit of Christ in them, is indeed a Christian = Christ in ?

I was expecting more from you , as you proposed that scripture supported your stance. Yet, you do not support your stance with scripture. How can one have a discussion , using scripture, when the oppossing poster will not use scripture in support of their stance ?

MM, as I said, I (and others) gave a lot of scriptural support in the other thread, even to the point of you saying we were leaning on it too much! In saying someone is not a Christian, I've said repeatedly that this isn't to say whether or not their name will be written in the Book of Life. God's Ways are beyond me, and His Grace is greater than I can comprehend. I'm leery of the waters getting muddied up, and Christianity getting to the point that the most central of beliefs is given leeway.

And, while I might be saying it more than others, I'm certainly not alone. Look at the Code of Conduct for this board.

123 ChristianForums.net - Our "Ten Commandments"

This is the place where the rules of this Site are posted.

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith
With that bullet is a link to the "Statement of Faith".

Look below at the very first point in that statement of faith!

This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This statement is core to Christianity. This statement isn't inspired, but it serves my point that it is acknowledged by others, so much so that it's stated right off the bat from a link that says these are beliefs considered "hostile" to Christians.

I don't mind sharing beliefs, but acknowledging Jesus as God is the foundation of Christianity. And that point has been scripturally argued at great length in the other thread and many others.

I do believe you have a wonderful heart for God. You have tremendous faith. But in denying Who Jesus is, you are rejecting that which binds Christians across many different denominations and individuals. I'm simply being protective of the name, "Jesus", lest He is lowered even one spot in His Divinity.

 

[Mysteryman]

I am not going to argue with you. I merely pointed out scripture which supports my stance. Which is something that you feel you do not need to do. A discussion such as this is not about feelings, Mike. It is about what the scriptures say . You have a habit of going around these threads telling people who are and who is not a Christian. These are serious statements by you Mike, in case you do not realize this. Isn't that up to God, as to whom is a Christian and who is not ? And has not God already explained within scripture that one who has the Spirit of Christ in them, is indeed a Christian = Christ in ?

I was expecting more from you , as you proposed that scripture supported your stance. Yet, you do not support your stance with scripture. How can one have a discussion , using scripture, when the oppossing poster will not use scripture in support of their stance ?

MM, as I said, I (and others) gave a lot of scriptural support in the other thread, even to the point of you saying we were leaning on it too much! In saying someone is not a Christian, I've said repeatedly that this isn't to say whether or not their name will be written in the Book of Life. God's Ways are beyond me, and His Grace is greater than I can comprehend. I'm leery of the waters getting muddied up, and Christianity getting to the point that the most central of beliefs is given leeway.

And, while I might be saying it more than others, I'm certainly not alone. Look at the Code of Conduct for this board.

123 ChristianForums.net - Our "Ten Commandments"

This is the place where the rules of this Site are posted.

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith
With that bullet is a link to the "Statement of Faith".

Look below at the very first point in that statement of faith!

This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This statement is core to Christianity. This statement isn't inspired, but it serves my point that it is acknowledged by others, so much so that it's stated right off the bat from a link that says these are beliefs considered "hostile" to Christians.

I don't mind sharing beliefs, but acknowledging Jesus as God is the foundation of Christianity. And that point has been scripturally argued at great length in the other thread and many others.

I do believe you have a wonderful heart for God. You have tremendous faith. But in denying Who Jesus is, you are rejecting that which binds Christians across many different denominations and individuals. I'm simply being protective of the name, "Jesus", lest He is lowered even one spot in His Divinity.

Hi Mike:

You seem to be missing the point. So, for the last time, I am going to try and appeal to you intellectually. You are using your core beliefs in a fashion that causes division. God didn't send his Son into the world just to save Christians. And it is not your buisness to tell God who is and who is not a Christian according to your core beliefs. Scripture does not make one a Christian. All scripture does, is confirm that which God has already said within scripture. Only those things inspired by God are of God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, which is instruction in righteousness (right believing).

Christianity is only bound by the scriptures, and nothing else. Man made doctrines do not stand up to the scriptures. And that is why there is conflict and division. Men who go around and make false claims as to whom is and who is not a Christian, based upon a man made doctrine, will find themselves the cause of division.

