Again, the comments in the gay bishop thread got me thinking.  How do you define Christian?  What is the least common denominator?

Simple answer:  A disciple of Christ.  Someone who accepts Jesus and follows him.

Shane333 nailed it.

Quoted: Simple answer:  A disciple of Christ.  Someone who accepts Jesus and follows him.

funny, that is the definition that Thomas Jefferson (who was not considered a Christian in his time) used and Bishop Spong (who some do not consider a Christian) uses

Quoted: Quoted: Simple answer:  A disciple of Christ.  Someone who accepts Jesus and follows him. funny, that is the definition that Thomas Jefferson (who was not considered a Christian in his time) used and Bishop Spong (who some do not consider a Christian) uses

Anyone can say they are a Christian. Only God can truly know a person's heart.

However, from what people say they believe, assuming they speak what is in their heart, we can determine if they believe  and follow according to Jesus Christ's own words and the accounts provided in the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

A Christian BELIEVES Jesus Christ was WHO HE SAID HE WAS and believes he is the Messiah!

In brief, a Christian believes:

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin named Mary.
Jesus Christ was both the Son of God and the Son of Man.
Jesus Christ was both God and man.
Jesus Christ lived a perfect, sinless life.
Jesus Christ was baptized by John the Baptist.
Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross.
Jesus Christ died on the cross.
Jesus Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day.
Jesus Christ is the Messiah,  the Savior of mankind.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (and others).
Salvation, through Jesus Christ, is a free gift from God extended to mankind.

I think this list is the least common denominator of Christianity and is the essence of the Gospels' account. If you feel this list is incomplete, let's hear what you have to say! (I know it's not good to minimize the life of Jesus Christ in any way, but I'm trying to answer the original quesion.)

Yes, there were many parables and moral/ethical lessons and miracles Jesus Christ performed, but belief in those events themselves do NOT lead to salvation.

Quoted: Simple answer:  A disciple of Christ.  Someone who accepts Jesus and follows him.

Agreed. It's sad, though, how many people who describe themselves as Christians have no idea what Jesus said or did. How can you follow someone if  you don't hear their voice?

A sinner saved by grace of God.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Simple answer:  A disciple of Christ.  Someone who accepts Jesus and follows him. funny, that is the definition that Thomas Jefferson (who was not considered a Christian in his time) used and Bishop Spong (who some do not consider a Christian) uses Anyone can say they are a Christian. Only God can truly know a person's heart. However, from what people say they believe, assuming they speak what is in their heart, we can determine if they believe  and follow according to Jesus Christ's own words and the accounts provided in the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A Christian BELIEVES Jesus Christ was WHO HE SAID HE WAS and believes he is the Messiah! In brief, a Christian believes: Jesus Christ was born of a virgin named Mary. Jesus Christ was both the Son of God and the Son of Man. Jesus Christ was both God and man. Jesus Christ lived a perfect, sinless life. Jesus Christ was baptized by John the Baptist. Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross. Jesus Christ died on the cross. Jesus Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day. Jesus Christ is the Messiah,  the Savior of mankind. Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (and others). Salvation, through Jesus Christ, is a free gift from God extended to mankind. I think this list is the least common denominator of Christianity and is the essence of the Gospels' account. If you feel this list is incomplete, let's hear what you have to say! (I know it's not good to minimize the life of Jesus Christ in any way, but I'm trying to answer the original quesion.) Yes, there were many parables and moral/ethical lessons and miracles Jesus Christ performed, but belief in those events themselves do NOT lead to salvation.

So Christian Unitarians aren't Christians?    interesting
What about Christians who view the resurrection as a spiritual, not a physical, event?
What about those who don't believe Mary was a Virgin and the entire idea was concocted from mystery religions combined with a mistranslation of a prophecy that didn't even concern Jesus?

The problem with your view is it ignores historical reality.  The Christianity we have today is a result of the suppression of all other views.    Small populations of believers with "heretical" views survive to this day all over the world.  

Quoted:

What about Christians who view the resurrection as a spiritual, not a physical, event?
What about them?

What about those who don't believe Mary was a Virgin and the entire idea was concocted from mystery religions combined with a mistranslation of a prophecy that didn't even concern Jesus?
Again, what about them?

The problem with your view is it ignores historical reality.  The Christianity we have today is a result of the suppression of all other views.
Any version of anything we have today is because of the suppression of other views. So?


Small populations of believers with "heretical" views survive to this day all over the world.  
And?
I really don't understand what you meant to demonstrate with this post.

Quoted: Again, the comments in the gay bishop thread got me thinking.  How do you define Christian?  What is the least common denominator?

Shane333 nailed it.

But you bring up this other thread and it got me to thinking.

A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth.

BUT

a person who claims to be a Christian

and

who is in a leadership (Bishop) position in the church of Jesus Christ no matter the denomination should at alest try and resemble Christ.

Being gay, divorced and alcoholic is not someone I think should be in a leadership position within the Christian church. The Bible has guidelines about these things.....  Start in the book of Timothy I believe.

Quoted: Quoted: Again, the comments in the gay bishop thread got me thinking.  How do you define Christian?  What is the least common denominator? Shane333 nailed it. But you bring up this other thread and it got me to thinking. A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth. BUT a person who claims to be a Christian and who is in a leadership (Bishop) position in the church of Jesus Christ no matter the denomination should at alest try and resemble Christ. Being gay, divorced and alcoholic is not someone I think should be in a leadership position within the Christian church. The Bible has guidelines about these things.....  Start in the book of Timothy I believe.

