Is a person a Christian if...

[Daisies4me]

You have an opinion, the evidence is neither "indisputable", nor is the Godhead doctrine "not found in the Bible", nor is it out of harmony with what the Bible teaches. You, and your organization using your opinions to say who is a "true worshiper" is disgusting. It only is a mystery to those that don't understand it, the Bible makes that understanding available for any who choose to seek it out

(quote)

sorry, we don't say who is a 'true worshipper'-- the Bible identifies such ones.
if you are angry, look at the scriptures cited, and reason on them to find why it is that you are angry?
Don't shoot the messenger...

 

[Daisies4me]

Christ was not born by the will of flesh with a nature cursed and fallen from the flesh of a man.
Christ was more like Adam than any man ever born. He was born by the will of God not the will of the flesh.
Both Adam had God as their Father and creator. Jesus mother was flesh but had not known any man.
So we can see the understanding behind what was really being taught.
Christ was born by the power and presence of God himself and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
He had free will but unlike Adam he chose to obey God and not disobey his Father.

The angels in heaven do not sin they do the will of their heavenly Father God.
It does not make them God because they are sinless.

---------------------------
Hi

I agree with you that Jesus is referred to as 'the last Adam', in the Bible.

Both Adam and Jesus having been created by God, neither having had a human father, and both were created perfect, with no sin in them.

Adam, though, did not remain sinless. He wilfully disobeyed God, and rebelled against God's rightful rulership over him. Due to his obeying Satan, rather than God, Adam then became imperfect, facing the death penalty for sin, that God had warned him about. hence, every living human being offspring from Adam was born in imperfection, or sin, and thereby "all men had sinned" and would pay the 'wage for sin', that being death.

Which is why God arranged to send His Son , his firstborn, to the earth to be born of a virgin Jewish girl, so that he could pay the ransom price once for all time, for all of mankind who would repent and obey His Father, God.

one thing that I differ with, in your post, is that angels were also free will individuals, with the ability to sin--- which is what Satan did-- he was a powerful angel in the heavenly realm who wanted to be worshipped, and took on the attempt to get all of mankind to obey him rather than God. When the heavens were cleansed, Rev. 12;7-12. it is said that 1/3 of the heavenly angels were cast out with Satan, as demons confined to the vicinity of the earth, to await their abyssing, upon the cleansing of the earth by the Holy War of God, (REv. 16:14, 16).
So the angels that remained in heaven and were loyal to God, now have been given eternal life and will receive the promise. Next, the cleansing of the earth, as Proverbs 2:21-22 and Psalms 37:29 promises.
The "last Adam" will give separate the wheat from the tares, and his Ransom has paid the price for those who uphold the Kingdom of God to 'enter into His rest', the 1,000 yr. reign of Christ, God's Anointed King, where the earth will see paradise restored, and mankind will see the promised resurrection (John 5:28-29) of their loved ones, and the restoration to perfection for all humans residing upon the earth at that time.
What a grand hope we have! And it is upon us. Come , Lord Jesus. see Revelation 19:11- 20:6.

 

[Grandliseur]

Would a person be considered a Christian if they wanted to follow Christ's teachings, but didn't exactly view him as God, but rather a prophet or messenger of God? Because technically they would be following Christ's path, just not believing that he himself was God or part of a trinity.

I am not a Trinitarian; I am Christian since I am baptized and believe Christ my ransom and Lord, and Son of God, Son of Man. That is what is needed to be Christian along with obedience to his and his apostles' teachings.

 

[metis]

A mystery to those who don't understand it

It actually is quite complicated since the early church struggled with this for around three centuries.

Part of the problem is the fact that Jesus refers to God as "the Father", which logically means that Jesus cannot be God. He also says the he does not know when the end of times will be and that only "the Father" knows. Etc.

 

[shmogie]

It actually is quite complicated since the early church struggled with this for around three centuries.

Part of the problem is the fact that Jesus refers to God as "the Father", which logically means that Jesus cannot be God. He also says the he does not know when the end of times will be and that only "the Father" knows. Etc.

Interesting. Letters from the immediate post Apostolic "church Fathers", c.125-150 AD show the developed belief in he Godhead. Therefore the idea that there was controversy for three centuries till Constantine is untrue. What actually happened was that Arius presented his doctrine and converted many to it, thus compelling an "official" action

 

[shmogie]

Interesting. Letters from the immediate post Apostolic "church Fathers", c.125-150 AD show the developed belief in he Godhead. Therefore the idea that there was controversy for three centuries till Constantine is untrue. What actually happened was that Arius presented his doctrine and converted many to it, thus compelling an "official" action

Who is "God", what is the "Godhead" ? What does Elohim mean? There are many OT verses that support the Godhead, as well as many in the NT. It is a bit of hubris to apply logic solely anchored in humanity and human understanding and declare that it has to apply to God, as done in this forum by some.