There are trinitarians here at this site, who do not adhere to the three person theory. There have been discussions about this just recently. And if you read those threads carefully, you will notice a tremendous division within this theory alone. Unity is not based upon theories. Unity is based upon truth. For instance, I believe that there is only "One" true God. I am sure you would say at the very least,that you agree. At this point, we then have unity. If I were to say, that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and you agreed, then again, we still have unity.

I agree, Jesus Christ is divine, and is deity. Again, we have unity. But where we can not agree, is on the use and definition of the words "divine" and "deity". That is because you take a different approach on the issue. Your approach is from your core beliefs. Mine comes from reasoning out the scriptures.

When you say that Jesus is fully God, do you even realize what you are suggesting ? To be fully God is to say that nothing or no one else is God. And to say that Jesus was fully God, would suggest that he is also totally God in all aspects. Yet, God tells us in His Word this > I Kings 8:27 - "But will God indeed dwell on the earth ? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded ? " < How do you reconcile that Jesus is fully God, when even the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot cantain him ? How does your core beliefs reconcile this magnitude of God ? And yet claim that Jesus is fully God ? Especially since the house of God that Solomon built , which is much greater in scope than the actual body of Jesus ?

You might want to revise your appoach and usage of the word "fully" . As far as calling Jesus God, so also thought those who looked upon Moses. They saw a man with the power and authority of God. They even thought he might be a god. They also thought that they could kick against the pricks. But God wiped them out at the parting of the red sea. Why is it that man thinks he can battle against God himself ? Lucifer tried this and failed. Pharoah tried this and failed. Even the children of Israel tried this and failed and died in the wilderness. Why do you think the scriptures say, "Let God be true and every man a liar" ? Man lies unto himself and thus finds himself fighting against God. In Romans 8 and in verse 7 it tells us - "the carnal mind is enmity against God". Enmity means , hostile towards, or to go against, hatred. This is how serious it is to walk by our carnal minds.

We can not pretend to Love God, and be carnally minded at the same time. It just does not work ! You would be further ahead, if you pounded your head up against a break wall many times, then to go against God in such a manner.

To walk spiritually minded is peace and joy. I find no peace nor any joy in you telling me or others that they are not a christian. Maybe some are a bit misguided, this is true. This is why the eye can not say to the hand I have no need of you. I need you as much as you need me Mike.

Bless you, in his service - MM

 

[Free]

No, you are not sticking to the topic of this thread. You say you are, but you are not ! I am not a JW, but I still feel, that my JW brethren should not be put down in such a manner. This is the reason I even entered this thread. I believe that they have many errors within their understandings of scripture. But I also believe , that many Christians hold to an divisive stance, just to cause division among the brethren. Such is the case here.

Interestingly enough, both JWs and Mormonism came about from the rejection of orthodox Christianity.

Christianity is only bound by the scriptures, and nothing else. Man made doctrines do not stand up to the scriptures. And that is why there is conflict and division. Men who go around and make false claims as to whom is and who is not a Christian, based upon a man made doctrine, will find themselves the cause of division.

And this begs the question of what is and is not a man-made doctrine. Your unsupported opinion is that it is man-made (ie. taken to be unsupported by Scripture), it is the opinion of orthodox Christianity and this site that the Trinity is, in the least, a doctrine formed by man based completely on all that Scripture reveals.

I agree, Jesus Christ is divine, and is deity. Again, we have unity. But where we can not agree, is on the use and definition of the words "divine" and "deity". That is because you take a different approach on the issue. Your approach is from your core beliefs. Mine comes from reasoning out the scriptures.

Only in your opinion does your come from Scripture. From my opinion, and that of historic, orthodox Christianity, the idea that Jesus is very much God in nature, yet not the Father, is fully supported from Scripture.

I have yet to have my stronger arguments adequately answered or even engaged, and they are all based on Scripture.

I find no peace nor any joy in you telling me or others that they are not a christian.

And yet you so willingly tell others who disagree with you that they are carnally minded. :gah The Scriptures even tells Christians we are to judge whether doctrine is correct or not. It makes it clear that there are false teachers who teach of another Christ. It is also clear that who Christ is is absolutely central to believing in him and becoming a follower.