Ok I understand the gay part.......but why can't a church leader be a recovering alcoholic or divorced?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, the comments in the gay bishop thread got me thinking.  How do you define Christian?  What is the least common denominator? Shane333 nailed it. But you bring up this other thread and it got me to thinking. A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth. BUT a person who claims to be a Christian and who is in a leadership (Bishop) position in the church of Jesus Christ no matter the denomination should at alest try and resemble Christ. Being gay, divorced and alcoholic is not someone I think should be in a leadership position within the Christian church. The Bible has guidelines about these things.....  Start in the book of Timothy I believe. Ok I understand the gay part.......but why can't a church leader be a recovering alcoholic or divorced?

My personal thoughts:

If a church leader is a "recovered" alcoholic, I'm fine assuming the leader doesn't slip back into old habits.  If the leader is still in the process of recovering, it may be time to step aside for a while until one's own life and house is in order.

For me it goes back to what bvmjethead said about no Christian being perfect, but church leaders should expect to live up to a higher standard because of the nature of their calling.  Not a perfect standard (because only Christ himself could live that) but at least trying to be as close to it as they can.

Here's a personal example from my own life.  When I was a branch president over a remote branch of the LDS Church in Betijoque, Venezuela, I was most certainly held to a higher standard.  Not only because I was responsible for watching over the congregation and setting a good example for them, but also because as a local church leader I held a high profile position in the community and the LDS Church wants to protect it's own integrity.  

Therefore any indecent conduct on my part could have tainted the good name of the LDS Church.  If I had fooled around with some woman while serving in that position, I would likely have faced automatic excommunication because of the impact such actions would have had on the Church's reputation throughout that entire community.

Quoted: So Christian Unitarians aren't Christians?    interesting

I don't know what a Unitarian is. If you care to educate me, that'd be great. But, if an individual does not believe Jesus Christ is their personal savior, then they are not Christian.

Quoted: What about Christians who view the resurrection as a spiritual, not a physical, event?

That doesn't make sense at all, Dino. How can you possibly be a Christian if you don't believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Was Lazarus only brought back to life spiritually and not physically? No. He was brought back physically. The Bible clearly describes Jesus walking and talking after coming back to life. Did "doubting" Thomas have a spiritual examination of Jesus' hand wounds? No. Thomas saw Jesus' hand wounds from the crucifixion physically and Jesus spoke to him (and others) person-to-person, physically. Jesus' resurrection was 100% physical, as well as spiritual.

Quoted: What about those who don't believe Mary was a Virgin and the entire idea was concocted from mystery religions combined with a mistranslation of a prophecy that didn't even concern Jesus?

How can you pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible? If you don't believe Mary was a virgin, why do you believe Jesus even existed or ANYTHING in the Bible for that matter!?

Quoted: The problem with your view is it ignores historical reality.

What historical reality are you citing?

Quoted: The Christianity we have today is a result of the suppression of all other views.

Oh really, is that why there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world? Millions of Jews? Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. etc.

Quoted: Small populations of believers with "heretical" views survive to this day all over the world.

Yeah, ever been to the Flat Earth Society's website? They think that the earth is actually flat and not round. There are all KINDS of crazy things people choose to believe. Your point does not affect the authenticity of the Bible at all.

Thousands of historians and researchers and theologians have confirmed the time periods the books of the Bible were written. Individuals may choose to not believe the texts, but the fact they were written at specific times in history is backed-up overwhelmingly.

Quoted: How can you pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible? If you don't believe Mary was a virgin, why do you believe Jesus even existed or ANYTHING in the Bible for that matter!?

Sorry for the post butchery Aerospace_Engineer...but I have a question. Does the all the Bible have to be taken as fact has it is written? I understand arguement that it would be trending on "dangerous ground" not to.....

Quoted: Quoted: How can you pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible? If you don't believe Mary was a virgin, why do you believe Jesus even existed or ANYTHING in the Bible for that matter!? Sorry for the post butchery Aerospace_Engineer...but I have a question. Does the all the Bible have to be taken as fact has it is written? I understand arguement that it would be trending on "dangerous ground" not to.....

Let me hop in here.   The Bible like any book should be taken as it was intended to be taken.

There is symbolic language in the Bible.   When Jesus said, "I am the door."  Noone was looking at Him wondering where the hinges and knob were.  

What we need to ask is how did the author intend this to be understood?  Parables are usually clearly indicated and other symbolic language can be usually understood from context.

The writer of Luke-Acts clearly writes in a Greco-Roman historical style.  He address his patron Theophilus, he gives his intention to give an orderly account, he introduces major people by sharing one of their messages.

The writers of Matthew, Mark and John create a new category of literature called a Gospel.  While it has theological import, it is primarily biographical in nature.  They differ from many of the biographies of the day in some respects but their intent is obviously to tell the story of someone named Jesus.

Quoted: Quoted: How can you pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible? If you don't believe Mary was a virgin, why do you believe Jesus even existed or ANYTHING in the Bible for that matter!? Sorry for the post butchery Aerospace_Engineer...but I have a question. Does the all the Bible have to be taken as fact has it is written? I understand arguement that it would be trending on "dangerous ground" not to.....

I apologize to Aerospace_Engineer for stepping on his toes, but I'd like to make a few comments here.

The question is valid.  There are parables given in the Bible that are stories with a message.  These may or may not have actually happened as real events at some point in time.  However, it's clearly the message of these parables that is important for us.

