Do Christians consider Christ as God?

Is Christ the actual God or is he a lessor being? He is supposed to be the son of God but most Christians I have talked to believe he is God. Christ the Lord an all that stuff.:shrug: If Christ is not the Lord and Jehova really is then they actually believe in Judism. IMHO Do they even know who they believe is their God?

"Do they even know who they believe is their God?"...

do you even know what you believe about (insert topic here)...

concept for many Christians is the Trinity...three in one...a complex idea

why all the vitriol?

one interpretation.

God reveals what he wants to reveal.

Could be an interesting discussion if this was not just flame bait.

The rules say...

"Posts that are unrelated to politics or public policy belong in the Lounge or the Meeting Room."

Were one and the same. If we can't discuss the words of our fearless leader in GD then what good is it? He has created quite the "Political" stir with his off the wall comment.

But it was launched with absolutely NO reference to anything about politics or public policy which violates the guide for posting.

.

Many believe that God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three gods for the price of one.

On edit: I don't mean to be flippant. I, myself, am an Episcopalian/Anglican and do believe in the Trinity.

"Many believe that God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three gods for the price of one."

Not exactly.

As I understand orthodox Christian thought on the subject of the Trinity, is is Not "three gods for the price of one".

Rather, it is One God with three "persons".

There are some who call themselves Christians who reject the notion of the Trinity.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), as I understand their theology, reject the notion of the Trinity.

And I beleive the Jehovah's Witnesses also reject the notion of the Trinity.

Unitarians, of course, reject the notion of the Trinity.

The number three has for ages been a mystical number in many cultures.

The Blessed Trinity consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit The Father is symbolic of or the personification of the Ultimate Divine. For the Father to be known there must be a Knower, God can only be known by God, therefore the second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Knower, the Son. When there is a knower and known there is a relationship between the two, and this is the Holy Spirit.

If one looks to the ancient holy language of Sanskrit, there are similar features there as in the Blessed Trinity, viz., as sat-chit-ananda, where sat means being, chit means consciousness, and ananda is rapture or bliss, and you have the same relationship.

The Trinity was a way the neo-Platonists of the early Church got around Plato's "only God can know God."

http://www.inclusiveorthodox.org/Nicreed.html

Your answer is there.

beleive that Christ is God. Period. End of story.

There is more to it than that, of course. The whole Triune thing and so forth, but in the final analysis Catholics maintain that Jesus Christ was/is God, manifest in human flesh to redeem mankind for all time from their sins.

Now say five Our Fathers and ten Hail Mary's and stop asking blasphemous questions.

(Oh, and you CAN go to Heaven, even if you aren't Catholic)

So does Judism. I guess Bush* isn't sure which God he believes in.

They differ, certainly, in the divinity of Christ. But Allah, YHWH and God are all the same entity.

Allah is NOT the personal name of GOD, but is simply the arabic word for "God".

Modern Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all decended from ancient Judaism. Christianity believes that God became human in Christ. Islam accepts the Christian Bible but holds that it is a record of prophets and has errors and that Christ was not God in the flesh. The hold Muhammed as the final, and perfect prophet and the Koran to be perfect - in arabic only. Of course modern Judaism is the lineal decendent of ancient Judaism, with some modifications.

So, Yes, they do hold to the same God, but the interpretation is markedly different.

This is an EXTREME oversimplification made necessary by the limitations of trying to put it in a couple of paragraphs.

the blessed Trinity - "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

in the Nicene Creed.

See, I've studied!

:evilgrin:

edited for spelling

:D

:evilgrin:

Why did the Catholic and Orthodox churches fall into the Great Schism over the filioque?

This whole Trinity thing has never been easy to sort out, even for professionals.

This is why they pray to Jesus instead of to God, although it's okay to pray to God too.

but to God the Father. Christ instructs that prayers still go to God but are asked in the name of Jesus as He is our arbiter before a holy God...can be a bit confusing though. Many Christians pray to Christ even though that is not what he taught...some also pray to Mary the mother of Christ and other saints as well.

TheProdigal

It's rather complicated to understand, but Christians believe the father, son and holy spirit are all a part of the same entity.

My personal beliefs are that all living things are part of the life force which makes our consciousness. Consequently, when I hurt another living thing I'm actually hurting myself. I find my personal beliefs easier to accept than some of the religious dogma that others have faith in.

:-)

:D

When asked about how I reconcile that with the idea that I still consider myself a Christian, my response is that Christ was someone who realized a closeness with this "God within all of us" more than just about anyone else. And this is really quite apparent when you look at the gospels from the standpoint not of proof of the "deification of Christ", but rather as a comprehensive guide on how we are to live our lives and treat one another.

Of course, such thought would probably have me condemned for heresy in just about any other Church besides my UU fellowship (with the probably exception of the Quakers).

There are many good christians who practice the teachings of Christ, and make christianity seem acceptable (there are many devout Muslims as well, and probably Hindus, Bhuddists, Jews, and more I haven't met). Hypocrites like Bush* fill me with absolute disgust, though.

if hurting other living things hurts you, then you wouldn't want to kill animals for food.

I was created as an omnivore, and I have survived thus far. I don't eat much beef or pork, but that's more out of concern for my own health.