 

[metis]

Interesting. Letters from the immediate post Apostolic "church Fathers", c.125-150 AD show the developed belief in he Godhead. Therefore the idea that there was controversy for three centuries till Constantine is untrue.

But the recognition of exactly what that connection involved was not clarify once and for all, which is why it had to be resolved at the Council of Nicea. Here:

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father:.. -- First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

BTW, Arius was a presbyter within the CC, so it was an internal dispute.

 

[shmogie]

But the recognition of exactly what that connection involved was not clarify once and for all, which is why it had to be resolved at the Council of Nicea. Here:

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father:.. -- First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

BTW, Arius was a presbyter within the CC, so it was an internal dispute.

I agree. I thought he was a bishop, no matter, he developed a strong following and had influence.

 

[David T]

Those are Catholics who accept the council of Nicaea...not Christians. Christians are those who accept the Gospel of Jesus.

The gospel according to who? You? Would you have had Mary stoned to death? That as the "gospel" OF the day. Is your " new gospel" superior to that old gospel? It's what, more emperical fact? Is your gospel science? Does your gospel even exist if there is no gospelized book? What is to gospelize a book even? What is reductionism? Nature as a car engine created, by a genius designer is a funny gospel of reductionism that is normal. We call it
1. belief in god,
2. atheism
3. agnosticism.
A trinity that emperically exists!!! Leonard Cohen mocks this in hallelujah

 

[Kemosloby]

The gospel according to who? You? Would you have had Mary stoned to death? That as the "gospel" OF the day. Is your " new gospel" superior to that old gospel? It's what, more emperical fact? Is your gospel science? Does your gospel even exist if there is no gospelized book? What is to gospelize a book even? What is reductionism? Nature as a car engine created, by a genius designer is a funny gospel of reductionism that is normal. We call it
1. belief in god,
2. atheism
3. agnosticism.
A trinity that emperically exists!!! Leonard Cohen mocks this in hallelujah

As he ought to, because the trinity, as commonly understood is a Catholic interpretation. Invented just to confuse the hell out of everybody, to make it mysterious causing people to seek them for enlightenment. But anyone who puts some effort into reading the scriptures themselves can see right through them.

 

[David T]

As he ought to, because the trinity, as commonly understood is a Catholic interpretation. Invented just to confuse the hell out of everybody, to make it mysterious causing people to seek them for enlightenment. But anyone who puts some effort into reading the scriptures themselves can see right through them.

I would recommend a lot more effort of not reading about nature and more time listening to nature is in order

 

[pearl]

I am not a Trinitarian; I am Christian since I am baptized

May I ask what baptismal formula you were baptized with?

 

[shmogie]

As he ought to, because the trinity, as commonly understood is a Catholic interpretation. Invented just to confuse the hell out of everybody, to make it mysterious causing people to seek them for enlightenment. But anyone who puts some effort into reading the scriptures themselves can see right through them.

Oh please, The doctrine of he Godhead (trinity) existed long before Roman Catholicism. Your assertion that diligently reading the Scriptures somehow discredits the doctrine is nonsense. If one is very careful to look at the terms translated into English, in their original Koine Greek and Hebrew, and see what the terms actually mean, the doctrine is Biblically sound. Further, even the English translations support the doctrine,

 

[Kemosloby]

Oh please, The doctrine of he Godhead (trinity) existed long before Roman Catholicism. Your assertion that diligently reading the Scriptures somehow discredits the doctrine is nonsense. If one is very careful to look at the terms translated into English, in their original Koine Greek and Hebrew, and see what the terms actually mean, the doctrine is Biblically sound. Further, even the English translations support the doctrine,

No, doctrine is a Catholic invention. Scripture is Christian. Scripture clearly shows the Father and Son as two separate persons.

 

[metis]

the trinity, as commonly understood is a Catholic interpretation.

Most Protestants also believe in the trinity.

 

[Kemosloby]

Most Protestants also believe in the trinity.

I guess because Catholicism repeated the lie often enough that people came to believe it. Who said that Hitler, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth. But it doesn't really become truth.

 

[metis]

Who said that Hitler, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

It was Goebbels.

 

[shmogie]

No, doctrine is a Catholic invention. Scripture is Christian. Scripture clearly shows the Father and Son as two separate persons.

I don't see how it could have come From Catholocism when it was being written about by church leaders in 125 AD long before the Roman Catholic church. I strongly believe in sola scriptura, ALL doctrine is established by the Bible and the Bible only. I will share with you a number of OT and NT verses that clearly support the Trinity.

 

[shmogie]

I guess because Catholicism repeated the lie often enough that people came to believe it. Who said that Hitler, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth. But it doesn't really become truth.

Ah, but if you knew the truth, you would be set free,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,from non Biblical doctrine

 

[shmogie]

No, doctrine is a Catholic invention. Scripture is Christian. Scripture clearly shows the Father and Son as two separate persons.

Yes, they are two separate beings, but they are God