There are other parts of the Bible, like the book of Revelation, that describes actual events but does so in a very interesting descriptive manner that may at times seem vague to us.

Generally speaking, I would take events mentioned in the Bible as fact.  Yes, I believe that Moses literally divided the Red Sea.  Yes, Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Quoted: Quoted: So Christian Unitarians aren't Christians?    interesting I don't know what a Unitarian is. If you care to educate me, that'd be great. But, if an individual does not believe Jesus Christ is their personal savior, then they are not Christian. Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God Quoted: What about Christians who view the resurrection as a spiritual, not a physical, event? That doesn't make sense at all, Dino. How can you possibly be a Christian if you don't believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Was Lazarus only brought back to life spiritually and not physically? No. He was brought back physically. The Bible clearly describes Jesus walking and talking after coming back to life. Did "doubting" Thomas have a spiritual examination of Jesus' hand wounds? No. Thomas saw Jesus' hand wounds from the crucifixion physically and Jesus spoke to him (and others) person-to-person, physically. Jesus' resurrection was 100% physical, as well as spiritual. the earliest scriptures are the Pauline epistles.    They don't specify a physical resurrection.  Later sources, with a more developed view of Christ, make a physical resurrection necessary. Quoted: What about those who don't believe Mary was a Virgin and the entire idea was concocted from mystery religions combined with a mistranslation of a prophecy that didn't even concern Jesus? How can you pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible? If you don't believe Mary was a virgin, why do you believe Jesus even existed or ANYTHING in the Bible for that matter!? Quoted: The problem with your view is it ignores historical reality. What historical reality are you citing? Christianity didn't spring whole in ~30 AD from the roots of Palestine.  It was a development process like any belief system goes through.   Trying to push our views back on people 2000 years ago ignores the simple fact that they didn't believe the things we do now.   Assuming that when Paul says Christ it means the exact thing you mean when you say Christ today is foolish.   Quoted: The Christianity we have today is a result of the suppression of all other views. Oh really, is that why there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world? Millions of Jews? Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. etc. *sigh*  I'm talking about the suppression of ideas like Arianism, Universalism (though they didn't do such a good job with that one due the the GreeK Orthodox Church), Catharism, etc...   You know,  Christians suppressing the ideas of other Christian they labelled "heretic" Quoted: Small populations of believers with "heretical" views survive to this day all over the world.   Yeah, ever been to the Flat Earth Society's website? They think that the earth is actually flat and not round. There are all KINDS of crazy things people choose to believe. Your point does not affect the authenticity of the Bible at all. lol, most of the time you see Biblical literalist compared to flat earthers, not the other way around Thousands of historians and researchers and theologians have confirmed the time periods the books of the Bible were written. Individuals may choose to not believe the texts, but the fact they were written at specific times in history is backed-up overwhelmingly.

Yes and they were written in a certain order.   Those who wrote later volumes had access to the earlier works in most cases (in every case for the canonized books)  

If you start with the earliest and move forward, you can see a how the view of Christ alterred and changed over the time the Gospel was written.    I accept the standard historical view on the dating, but leave room for new discoveries to refine our dates.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How can you pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible? If you don't believe Mary was a virgin, why do you believe Jesus even existed or ANYTHING in the Bible for that matter!? Sorry for the post butchery Aerospace_Engineer...but I have a question. Does the all the Bible have to be taken as fact has it is written? I understand arguement that it would be trending on "dangerous ground" not to..... Let me hop in here.   The Bible like any book should be taken as it was intended to be taken. There is symbolic language in the Bible.   When Jesus said, "I am the door."  Noone was looking at Him wondering where the hinges and knob were.   What we need to ask is how did the author intend this to be understood?  Parables are usually clearly indicated and other symbolic language can be usually understood from context. The writer of Luke-Acts clearly writes in a Greco-Roman historical style.  He address his patron Theophilus, he gives his intention to give an orderly account, he introduces major people by sharing one of their messages. The writers of Matthew, Mark and John create a new category of literature called a Gospel.  While it has theological import, it is primarily biographical in nature.  They differ from many of the biographies of the day in some respects but their intent is obviously to tell the story of someone named Jesus.

___

"Let me hop in here. The Bible like any book should be taken as it was intended to be taken."

__

Then it should be read in Hebrew.

The “Old Testament” is not the Jewish Bible. It’s an extremely novel reading of the Septuagint Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. So, reread, the Bible is no longer the history of covenant and Torah, but a complex web of prediction of the life, death and resurrection of jesus the “Messiah”.

Quoted: Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God

Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity.

Quoted: the earliest scriptures are the Pauline epistles.    They don't specify a physical resurrection.  Later sources, with a more developed view of Christ, make a physical resurrection necessary.

I have not researched the so-called "Pauline epistles", as you identify them by that name, but are you considering these to be contained in the Bible we have today, or not?

Quoted: Christianity didn't spring whole in ~30 AD from the roots of Palestine.

What makes you say that?

Quoted: It was a development process like any belief system goes through.

Christianity is not a "belief system" like any other religion. No other religion has God offering free passage into heaven by accepting his holy Grace. Christianity is more like the "opposite" of religion. Religions around the world traditionally have some sort of "deed" or series of "works" which man has to perform to achieve a higher form of spiritual enlightenment or to get to heaven. Christianity has NONE of this. All Chirstianity is, is accepting God's sacrificial Son, Jesus Christ. There is nothing a person needs to "do" to be a Christian.