Plants may not have a consciousness we understand, but that does not exclude them from the living. You're trying to split hairs, possibly to justify your own personal beliefs.

Some people's religious beliefs actually do lead them not to eat meat, by the way.

... at least in the natural order of things.

Look at it this way. An elk eats grasses and other plants. A wolf kills the elk, and receives life-sustaining nutrients from the elk. Both the elk and the wolf leave droppings, that sustain countless other insects, plants, fungi and bacteria. Likewise for the carcasses of each of them, upon their death.

Life is an intricate web in which EVERYTHING is connected. Now, when you are able to look at it in this manner, there is a distinct difference between the "killing" of other organisms in order to sustain life -- and therefore, sustain the natural order of things -- and destruction of the web of life.

When death occurs in the natural order, it is not the destruction of life -- but rather the transferrence of a small portion of the force of life from one physical capsule to another. In this sense, life is much like energy: it is neither gained nor lost, but merely adopts a different form. Of course, it's much more complicated than a physical analogy, but the analogy serves its purpose in this instance.

because I think we have evolved to a point in technology where it makes it no longer nessecary, nor nessecarily healthy to eat meat.

With the levels of dioxin and hormones in our meat... I cannot bring myself to eat it knowingly.

refused membership in the National Council of Churches because we don't affirm Christ's divinity, although many do believe in it.

While most of us understand the concept and mystery of the Trinity, we feel that that question, like so many others, is unanswerable and unknowable and therefore largely irrelevant. We neither affirm nor deny it, and reject the Nicene Creed as we reject all other creeds.

The idea that "there is that of God in all of us" is central to RSOF thought, and we often see Christ in much the same light as you do-- there is that of God in Christ, but we're just not sure how much. And we don't spend much time worrying about it.

It's really too bad they killed off all those Gnostics and Alberghensians years ago. It would be interesting to see how the church would have evolved with more of their influence.

I especially like the idea of looking for inspiration from within, by "sitting in stillness" -- I believe it's referred to as a "leading". The idea of "unencumberance" is one I've been working with for a while now as well -- but unfortunately not as successfully as I would like.

I find it interesting that a religious tradition that places so much emphasis on looking within your own heart for the answers to the questions that life presents us is one of the most deeply committed to pacifism and nonviolence. Perhaps there is a lesson there.... ;-)

Unfortunately, I couldn't get used to the meetings -- and my wife found that they drove her nuts, sitting in silence for so long. So, we joined our Unitarian Universalist fellowship -- which wasn't a bad choice, either.

central to us.

One misconception, often even among Friends, is that things like the Peace Testimony are teachings to be learned, and perhaps obeyed.

It's quite the opposite. As we look inward, we are lead through our understanding of God that we can do nothing else but witness for peace. Peace Witness is simply the written outward testimony of that which we already believe.

I agree that the silent meetings are not for everyone. That's why Friends Churches are so popular among certain segments of the faith. One obvious problem is that silent worshippers have little outside direction or counsel, and pretty much have to work everything out for themselves. And do a lot of reading. And some people just like hymns and recitation.

Unencumbrance has been difficult since the whole thing began. "Simple living" has had some interesting interpretations. Cadbury Confections and Barclay's Bank were two businesses that were originally Quaker owned, and their founders didn't exactly wear sackcloth and ashes.

More to the point is acquisition for acquisition's sake. And showing it off.

One misconception, often even among Friends, is that things like the Peace Testimony are teachings to be learned, and perhaps obeyed.

It's quite the opposite. As we look inward, we are lead through our understanding of God that we can do nothing else but witness for peace. Peace Witness is simply the written outward testimony of that which we already believe.

That's what I meant when I was talking about the pacifism that is practiced by active Quakers. It's also pretty much in line with my evolution toward pacifism -- not accepting it because of any kind of religious dogma, but coming to the realization that it was the only choice if I truly wanted to "be right with God" -- at least how God had been revealed to me through my own continual learning process and experiences.

But that's another story for another time....

There's a NYYM shindig at Purchase Meetinghouse starting Friday at 7:30. Choral group, the usual feeding, etc.

Saturday's all committee meetings at Pace U., but Friday night sounds more social, if you and the wife are up to it.

Check your inbox.

also, but was never able to find the words that fit. Thank you.

I've been told by some that Greek Orthodox members believe that Christ was a man.

Is Christ the actual God or is he a lessor being? He is supposed to be the son of God but most Christians I have talked to believe he is God.

I think that different branches of Christianity believe different things, so it would depend on which Christian group you affiliated with how you would believe. Also, I think that Protestantism generally allows for more shades of belief among its members, so even two Presbyterians might have different ideas on the subject. The unifying thing is that they are all trying to follow Christ's teachings. (Which are Jewish! Jesus was born and died a practicing Jew. :-))

:-)

As the Bible tells us in Genesis. He got picked out as the "special god" somewhere along the line, and also sprouted a beard, white robes, and big muscle arms.

But if you read the Bible, you see that the "one god" that some Christians say they believe in, was actually just one of many. It's pretty plain.

What happened to the other Gods? Wonder if they are locked up in the Krypt with 'Evil Magikal Incatations" at occult Skull & Bones headquarters at Yale. Since pResident* Bush* and his father are both full-fledged "Boners" they no doubt could tell us.


* AWOL while honor-bound by solemn oath to be serving with the Texas National Guard in the 1970s; defeated by a clear majority of patriotic and discerning American voters in the 2000 election; appointed to office by the so-called supreme court.

Wouldn't it?

to back you multi god theory. I'm not trying to be an ass, it's just your post captured my interest so please do share.

Then God said, "Let us make people in our image to be like ourselves

This is the one that people like to point to when they say that the Bible plainly states that there were multiple Gods. They point to the plurals that I have bolded. However, may theories dispell this, from the actual translation of the original hebrew/greek versions.. to the idea that the Lord was referring to the Trinity within, the different manifestations of the one God.

When I was growing up, my mother didn't feel the need to dictate what religion (if any) that she thought I should follow. She gave me access to all materials and encouraged me to find my own path. I was always thwarted in my search for something that fit by the Christian tendency to raise Jesus up to God status. It always seemed to me that when they said God they meant Jesus.

This never worked out for me. I always figured that if God is GOD (all powerful, all knowing, yadda yadda) then why would God need help. Why does God need a middleman?

And so, one day when my husband was reading (if you can believe this) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism ", he told me that it was very interesting and that I should check it out. As I read through the book, especially the section on Reform Judaism, everything started making sense. In all my searching for something that fit, I always found that when I had a question that "THEY" didn't have an answer for, I was always told that you shouldn't question God's divine plan or that there were just some questions you are not supposed to ask.

What I found with Judaism were people who would fess up to not having an answer. The answer was quite often "We don't know". So hubby and I went down to the local Reform Temple and signed up for adult education classes. After a VERY short time, we both realized that Judaism was what we had both been looking for.

To sum up a long story, the whole Jesus is God thing never added up for me, so I became a Jew. I have never regretted it and will always feel it was one of the best decisions of my life.

"This never worked out for me. I always figured that if God is GOD (all powerful, all knowing, yadda yadda) then why would God need help. Why does God need a middleman?"

First, let me say that I am gald that you and your husband have found a place that meets your spiritual needs.

Second, let me assure you that by providing you with a reply (not the same thing as an "answer") to the question you pose, I do not intend to "convert" you to any other religious point of view.

Why does God need a middleman?

As I understand Christian thought, God needs a middleman because of who God is.

Christians, at least so far as I understand Christianity, believe that God is totally, completely, and utterly righteous -- that he is totally, completely, and utterly Good. Indeed, as I understand Christian thought, it is that God's very nature is that of complete and total Goodness and Love. To a Christian, there is no thing about God that is in any way evil, bad, or unloving.

On the other hand, the Christian view of humanity is that human beings are created "in the image of God", and that humanity, as God intended humanity, was also totally Good -- without any disobedience or rebelllion from a totally Good God that is total Love.

However, according to Christian thought, humanity was given the gift of chosing whether or no to live within God's will, and was further instructed on what God required. And humanity chose to "be like God" -- to rebel against what God had explicity stated and to attempt to become masters/mistresses of their own fate. (This is how Christians, at least so far as I understand it, explain chapters 2 and 3 of the Book of Genesis). This rebellion -- this "walking away from God" -- is what Christians call "sin".

As a result, every single human being is tainted by the rebellion that all humanity has against God. Every person harbors in his or her own heart a rebellion against God -- and a desire to set his or her own rules for his or her own existence. It is this desire -- this tendency to defy God -- that causes humanity to live in a permanent state of rebellion against the all-Good, all-loving God.

So, if you are God, how do you deal with a humanity that is in rebellion against you? You are God -- totally Good and without sin -- and unable, because of your very goodness and sinlessness, to be in the presence of any sin at all.

One way would be to destroy all of them. God tried that, but in doing so, he found one person whose faith in God's goodness was so great that he followed God's commands, even when it made no sense to do so. In so doing, Noah provided a way for God to continue humanity's existence. God promised never to send another flood to destroy all of humanity.

Another way would be to provide a way in which humanity can atone for its sins -- make up for them, so that you can wipe the slate clean. God provided a means for that in the animal sacrifices outlined in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. The problem with that is that humanity, on its own, can never completely atone for its own sin -- its very act of atonement is always tainted by humanity's sinfulness.

So, according to Christianity, what God did was come to humanity as a human being. That, according to what I understand Christians to think, is who Jesus is/was -- God in the flesh -- totally human, and at the same time, totally God. Because he was totally human, Jesus was tempted in every way that any human being is tempted. And yet, Jesus never sinned. He never rebelled against God.

But God's plan had one more component. Because Jesus was totally without sin, and because he was totally human, he -- and he alone -- could provide the perfect atonement for all of humanity's sins -- all that had ever happened, and all the ever would happen.

And that, according to what I understand Christians to believe, is what happened on the cross on Good Friday. Jesus took on all of humanity's sins, and became the perfect atonement.

God, who is totally without sin, thereby provided a means for humanity, which lives in a permanent state of rebellion against God, to enter God's presence. According to Christianity, all any human being, who is tainted by sin, has to do in order to be able to come into the presence of a holy God who is without sin and who cannot abide sin in his presence, is to believe that Jesus came and died for his or her sin.