Dino, are you saying that eventhough the 4 Gospels account of Jesus' life can be traced back to almost 2000 years ago, you still think they were made-up recently by some really creative individuals? How do you account for all of the prophecies that were fulfilled within the Bible's timeline?

Quoted: Trying to push our views back on people 2000 years ago ignores the simple fact that they didn't believe the things we do now.

Push our views? Back on people 2000 years ago? Dino, are you serious? I'll give you the benefit-of-the-doubt: Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your statement, because I don't even know what to say to this. That statement's laughable, at best! Anyone else want to touch this one?

Quoted: *sigh*  I'm talking about the suppression of ideas like Arianism, Universalism (though they didn't do such a good job with that one due the the GreeK Orthodox Church), Catharism, etc...   You know,  Christians suppressing the ideas of other Christian they labelled "heretic"

*sigh* Yeah, the movie of this comes out in May of this year and it stars Tom Hanks. We all know about this one...

Quoted: lol, most of the time you see Biblical literalist compared to flat earthers, not the other way around

Again, the movie comes out in May.

Quoted: Yes and they were written in a certain order.   Those who wrote later volumes had access to the earlier works in most cases (in every case for the canonized books)   If you start with the earliest and move forward, you can see a how the view of Christ alterred and changed over the time the Gospel was written.    I accept the standard historical view on the dating, but leave room for new discoveries to refine our dates.

I agree mostly with you on this point, Dino. It is possibile previously unkown documents and/or tablets could be unearthed and shed additional light on the Bible. Apparently you are so aware of how wrong the Bible is, yet you never seem to talk about the text itself. You just disregard it as being some heavily errored text that was translated by stupid people. That's fine by itself, but don't claim that some text you know of that is older than parts of the Bible (supposedly) is somehow the definitive proof the Bible is a misguided fairytale.

I'll look into these Pauline epistles, because I am very curious about learning all I can. I'd like to see what textual evidence you have that the "Christ" Paul (I think this is who you said) refered to was not  Jesus Christ, as in the 4 Gospels of the Bible.

Quoted: Quoted: Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity.

How so? (Preferably from the scriptures, and something that says what what you just typed)

( - - I agree with Dino on something)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. How so? (Preferably from the scriptures, and something that says what what you just typed) ( - - I agree with Dino on something)

Hi ghengiskhabb,

I am sorry if I have offended you and others of who believe as you do. I am very blunt and perhaps that is not the most appropriate thing to be in this instance. Please, forgive me.

Please, explain to me what you believe as far as Jesus' relationship to God. Do you believe Jesus had no divinity? Was he 100% man and 0% God? Do you believe he was born of Mary, a virgin?

My understanding from the Bible is that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man together. That is the reason he was able to live a perfect life, free of sin. And that is what makes him worthy to have been sacrificed to save mankind from our sin.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. How so? (Preferably from the scriptures, and something that says what what you just typed) ( - - I agree with Dino on something)

Let's look at John. John is good place to start when identifying the deity of Jesus.


John 1:29-34

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.


John 3:14-15

This is Jesus himself speaking:

14 And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole,

15 so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life.

--Who says such a thing, except for God? How can someone "believe IN him", unless he himself is God? If he is not God, is that not idolatry?

The original Christains were called so because they werer Christlike. They actually made a visible example of Christs teachings such as speaking of Gods lovs and being peaceful. This does not mean they went around and admitted homosexuals to the clergy though. They also believed and taught as Jesus did and had no room to allow one to cintinue to live in sin.

Jesus came to save sinners from their sin, not to save them in their sins. Unfortunately most of todays christianisty preaches a savior from Hell only and not a Savior from sin. Unlike Jesus, too may are too eager to give unrepentant sin a wink and a go to be continually practiced.

Quoted: Quoted: How so? (Preferably from the scriptures, and something that says what what you just typed) ( - - I agree with Dino on something) Hi ghengiskhabb, I am sorry if I have offended you and others of who believe as you do. I am very blunt and perhaps that is not the most appropriate thing to be in this instance. Please, forgive me. Please, explain to me what you believe as far as Jesus' relationship to God. Do you believe Jesus had no divinity? Was he 100% man and 0% God? Do you believe he was born of Mary, a virgin?

No offense taken. I used to believe in the Trinity until I was asked to prove why and couldn't. I found the scriptures normally used were lacking in forcefullness.

What I believe: I believe Jesus was Gods only begotten Son concieved by the Holy Ghost in Mary's womb. I believe that the word "concieved" means what it says and does not mean "transplanted". I believe He died, was burried, and resurrected into life eternal. He sits at the right hand of God. He will be the judge at the resurrection. I belive he fulfilled most of the prophecies about the messiah, but still has a few left. None of these require him to be God. (Yes I am well aware of Isaiah 9:6, read it again)

Why I reject that Jesus was God
Primarily: There are no requirements for him to be God
Being sinless does not require him to be God (Adam was supposed to be sinless).  
Being concieved of the holy spirit does not require Him to be God (Adam once again).
Being a judge does not require him to be God.
Fogiving sins does not require him to be God (we are supposed to, Colosians 13:3 and others).
Performing miracles does not mean he was God (many did it after recieving the holy spirit just like Jesus after his baptism)

Secondly: He was a man
He was tempted at all points like me except without sin - This means nothing if he was God and would be a total lie.
He died. - Just how does one kill God?
He was seen - Nobody has seen God at any time (1 John 4:12)
He was obedient to God - This means nothing if he was God.

There is much (much) more. There are scriptures that allude to Jesus being God, but they are few really lack the force of those that deny He was God and separate Jesus from God.