That way, when God looks at any sinful person, what God sees is Jesus, who is without sin.

At least, that is what I understand Christians to believe concerning why an all-powerful God needed to provide a means for humanity to come to him.

Another way would be to provide a way in which humanity can atone for its sins -- make up for them, so that you can wipe the slate clean.

Judiaism already covers this, and always has, with Yom Kippur. Once a year you start off with a clean slate.

So the "died for your sins" thing still never worked for me. If you have free will, you have the choice to atone for your "sins" or not to.

Thanks for your reply.

As I stated, I have no desire to attempt to convert you. My only purpose in posting was to provide you with what I understand Christianity to say regarding the question you had posed.

Thanks as well for your comments regarding Yom Kippur. I would observe to you that, as I understand the Christian notion of the nature of Jesus' act of atonement, there is no need for a day like Yom Kippur. Although there is some disagreement on this issue within Christianity, the notion is that Jesus' atonement is sufficient for all time, and thus there is no real need to set aside one day each year to request God to wipe the slate clean.

It is perhaps a very fine distinction, but in Christianity, it is God himself (in the person of Jesus) who has atoned for sin. This is essential in the Christian view of things (again, not all portions of Christianity agree on this precise point), because no human can ever do enough to atone for all of the sin in his or her life -- only God can make such an atonement. And certainly, according to what I understand Christian thought to be, no person is ever able to atone for anyone else's sin. That is why, according to Christian thought, Jesus must be viewed a divine.

However, according to Christian thought, humanity was given the gift of chosing whether or no to live within God's will, and was further instructed on what God required. And humanity chose to "be like God" -- to rebel against what God had explicity stated and to attempt to become masters/mistresses of their own fate. (This is how Christians, at least so far as I understand it, explain chapters 2 and 3 of the Book of Genesis). This rebellion -- this "walking away from God" -- is what Christians call "sin".

Well, Jews interpret the Genesis story differently. Adam and Eve were responsible for their own sins, and no one living now is in the least bit responsible. We don't have that original sin concept. We do believe that each of us is born with an inclination to good and an inclination to evil, and that both are important for our continued survival. For instance, we need to be acquisitive in order to care for ourselves and ours, but too much of that takes from others and damages our souls by turning us into greedy, selfish people. So we need to find the balance.

We are responsible for our own sins. Those we commit against G-d, we ask G-d's forgiveness for. Those we commit against other people, we must ask those people forgiveness for. When we come together at Yom Kippur to pray, we ask forgiveness for the entire community for not making the goal in being what we as a community should be. We are expected to atone by not doing those same things again and by making restitution as appropriate.

It's a very different way of understanding that I don't know if I can really explain, but that's a start, eh?

(I often get upset at the term "Judaeo-Christian" just because the Jewish way is really not at all similar to the Christian way and so many Christians seem to think that we are all the same except that Jews are too stubborn to accept that Jesus was god. My understanding of G-d is that G-d is so far aboveand beyond human beings in every possible way that there's just no way any man could be god.)

Me too. I don't like the assumption that Jews are too stubborn to accept Jesus.

Also, on the inclination to good and an inclination to evil thought, my rabbi did a great sermon on this very thought.

We all spend a great deal of time doing a balancing act between to two. Where people mess up is when they let the scale get too far in either direction. The best people are the ones that can keep that scale perfectly balanced between the two.

People who tip the scale too far in either direction are heading for trouble. The point of his sermon was that the people who try to tip it too far on the good (pious) side are as bad or worse than those who tip too far on the bad side. Holier than thou types are just as bad for the community as the "evildoers".

The part about Judaism that I like the best is the emphasis on personal resposibility. You are expected to own your own faults and foibles. There is no out by trying to blame "Satan" for tempting you in the wrong direction. If you screw up, it is your fault and you should fix it. Jews don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the hereafter. We are encouraged to make the most of now. Make the world a better place to live in now, because there might not be anything afterwards.

I've always felt that Christians are too easy in accepting to horrors of now because of the promise of a better life in heaven.

Thanks for your very thoughtful response.

I am curious about something you said.

If I understand you correctly, you said that the Jewish faith teaches that there is no such thing as "original sin".

But then you also say that the Jewish faith teaches that each of us is born with an inclination to good and an inclination to evil.

That is, as I understand it, what Christianity teaches about human beinggs as well. And it is the "inclination to evil" that, as I understand it, Christianity teaches is original sin -- it is the inclination that all human beings have to rebel against a holy good (or, in other words, an inclination to evil) that, as I understand it, Christians understand to be something that is in each one of us, but uis also something that God never intended for us, and is the result of the "fall of humanity" that is described in Genesis 2 and 3. Certainly, as I understand Christian thought, Adam and Eve were each responsible for the precise sin that they committed. But the results of their introduction of sin into a world that had been created as perfectly good include the inclination to evil.

I am also curious about something else you said. You said that Jewish thought is that both our inclination to good as well as our inclination to evil are essential to our survival. What does the Jewish faith teach about God's view of our inclination to evil? As I understand Christianity, God views our inclination to evil as a profound problem -- something that is not "essential" at all, but is rather a terrible distortion of what he meant for men and women to be. Is this at all similar to what the Jewish faith teaches about our inclination to evil?

This will be a bit longwinded, but.. Im going to give it my best shot in the meager words I posses. I ran from Christianity through my teens and early twenties. The catholic church had left a bad taste in my mouth.. and then we moved to the Bible belt... I rejected this "Christian" God. I then set out on paths towards Buddhism, wicca, Ba'hai.. just to name a few. And then one day, I picked up the Bible and I read it for myself. I stopped taking it at second and third hand. And I can honestly say, that my life has been blessed every day since then, in ways that I would have never expected... never even dreamed of in my wildest fantasies.

I will preface this with 1Corinthians 13:12-13
"It is like this: When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child does. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything in perfect clarity. All that I know is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now.

There are three things that will endure- faith, hope, and love -- and the greatest of these is love."

I feel that many that express the christian view in outinforce's post are in their infancy of Christianity. In ways it is akin to the 7 fold path.. or even the tarotcentric views of steps we must accomplish to become One with god(s).

outinforce said:"As a result, every single human being is tainted by the rebellion that all humanity has against God. Every person harbors in his or her own heart a rebellion against God -- and a desire to set his or her own rules for his or her own existence. It is this desire -- this tendency to defy God -- that causes humanity to live in a permanent state of rebellion against the all-Good, all-loving God."

No, as a result we were seperated from God. But we gained free will and death, that gave us the ability to be rejoined with the Lord. Death was a gift, IMHO. It is up to each and every one of us to make that decision. It is not a desire to defy God that keeps us in this state, or our exercising our free will, it is simply how it must be in order to live our own lives and make our own choices. The other option is forcing a will that is not our own upon us. That would be a false and undeserved salvation.

Also, Faith is not the absense of sense, as you have typecasted Noah.

outinforce also says:"According to Christianity, all any human being, who is tainted by sin, has to do in order to be able to come into the presence of a holy God who is without sin and who cannot abide sin in his presence, is to believe that Jesus came and died for his or her sin."

It isnt that easy, one must atone for their sins, one must admit they are a sinner, one must recognize that without God nothing is possible. One must also do their best to demostrate that with their works.. although the Bible says that man cannot be saved by works alone. I can believe that Jesus came and died for my sin all I want, but if I cant comprehend that Im a sinner, I cant comprehend what sin is, and I dont try to live a life free of sin.. it is all empty.

outinforce said: "That way, when God looks at any sinful person, what God sees is Jesus, who is without sin."

But God is Jesus and Jesus is God. That was the message. IMHO, God sacrificed himself as a mortal to show that he was not detached from us, he was not this "being" he is everything and everything is God.

I also want to share what I feel is one of the most powerful scriptures because I think it puts this incessant search to prove and disprove the Bible.. and did Judas fall head long or was he pushed? In Genesis 1:26.. why does it refer to Gods in the plural... yadda yadda yadda.. into some perspective. Because, after all these things are only words. God is a feeling. God is something you see in the world around you. God is a lot more then mere words made for the understanding of us mortals could ever hope to encompass.


John 5: 39-44. John is my favorite book, it tells a story of how we need no middleman, how we can have a relationship with the Lord God, if only we are open to it.

Jesus said:
"You search the scriptures because you believe they give you eternal this life.
"Your approval or disapproval means nothing to me because I know you do not have God's love within you. For I have come to you representing my Father, and you refuse to welcome me, even though you readily accept others who represent only themselves. No wonder you can't believe! You gladly honor each other, but you dont care about the honor that comes from God alone."

Read "When Jesus Became God" by Richard E. Rubenstein. It's a very readable history of the struggle between the Arians and the Athanasians prior to the Council of Nicea in 325. You can read more about the book at http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2WOLLLGKYQ&isbn=0151003688&itm=2

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and try to resist the urge to make little pointless jabs. There is no need to make yet another religious flame-a-thon.

Sorry...The state of the world is making me irritable.
I retract my comment:-)
Peace,
Jesse

I don't think I know ANY Christian that DOESN'T see Christ as god-like or somehow part of the Divine. How is that not seeing Christ as god?

OnEdit: auto-fill kicked in on my subj. line

Of course, Gnosticism was declared heresy at one point IIRC.

Well, I'm interested in Christians who saw/see Christ as nothing but some guy with mad charisma skillz.

There are many. They all differ somewhat on their opinions.

The numbers of different Christian religions can be astounding , some times.

BTW, ever look into the beliefs of the Coptics?

do you believe in one god or many gods? Now, I know you're religious and you think of your god as god, etc. Do you think people of other religious faiths are praying to a different god? Do you think that means there are actually different gods for each religious mode-of-thought?

ya there?

God said put no other god before me. So God thinks there are other gods. Also he said he was a jealous god. It is hard for me to imagine an all-knowing god to be jealous if there were nothing to be jealous of. There must be more than one god because god says so.

I've answered this a bunch lately, but what the heck.

I believe in the trinity -- so you can take that to mean one God in three forms. (I'm no divinity student, so I am trying to keep this simple.)