Quoted: My understanding from the Bible is that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man together. That is the reason he was able to live a perfect life, free of sin. And that is what makes him worthy to have been sacrificed to save mankind from our sin.

There is no scripture that makes any of these points. I tried.



Dino may be quite different on these points.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, the comments in the gay bishop thread got me thinking.  How do you define Christian?  What is the least common denominator? Shane333 nailed it. But you bring up this other thread and it got me to thinking. A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth. BUT a person who claims to be a Christian and who is in a leadership (Bishop) position in the church of Jesus Christ no matter the denomination should at alest try and resemble Christ. Being gay, divorced and alcoholic is not someone I think should be in a leadership position within the Christian church. The Bible has guidelines about these things.....  Start in the book of Timothy I believe. Ok I understand the gay part.......but why can't a church leader be a recovering alcoholic or divorced?

It's somewhere in there (the Bible) that a leader should not be "given to much drink" or something like that.  Also talks about having only one wife.

Start in Timothy or Titus somewhere in there........

Quoted: A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth.

Nobody except Jesus said that, that is"

Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Sort of raises the bar a bit, doesn't it?

Quoted: Quoted: Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. That is what I am saying.   Many Unitarian Christians would disagree with you and think the concept of the trinity is wrong and violates the 2nd commandment. Quoted: the earliest scriptures are the Pauline epistles.    They don't specify a physical resurrection.  Later sources, with a more developed view of Christ, make a physical resurrection necessary. I have not researched the so-called "Pauline epistles", as you identify them by that name, but are you considering these to be contained in the Bible we have today, or not? The Bible is divided into historical books (the Gospels and Acts) and the epistles (the next 21 or 22 books depending if you count Revelations as an epistle or set it apart as a prophetic book).   The Pauline epistles are the epistles attributed to Paul, even if written pseudopegraphically.   The Epistles are generally divided into the Pauline Epistles and the Non-Pauline (General) Epistles. Paul’s epistles fall into two categories: nine epistles written to churches (Romans to 2 Thessalonians) and four pastoral and personal epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon). This is then followed by eight Hebrew Christian epistles (Hebrews to Jude). Hope that is helpful Quoted: Christianity didn't spring whole in ~30 AD from the roots of Palestine. What makes you say that?  I don't know where to begin.   Do you honestly think Christianity has been static and unchanging for 2000 years? Quoted: It was a development process like any belief system goes through. Christianity is not a "belief system" like any other religion. No other religion has God offering free passage into heaven by accepting his holy Grace. Christianity is more like the "opposite" of religion. Religions around the world traditionally have some sort of "deed" or series of "works" which man has to perform to achieve a higher form of spiritual enlightenment or to get to heaven. Christianity has NONE of this. All Chirstianity is, is accepting God's sacrificial Son, Jesus Christ. There is nothing a person needs to "do" to be a Christian. Really?  Then why don't you consider Unitarians to be Chrisitans?  Apparently they still need to do something.  Of course that is your belief and God will have the final say on that Dino, are you saying that eventhough the 4 Gospels account of Jesus' life can be traced back to almost 2000 years ago, you still think they were made-up recently by some really creative individuals? How do you account for all of the prophecies that were fulfilled within the Bible's timeline? You use the words made up and recently and I think neither of those applies.   Is the parable of the Prodigal Son literally true?  No.  Does that mean it is "made up" in the sense you mean?  No.   There is a recognized order that historians have agreed upon with rough dates based upon literary and historical analysis of the texts.  There is also recognition that certain books borrow upon other books.   If by recently you mean late first century to late 2nd century, then yes, recently. Quoted: Trying to push our views back on people 2000 years ago ignores the simple fact that they didn't believe the things we do now. Push our views? Back on people 2000 years ago? Dino, are you serious? I'll give you the benefit-of-the-doubt: Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your statement, because I don't even know what to say to this. That statement's laughable, at best! Anyone else want to touch this one? When you assume that your modern understanding of Jesus is the same as the understanding of  a Jewish male 2000 years ago, you are making a mistake.   Thus you are pushing your understanding on a person who can no longer speak for themselves.  Only when someone leaves evidence (like a book or letters) does it give us insight into what they believed.   Like the Pauline Epistles....  Is that clear enough for you? Quoted: *sigh*  I'm talking about the suppression of ideas like Arianism, Universalism (though they didn't do such a good job with that one due the the GreeK Orthodox Church), Catharism, etc...   You know,  Christians suppressing the ideas of other Christian they labelled "heretic" *sigh* Yeah, the movie of this comes out in May of this year and it stars Tom Hanks. We all know about this one... Arianism, Universalism, and Catharism are but a few of the major Christian heresies.  This is not anything new or hidden and certainly has nothing to do with the DaVinci code.  The DaVinci code is based almost entirely on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which is a pretty good "what if" kind of book, but is hardly historical.   If you want to learn about different Christian heresies, head to CARM for more info. Quoted: Yes and they were written in a certain order.   Those who wrote later volumes had access to the earlier works in most cases (in every case for the canonized books)   If you start with the earliest and move forward, you can see a how the view of Christ alterred and changed over the time the Gospel was written.    I accept the standard historical view on the dating, but leave room for new discoveries to refine our dates. I agree mostly with you on this point, Dino. It is possibile previously unkown documents and/or tablets could be unearthed and shed additional light on the Bible. Apparently you are so aware of how wrong the Bible is, yet you never seem to talk about the text itself. You just disregard it as being some heavily errored text that was translated by stupid people. That's fine by itself, but don't claim that some text you know of that is older than parts of the Bible (supposedly) is somehow the definitive proof the Bible is a misguided fairytale. I'll look into these Pauline epistles, because I am very curious about learning all I can. I'd like to see what textual evidence you have that the "Christ" Paul (I think this is who you said) refered to was not  Jesus Christ, as in the 4 Gospels of the Bible.