I don't question other people's beliefs. By and large I feel that we all worship the same God -- whether we call him Odin, God, Yahweh, Allah or Fred. But if someone insists there are actually 27 gods or 27,000, I don't judge him and think him instantly wrong.

If someone doesn't believe that Christ is the savior and must be obeyed to be allowed into heaven, there's no disconnect between that and your beliefs? Muslims, who believe that god menas very different things than Christians believe god to mean, are just as legitimate in their beliefs?

if I may jump in here.

I do think those of us with a metaphysical mindset all worship/communicate with the same entity. We just call him/her different names according to our own cultures and places in history.

but there are many who would disagree with that...that's another disconnect

Besides, if all you believers are striving to the same mystical power, why is there so much division on what it actually is?

idea, concept, whatever you choose to call having belief.

For a lot of people, their ideas of "God" get mixed in with their identity, who they are as people. "I'm proud to be Irish Caltholic!" or "I'm an Orthodox Jew", are a couple of examples. They grow up learning certain ideas or find new paths as they grow older, paths the suit their personalities more. Communicating with God, either alone or in community, simply becomes part of your personality.

It's very difficult to talk to someone who feels/thinks differently about "God" than you if you believe that when they point out those differences, they are somehow attacking you personally.

My point is I think those of us to have faith, and are simultaneously able to talk about it in the abstract, logical, historical, and academic sense are kinda rare. I'm not tooting my own horn so much (well maybe a little, ;-) as just pointing out why people can get so defensive so quickly.

Ultimately, everyone is talking about the same thing, we all just have different creation myths and concepts of what or who god is.

I believe the ultimate truth is unknowable and not to be approached with the rational mind. That is why it is called faith. The important thing to remember is if your FAITH sustains you, why care what other people worship.

It is arrogant of human beings to think they can know something that is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

It lives on, and re-appears every so often, like the whole phoneix thing. It's genetic to Christianity itself. There have been about 5 major-to-minor gnostic movements in the Protestant Church in the US in the last 20 years (most of them really scary, too).

Traditions like the Masons are nearly openly Gnostic, and think of the influence they had on the US. Gnosticism is so deeply intertwined with so many things in American culture, it's nearly invisible.

Hell, our currency may has well be used as "Gnostic Symbolism 101" textbooks.

It is called the Trinity or God in three persons. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is strictly speaking an almost polytheist point of view.

I am asking a serious question. It was because of Bush* saying Islam and Christianity believed in the same God. I should never have thrown in the quip about "do they even know what they believe" Just curious how Christians can say their beliefs coincide with Islam. I understand how Judism and Islam are basically the same but Christianity is a whole new Religion with a whole new God. I guess it is as confusing to "Christians" as it is to me.

As in, each one of them can trace their origin back to the story of Abraham.

Christianity is basically an "evolution" of Judaism (in no way am I implying that Judaism is less advanced here, just that Christianity is based on Judaism), in which the original faith is expounded by the idea of God trying to reach man through Christ. But it is important to remember, that Jesus was a Jew -- not a Christian.

Islam also believes in Jesus, he is the #2 prophet behind Muhammed. But he is not seen as the "son of God". Judaism sees him as little more than a Jewish carpenter, for they believe in the Savior (as described in the OT book of Isaiah) but one that has not yet appeared. Early Christians believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy.

it's not really a good thing to take the words of that great theologian G.W. Bush too seriously.

In this case, however, although he probably has no clue himself, he did open the door to a great ecumenical discussion. He's admitting openly that religious strife is senseless.

If his supporters could figure it out, they'd be furious with him.

Could you explain to me why you put 'Christians' in quotation marks? Just curious, not upset about it.

hardly the same religion. I could have said Catholics or Protestants but then I would be leaving out some who claim the mantle of Christianity. Even on this thread we see numerous different explanations by "Christians". I'm not sure they can be pigeon-holed quite so easily as calling them Christians. Some say Jehova is their God some say Christ is the Lord, they mostly say they are Christian. It was notdone with dis-respect but by confusion as to what a "Christian" is.

and you are right. If you stand back far enough all Christian faiths are the same, but if you get closer you see some are very different indeed.

Isaiah 9:6-7......320 years before His Birth. says

"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given, And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace "there will be no end".

How else were all things made by Him and how else do you think He could be raised from the dead? We base it all on scripture. And when you believe this in your heart, you will be born again. That is all there is to it.....You are now on the road of growth In Him. And when you believe this, you will not become a republican, either. I did this over 45 years ago and I am, and always will be a yellowdog democrat...gosh, Jesus even used a donkey to ride into Jerusalem on, He could have chosen an elephant, but He was wise and wanted us to know that He was humble and loved everyone.....did He not go to the woman at the well who was shacking at the time and had over her lifetime, 5 husbands.....He loved them all.....He fed the poor and chastised the rich......He definitely was a democrat if ever I saw one. Even chased out the moneychangers, and prayed constantly. He was our pattern....prayer has never been taken out of school...I told my kids to pray hard before every test and they knew what I meant..no siree, the true kind of prayer is personal and intimate with Him.

Just a little rant on how great Jesus really is and how real He is. This is the real Jesus.....not the one we see in the publicans (re) and sinners of today......BTW, He said the last war would be between the Arabs (Ismaiel) and Jews (Isaac)....we will never defeat the Arabs so we may as well let them fight it out...

Sallyrat

And what, the Christians come in and take whatever is left over after they other two destory themselves?

edit: typo

Jesus musta been one screwed up little kid..."she's my mother, and my grandmother..." It's like something out of "Chinatown".

You can't give birth to your grand kids, the very act of giving birth to them makes that impossible. However she did in effect give birth to the person that impregnated her in the first place. That's the really weird part.

as i understand christianity

christ is NOT god, but his son and a conguit to communicate with god.
that is why some pray to him.

You pray to God through Jesus Christ, but they are two different beings.

and they wanted a kid, so they sent their buddy Gabriel to impregnate Mary, so that they could be fathers??

and you're telling me that when Joseph heard this story from Mary about why she's pregnant, he believed her??
(dum dum dum dum dum...)

I'm a devil worshipper myself. I thought all those to the left of center politically are satanists.

/sarcasm

And I was always confused about this too. Never got clear answer from anyone when I inquired about it either.

Don

I'm Christian and the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the son of God. He was a man who lived on earth until he was executed.

From the 20th chapter of John's gospel..

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Thomas referred to Jesus as God, and Christ did not correct him. Certainly Jesus would have not allowed Thomas to call him "God" if it were not the case.

John 20:30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Also, Jesus said in prayer to God: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)

From "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", a vast, learned source of early church history ... Volume I, Chapter 21


http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home.html
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/index.htm
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/cntnt21.htm

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap21.htm#aria

Read previous chapters relating to Plato and the concept of the 'Logos', and how it was adopted as a model of the so called "Holy Spirit", ... and as the "word" in the Gospel of John ...

Battles were fought over the adoption of the Trinity, as they were fought over the adoption of a deified Mary ....

Some say Saint Athanasius was directly involved in the murder of Arius, who proclaimed that the 'son' was of similar material, but NOT the identical material as the 'father', whereas Athanasius declared that the 'son' and the 'father' were of IDENTICAL substance ... a physically small distinction, but which caused a theological chasm that lasted for centuries ...

This is a very fascinating book ....


-snip-

Three systems of the Trinity.
When the mysteries of the Christian faith were dangerously exposed to public debate, it might be observed that the human understanding was capable of forming three distinct, though imperfect, systems concerning the nature of the Divine Trinity, and it was pronounced that none of these systems, in a pure and absolute sense, were exempt from heresy and error. (47)

Arianism.
I. According to the first hypothesis, which was maintained by Arius and his disciples, the logos was a dependent and spontaneous production, created from nothing by the will of the Father. The Son, by whom all things were made, (48) had been begotten before all worlds, and the longest of the astronomical periods could be compared only as a fleeting moment to the extent of his duration; yet this duration was not infinite,(49) and there had been a time which preceded the ineffable generation of the logos. On this only begotten Son the Almighty Father had transfused his ample spirit, and impressed the effulgence of his glory. Visible image of invisible perfection, he saw, at an immeasurable distance beneath his feet, the thrones of the brightest archangels; yet he shone only with a reflected light, and, like the sons of the Roman emperors, who were invested with the titles of Caesar or Augustus, (50) he governed the universe in obedience to the will of his Father and Monarch.

Tritheism.
II. In the second hypothesis, the logos possessed all the inherent, incommunicable perfections which religion and philosophy appropriate to the Supreme God. Three distinct and infinite minds or substances, three co-equal and co-eternal beings, composed the Divine Essence; (51) and it would have implied contradiction that any of them should not have existed, or that they should ever cease to exist. (52) The advocates of a system which seemed to establish three independent Deities attempted to preserve the unity of the First Cause, so conspicuous in the design and order of the world, by the perpetual concord of their administration and the essential agreement of their will. A faint resemblance of this unity of action may be discovered in the societies of men, and even of animals. The causes which disturb their harmony proceed only from the imperfection and inequality of their faculties; but the omnipotence which is guided by infinite wisdom and goodness cannot fail of choosing the same means for the accomplishment of the same ends.

Sabellianism.
III. Three beings, who, by the self-derived necessity of their existence, possess all the divine attributes in the most perfect degree, who are eternal in duration, infinite in space, and intimately present to each other and to the whole universe, irresistibly force themselves on the astonished mind as one and the same Being,(53) who, in the economy of grace, as well as in that of nature, may manifest himself under different forms, and be considered under different aspects. By this hypothesis a real substantial trinity is refined into a trinity of names and abstract modifications that subsist only in the mind which conceives them. The logos is no longer a person, but an attribute; and it is only in a figurative sense that the epithet of Son can be applied to the eternal reason which was with God from the beginning, and by which, not by whom, all things were made. The incarnation of the logos is reduced to a mere inspiration of the Divine Wisdom, which filled the soul and directed all the actions of the man Jesus. Thus, after revolving round the theological circle, we are surprised to find that the Sabellian ends where the Ebionite had begun, and that the incomprehensible mystery which excites our adoration eludes our inquiry(54)