I did not say the Bible was wrong or that the people who passed it down were stupid.  That is your interpretation of what I said.   The texts I mention are IN the Bible, as my comments above explained.    I also did not say that the Christ he was referring to was not the Jesus Christ of the Gospels.   I said that Paul's concept of Jesus was less complex from the standpoint of details.   Paul didn't mention details from the synoptics, because they had not been written when he wrote his letters. The Christ of Paul, is not as fleshed out with details as in the later texts.  

Quoted: Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity.

YOU say that. And maybe your religion says that. The BIBLE does not say that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unitarians believe God is one, not a trinity.  So Jesus is not God.  Unitarian Christiants believe Jesus is the saviour and  the son of God, but he is not God Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. How so? (Preferably from the scriptures, and something that says what what you just typed) ( - - I agree with Dino on something) Let's look at John. John is good place to start when identifying the deity of Jesus. John 1:29-34 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. John 3:14-15 This is Jesus himself speaking: 14 And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, 15 so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life. --Who says such a thing, except for God? How can someone "believe IN him", unless he himself is God? If he is not God, is that not idolatry?

Btw you just made my point for me.  

You didn't go to the Pauline epistles for proof, the best proof is in Revelations.  Revelations is one of the later books to be written, with a more fully developed view of Christ (aka Christology)

They both look at the same figure, but see him in different ways.  John's view is based on Paul's view, so its easy to weave a whole cloth from the 2 narratives, but when taken seperately (as they were originally written) then there are marked differences.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How so? (Preferably from the scriptures, and something that says what what you just typed) ( - - I agree with Dino on something) Hi ghengiskhabb, I am sorry if I have offended you and others of who believe as you do. I am very blunt and perhaps that is not the most appropriate thing to be in this instance. Please, forgive me. Please, explain to me what you believe as far as Jesus' relationship to God. Do you believe Jesus had no divinity? Was he 100% man and 0% God? Do you believe he was born of Mary, a virgin? No offense taken. I used to believe in the Trinity until I was asked to prove why and couldn't. I found the scriptures normally used were lacking in forcefullness. What I believe: I believe Jesus was Gods only begotten Son concieved by the Holy Ghost in Mary's womb. I believe that the word "concieved" means what it says and does not mean "transplanted". I believe He died, was burried, and resurrected into life eternal. He sits at the right hand of God. He will be the judge at the resurrection. I belive he fulfilled most of the prophecies about the messiah, but still has a few left. None of these require him to be God. (Yes I am well aware of Isaiah 9:6, read it again) Why I reject that Jesus was God Primarily: There are no requirements for him to be God Being sinless does not require him to be God (Adam was supposed to be sinless).   Being concieved of the holy spirit does not require Him to be God (Adam once again). Being a judge does not require him to be God. Fogiving sins does not require him to be God (we are supposed to, Colosians 13:3 and others). Performing miracles does not mean he was God (many did it after recieving the holy spirit just like Jesus after his baptism) Secondly: He was a man He was tempted at all points like me except without sin - This means nothing if he was God and would be a total lie. He died. - Just how does one kill God? He was seen - Nobody has seen God at any time (1 John 4:12) He was obedient to God - This means nothing if he was God. There is much (much) more. There are scriptures that allude to Jesus being God, but they are few really lack the force of those that deny He was God and separate Jesus from God. Quoted: My understanding from the Bible is that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man together. That is the reason he was able to live a perfect life, free of sin. And that is what makes him worthy to have been sacrificed to save mankind from our sin. There is no scripture that makes any of these points. I tried. Dino may be quite different on these points.

nope you summed it up pretty well.

Getting Jesus as God from scripture requires some mental gymnastics.  Jesus as saviour is pretty clear no matter how you read it.

Quoted: Quoted: A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth. Nobody except Jesus said that, that is" Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Sort of raises the bar a bit, doesn't it?

the standard interpretation is that statement is hyberbole.  You can strive for perfection but never attain it.

Quoted: Quoted: Are you saying that Unitarians believe Jesus was not a deity? If so, then they are not Christians. I cannot speak to an individuals' actual heart, but the deity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. YOU say that. And maybe your religion says that. The BIBLE does not say that.

+1

Quoted: John 3:14-15 This is Jesus himself speaking: 14 And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, 15 so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life. --Who says such a thing, except for God? How can someone "believe IN him", unless he himself is God? If he is not God, is that not idolatry?

What a wonderful example. Those who believed enough to look on the serpent in the pole (Numbers 21:9) would be saved (from a poisonous snake bite), just like those who believed in Jesus would also be. The snake on the pole was not God, and there is no requirement for Jesus to be God.

Let's add the next verse John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

(Hope I got that right, it was from memory) Note: God and Jesus and they are clearly separated. Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to explain fully that Jesus is God, but it is not there.


Your idolotry example does not fit (Exodous 20)
20:4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on earth under it, or that is in the water below. (fails this test)
20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, who visits the iniquity of fathers on children, even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me,
20:6 but who extends faithful love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Quoted: Quoted: A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth. Nobody except Jesus said that, that is" Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Sort of raises the bar a bit, doesn't it?

Yes it does and I've often wondered about that verse.

I'm not there yet.....

I always took Mt 5:48 as the requirements to acheive eternal life on our own merit.  i.e. we can't achieve perfection thus we always need a savior.

Jesus makes numerous statements about "God the Father" and the "Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit".

Just one example: Matthew28:16-20

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

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

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is one example. There are many other verses in the Bible that speak to the Trinity. This is a topic of itself and we can go back and forth all day long.

The point here, is whether or not the deity of Jesus matters. Yes, it does!

Your idolotry example does not fit (Exodous 20) 20:4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on earth under it, or that is in the water below. (fails this test) 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, who visits the iniquity of fathers on children, even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, 20:6 but who extends faithful love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

What test? I missed your point here.

Quoted: There are scriptures that allude to Jesus being God, but they are few really lack the force of those that deny He was God and separate Jesus from God.

Few!!!!????!!!!

Lack Force!!!!????!!!!

From Acts 2:36 to Revelation 22:21 at least one of these phrases occur 106 times!!! to reference Jesus Christ:

"LORD JESUS CHRIST"
"CHRIST JESUS, OUR LORD"
"LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST"
"BOTH LORD AND CHRIST"

Now, why are these 106 verses calling Him "LORD" in the same context as "LORD" is used in reference to God the Father?


If you do not believe Jesus Christ is God, can you please explain these verses?

Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

What say you, ghengiskhabb? Would you like to see all 106? Show me a verse that DENIES Jesus is God.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A Christian is not perfect nor will ever be in this life anyway. And nobody is saying we are or should be perfect while here on earth. Nobody except Jesus said that, that is" Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Sort of raises the bar a bit, doesn't it? the standard interpretation is that statement is hyberbole.  You can strive for perfection but never attain it.

Somebody needs to tell Paul:

Php 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Quoted: Yes it does and I've often wondered about that verse. I'm not there yet.....

Me neither, brother. Me neither . . .

Quoted: From Acts 2:36 to Revelation 22:21 at least one of these phrases occur 106 times!!! to reference Jesus Christ: "LORD JESUS CHRIST" "CHRIST JESUS, OUR LORD" "LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST" "BOTH LORD AND CHRIST" Now, why are these 106 verses calling Him "LORD" in the same context as "LORD" is used in reference to God the Father? If you do not believe Jesus Christ is God, can you please explain these verses? Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. What say you, ghengiskhabb? Would you like to see all 106? Show me a verse that DENIES Jesus is God.

The use of the word LORD proves nothing. First of all, there are no capital letters in Greek so can't put any stock in whether the word is capitalized. Beyond that, the same Greek word "lord" (Strong's # 2962) that you put so much stock into can be translated "master" or "sir" as well. For example, in Joh 12:21 that very same Greek  word (in this case translated SIR) is used to address Phillip ("The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.") You're not suggesting that Phillip is God, too, are you?

You simply can't build a doctrine on the use of the word lord. For, as Paul tells us there be many lords — including the lord God and the lord Jesus. THat's two distinct souls.:

1Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Quoted: Show me a verse that DENIES Jesus is God.

Well, aside from all the verses that call him the "son of God" you could start by chewing on these for a while:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Mr 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Joh 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

2Co 5: 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Re 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Quoted: The use of the word LORD proves nothing. First of all, there are no capital letters in Greek so can't put any stock in whether the word is capitalized. Beyond that, the same Greek word "lord" (Strong's # 2962) that you put so much stock into can be translated "master" or "sir" as well. For example, in Joh 12:21 that very same Greek  word (in this case translated SIR) is used to address Phillip ("The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.") You're not suggesting that Phillip is God, too, are you? You simply can't build a doctrine on the use of the word lord. For, as Paul tells us (all the lords are the same Greek word, btw) there be many lords — including the lord God and the lord Jesus. THat's two distinct souls.: 1Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

You clearly missed my point. Please read the thread before posting.

If you want debate the Greek translation, that's a whole new post/thread/room/website.

Your semantic game proves nothing. The fact that I typed in all caps is obviously for emphasis. I made no such claim that the text actually was in all caps. What a silly, desperate accusation!

Build a doctrine on the word lord, how did you know! I made it all up!

I made no claim of Philip being God, again you are trying to use semantics to twist my original statements!

You simply can't build a case against my statements without making stuff up!

Please Try Again.

Quoted: You clearly missed my point. Please read the thread before posting

Wasn't THIS your point:

Now, why are these 106 verses calling Him "LORD" in the same context as "LORD" is used in reference to God the Father?

I repeat: The common use of the word lord means nothing.