Council of Nice, A.D. 325.
If the bishops of the council of Nice(55) had been permitted to follow the unbiassed dictates of their conscience, Arius and his associates could scarcely have flattered themselves with the hopes of obtaining a majority of votes in favour of an hypothesis so directly adverse to the two most popular opinions of the catholic world. The Arians soon perceived the danger of their situation, and prudently assumed those modest virtues which, in the fury of civil and religious dissensions, are seldom practised, or even praised, except by the weaker party. They recommended the exercise of Christian charity and moderation, urged the incomprehensible nature of the controversy, disclaimed the use of any terms or definitions which could not be found in the Scriptures, and offered, by very liberal concessions, to satisfy their adversaries without renouncing the integrity of their own principles. The victorious faction received all their proposals with haughty suspicion, and anxiously sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of Nicomedia, ingenuously confessed that the admission of the HOMOOUSION, or Consubstantial, a word already familiar to the Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly embraced by the bishops, who governed the resolutions of the synod, and, according to the lively expressions of Ambrose, (56) they used the sword, which heresy itself had drawn from the scabbard, to cut off the head of the hated monster. The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was established by the council of Nice, and has been unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental, and the Protestant churches. But if the same word had not served to stigmatise the heretics and to unite the catholics, it would have been inadequate to the purpose of the majority by whom it was introduced into the orthodox creed. This majority was divided into two parties, distinguished by a contrary tendency to the sentiments of the Tritheists and of the Sabellians. But as those opposite extremes seemed to overthrow the foundations either of natural or revealed religion, they mutually agreed to qualify the rigour of their principles, and to disavow the just, but invidious, consequences which might be urged by their antagonists. The interest of the common cause inclined them to join their numbers and to conceal their differences; their animosity was softened by the healing counsels of toleration, and their disputes were suspended by the use of the mysterious Homoousion, which either party was free to interpret according to their peculiar tenets. The Sabellian sense, which, about fifty years before, had obliged the council of Antioch(57) to prohibit this celebrated term, had endeared it to those theologians who entertained a secret but partial affection for a nominal Trinity. But the more fashionable saints of the Arian times, the intrepid Athanasius, the learned Gregory Nazianzen, and the other pillars of the church, who supported with ability and success the Nicene doctrine, appeared to consider the expression of substance as if it had been synonymous with that of nature; and they ventured to illustrate their meaning by affirming that three men, as they belong to the same common species, are consubstantial or homoousian to each other.(58) This pure and distinct equality was tempered, on the one hand, by the internal connection and spiritual penetration which indissolubly unites the divine persons; (59) and, on the other, by the pre-eminence of the Father, which was acknowledged as far as it is compatible with the independence of the Son. (60) Within these limits the almost invisible and tremulous ball of orthodoxy was allowed securely to vibrate. On either side, beyond this consecrated ground, the heretics and the daemons lurked in ambush to surprise and devour the unhappy wanderer. But as the degrees of theological hatred depend on the spirit of the war rather than on the importance of the controversy, the heretics who degraded were treated with more severity than those who annihilated the person of the Son. The life of Athanasius was consumed in irreconcilable opposition to the impious madness of the Arians,(61) but he defended above twenty years the Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when at last he was compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to mention with an ambiguous smile the venial errors of his respectable friend.(62)


-snip-

for that synopsis. It works well. I will have to study this more.

Re: the trinity. I try to think of it more as looking at God in a Three-Way mirror. You get a different perspective with each one.

a 3 in one concept god invented by the diadachi(successor of Alexander the "Great", King of Egypt) Ptolemy(sp?) and very popular in Alexandria, 2nd city of the Empire. One of the godheads was Isis, Whose attributes were transfered to Mary. Indeed, some of the vestments & ceremonial apparatus was absorbed by the Church in order to co-opt the Pagans.
gods I love Gibbons!

Study the scriptures for yourself. Here are a few verses you can start with.
Blessings to all!


Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

n/t

because I cannot read Hebrew or Greek.

Revised Standard Version myself.

for a mostly lovely, interesting, thought-provoking, considerate, and pleasant xtianity/religion thread. We are actually managing to have a good discussion without it devolving into a flamefest.

I just wanted to catch everyone in the act of being good.

Well done! It warms the cockles of my heart. Keep going. :D

if a question is asked that doesn't immediately launch into attacks but instead asks a question such discussions are possible. I hope that others that have questions or concerns about the teachings or beliefs of christians will be willing to take the same approach seen here.

God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Confused yet? :P

Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Serbian ;) ) generally think Jesus was teh SON of God... but not God. That's how I think it should be.

But then again, I don't believe in those myths. I think Jesus was a real person, but not the magical character the religion makes him out to be. I think he was more like an ancient David Koresh.

Christianity has Constantine's mother to thank for making it a "legitimate" mainstream religion. Without her pressuring her son, the Roman/Byzantine world would have not become officially Christian. It's really interesting the profound effect Constantine had on Western Civilization.

http://ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/believe.html
"I believe that from the moment of His conception in the virginal womb, Jesus Christ was one person, yet having two natures. From His conception, He was God and Man before birth, during birth and after birth."

I would also note that the Orthodox Churches recite the Nicene Creed which includes the section:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

I think he was more like an ancient David Koresh.

Except without the suicidal, narcissitic megolomania. ;-)
,