Mt 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Mr 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Quoted: Quoted: Show me a verse that DENIES Jesus is God. Well, aside from all the verses that call him the "son of God" you could start by chewing on these for a while: 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; This verse acknowldges the role of Jesus and the fact that Jesus is man, I agree 100%. Jesus was a man and deity at the same time. Whay is that so hard to understand? No denial of Jesus' deity here. Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Yes, God the Father is greater than Jesus, I know this. Nothing new here to me. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are not assumed to be equal. If you examine the context of this verse, Jesus is explaining the power God the Father has: John 14:26-31 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. Clearly acknowldging the Trinity nature of God. In verse 26 Jesus he says the Holy Chost is sent in "my name". No denial of Jesus' deity here. Mr 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Jesus is always talking about the goodness of God the Father. No denial of Jesus' deity here. Joh 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Yes, yes, to ask the Father in Jesus' name. John 16:23-33 23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. 25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: 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. 29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. 30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? 32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. 33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. How does Jesus overcome the world if he is man only, and not God? No denial of Jesus' deity here. Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Yes, this is very significant. Jesus was always explaining the importance, power, might of God the Father and how essential God the Father is. Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Bladeswitcher Disclaimer: Obviously, not in English) because it was at that moment, that God the Father completely abandoned Jesus and the weight of the sin of mankind was upon his shoulders. No denial of Jesus' deity here. Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Jesus goes to be with God the Father. God is our Father and Jesus' Father. No denial of Jesus' deity here. Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. No man has seen God, this is true. It is death to look upon God, as he is pure holiness. Jesus was 100% human and had no God-like physical characteristics about his appearance. Seeing Jesus is in no way equivalent to "looking upon God" or seeing God. No denial of Jesus' deity here. 2Co 5: 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Hey, we have a "God was in Christ" over here! You sure you want this verse to get out!? (tongue-in-cheek for the previous sentence of mine, ofcourse ) How can "God be in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" if there is no deity in Jesus at all? 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Wow, the Love of Christ constrains us (guides us, controls us). How can he do that without power deriving from that of God? We go through Christ to God the Father, indeed. No denial of Jesus' deity here. Re 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. You do know that "his feet" is that of an angel of God, not Jesus, right? Indeed, worship God. No denial of Jesus' deity here.

When I say Jesus Christ was God. I am saying that he is BOTH 100% man and 100% God together. He is God, but in a human body. He performed miracles and resisted all temptations of sin. A pure man with no deity is not capable of this.

Jesus' identity is not the same as God the Father's identity. He clearly states that God the Father is more powerful than he and is to be worshiped.

Do you pray in Jesus' name? Do you pray to Jesus?

How can the saviour of the world not be just a man, and not of God?

Read the entire Chapter 22 of Revelation.

Jesus is speaking in these verses (that are in red) of Chapter 22 of Revelation:

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.


Jesus says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Who, but God, can say this and make this claim?

Jesus says, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify." What man can claim to command an angel and to say that it is "mine", unless he is a deity!? Surely, Jesus is deity if he can send an angel and claim it to be his own.

It's not therer are 3 gods. NO! There is only ONE God. He manifests himself through 3 persons: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. They are not individuals in the same sense that we can know 3 individuals human beings here on earth. Each has their own role.

The last full sentence in the Bible is "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all."
Why is it not "The grace of our Lord God the Father be with you all"? The grace is the same, since they are one and the same. The "grace" of Christ's sacrifice is "supposed" to be a gift FROM God the Father, anf not from Jesus himself. Hence, John 3:16. However, this verse clearly identifies Jesus as having offered us grace. It's not that there is an inconsistency, it's that He is simply an indentity of God. God is one and the same. There is One God who works in 3 identities: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost.

Quoted:Hey, we have a "God was in Christ" over here! You sure you want this verse to get out!? (tongue-in-cheek for the previous sentence of mine, ofcourse ) How can "God be in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" if there is no deity in Jesus at all?

Ga 1:24 And they glorified God in me.

God was in Paul. Is Paul a deity also?

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

God was in the Ephesians. Were they deities, too?

Come to think of it, maybe they were. After all, they were IN Christ and they were IN heaven:

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

And don't forget, Jesus prayed that the disciples would have the same kind of relationship that Jesus and God had:

Joh 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


Well, gee, all the disciples must be God, too, huh?

Quoted: Jesus was a man and deity at the same time. Whay is that so hard to understand? No denial of Jesus' deity here. . . .

I hope you realize these statements like this are completely nonsensical. Man and God at the same time. That's that old three heads thing, right. Do you know of anything in nature that has three heads? And yet, scripture tells us that the Godhead can be understood and clearly seen by the things that are made:

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So, what is your excuse for not seeing that God has ONE head. The Biblical writers have been telling us that from Day One.

Yes, God the Father is greater than Jesus, I know this. Nothing new here to me. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are not assumed to be equal.  . . .

They are not equal and yet Jesus is God and God is Jesus. Oh yeah, they are the Holy Ghost, too, which isn't even a person but the spirit of God.

How does Jesus overcome the world if he is man only, and not God? No denial of Jesus' deity here.

Wrong question. THe right question is how doe MAN overcome the world if it takes being a Deity to do it? That is hopeless!

No, OBVIOUSLY, I never claimed Paul to be God or any other ordinary person who has God in them. Those textual references speak to the Holy Spirit, that presense of God we all feel in our soul when we pray.

It is important to examine the Bible as a whole document. The Word of God is not a trick and though it has been translated into more languages and styles than any other book in the history of earth, it's message remains consistent.

Quoted: Jesus makes numerous statements about "God the Father" and the "Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit".

So have I, that doesn't make me God.

Quoted: Just one example: Matthew28:16-20 16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the nameof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. This is one example. There are many other verses in the Bible that speak to the Trinity. This is a topic of itself and we can go back and forth all day long.

So Jesus as God had to be Given Power? That don't make no sense. Please explain with scriptural support.

Quoted: The point here, is whether or not the deity of Jesus matters. Yes, it does!

Where does the bible say it matters?

(Note: this is a very specific question about a very specific claim. I am asking you where belief in Jesus is God is mentioned in the bible as something that matters)

Quoted: What test? I missed your point here.

You said Jesus being lifted as the serpent on the pole would be idolatry if he was not God. Do you have any scripture to back that up, or just an accusation. I am pointing out that the idolotry test does not include man.