Divinity of Jesus

[Philda Tressie]

Can anyone please clarify this:
There are many who claim the title ''Christian,'' yet deny the Divinity of Jesus. If Christian means disciple of Jesus Christ, and him, by inference, being a mere mortal with inherent traits such as fallability, why and how do you incorporate him in your faith? Should you not focus on God (the Father) only?

 

[Desert Snake]

Not necessarily, I think one can view Christ as a teacher, however not divine, and still call themselves Christian. Keep in mind Jesus didn't call himself God, so I don't see a contradiction.
That being said a contradiction may arise if one doesn't view Jesus as the correct way to God, which does seem to be stated in the NT, and yet still calls themselves "Christian", this could apply to people who choose to view the entire OT law as being necessary for salvation, in spite of the references in the NT to the contrary.

The main problem is the focus on ritual as a pre-requisite to salvation, such as baptism etc. ....And the belief that non-Christians will go to hell because they don't 'know' Jesus,...was this taught specifically? I find all sorts of word/logic play to "pick" which non-Christians are going to hell, much of it seeming biased and arbitrary IMO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can anyone please clarify this: There are many who claim the title ''Christian,'' yet deny the Divinity of Jesus.

I find that surprising. Just how prevalent do people believe this to be? Also, what would be the tenets of such 'Christianity' beyond endorsing the golden rule?

 

[Philda Tressie]

Not necessarily, I think one can view Christ as a teacher, however not divine, and still call themselves Christian. Keep in mind Jesus didn't call himself God, so I don't see a contradiction.
That being said a contradiction may arise if one doesn't view Jesus as the correct way to God, which does seem to be stated in the NT, and yet still calls themselves "Christian", this could apply to people who choose to view the entire OT law as being necessary for salvation, in spite of the references in the NT to the contrary.

The main problem is the focus on ritual as a pre-requisite to salvation, such as baptism etc. ....And the belief that non-Christians will go to hell because they don't 'know' Jesus,...was this taught specifically? I find all sorts of word/logic play to "pick" which non-Christians are going to hell, much of it seeming biased and arbitrary IMO.

The Christiany my church subscribe to emphasises that ritual does not lead to Salvation. We believe that acceptance of Jesus, the Messiah, confession, true repentance of sins and living a spiritual life bring Salvation

 

[Desert Snake]

The Christiany my church subscribe to emphasises that ritual does not lead to Salvation. We believe that acceptance of Jesus, the Messiah, confession, true repentance of sins and living a spiritual life bring Salvation

Well, if you stay on the forums for a bit you'll find the major differences in opinion between people calling themselves Christian.

 

[Windwalker]

Can anyone please clarify this:
There are many who claim the title ''Christian,'' yet deny the Divinity of Jesus. If Christian means disciple of Jesus Christ, and him, by inference, being a mere mortal with inherent traits such as fallability, why and how do you incorporate him in your faith? Should you not focus on God (the Father) only?

Being a follower or a disciple or an emulator of a teacher does not require them to be infallible. What the student would do would be to follow the examples of that Divine in the teacher, such as in any guru. The purpose is to realize that divinity in themselves, the way their master has in himself. He is a guide for them to find it in themselves.

Traditional Christianity is what takes Jesus and separates him from humanity by telling its membership that only Jesus could realize that, not any of them, and that Jesus has to do it for them as they are otherwise irreconcilably lost. I far prefer what Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas verse 70,

Jesus said, "That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."​

 

[RJ50]

There are some good things about Christianity, if you don't take it all too seriously. Some people describe themselves as cultural Christians, meaning someone who has been brought up in a Christian tradition. Christianity is a very broad church, from the rabid fundamentalist to the way out liberal. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter what you believe as long as you don't try to force it down the throats of others, or use your faith as an abusive weapon.

 

[Desert Snake]

I can't really think of why the idea of "Cultural Christian" would be a negative thing, especially as it wouldn't necessarily have to imply religion.

my .02$ anyway

 

[Renji]

This is the 3rd thread I've read regarding this topic TBH.

 

[Philda Tressie]

There are some good things about Christianity, if you don't take it all too seriously. Some people describe themselves as cultural Christians, meaning someone who has been brought up in a Christian tradition. Christianity is a very broad church, from the rabid fundamentalist to the way out liberal. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter what you believe as long as you don't try to force it down the throats of others, or use your faith as an abusive weapon.

Culture and faith (belief) are two different things, therefore ''cultural Christiany'' seems an odd concept. With regard to the relevance of what Christians do or do not believe, can one who does not confess the Apostles' Creed honestly use the title ''Christian?''

 

[Philda Tressie]

I can't really think of why the idea of "Cultural Christian" would be a negative thing, especially as it wouldn't necessarily have to imply religion.

my .02$ anyway

Agreed!

 

[Philda Tressie]

Being a follower or a disciple or an emulator of a teacher does not require them to be infallible. What the student would do would be to follow the examples of that Divine in the teacher, such as in any guru. The purpose is to realize that divinity in themselves, the way their master has in himself. He is a guide for them to find it in themselves.

Traditional Christianity is what takes Jesus and separates him from humanity by telling its membership that only Jesus could realize that, not any of them, and that Jesus has to do it for them as they are otherwise irreconcilably lost. I far prefer what Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas verse 70,

Jesus said, "That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."​

Does this mean that anyone on earth has the potential for divinity? How does one realise it in oneself? Do you mean spirituality?

 

[Philda Tressie]

This is the 3rd thread I've read regarding this topic TBH.

And your point is...?

 

[Windwalker]

Does this mean that anyone on earth has the potential for divinity? How does one realise it in oneself? Do you mean spirituality?

A better way to put it is the potential to realize our divine nature. Do I mean spirituality? Well, yes, but more than that. It's realizing our true identity. We already all fully have that. We just don't see it or act from that place.

How does one realize it? By removing the obstacles that obscure it from us seeing it; seeing beyond the illusion of separation we create in our own minds, letting that become your true identity.

 

[rusra02]

Can anyone please clarify this:
There are many who claim the title ''Christian,'' yet deny the Divinity of Jesus. If Christian means disciple of Jesus Christ, and him, by inference, being a mere mortal with inherent traits such as fallability, why and how do you incorporate him in your faith? Should you not focus on God (the Father) only?

Jesus was more than a mere mortal man. I believe he is God's Son, sent to fulfill God's purposes. (John3:16) Jesus always sought to bring glory to his Father. According to the Bible, because of Jesus faithfulness to God, "God exalted him to a superior position, and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that ...every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Christ plays the central role in bringing about God's will, and deserves our honor and respect. Only, Jehovah God should be worshipped, however.

 

[Sir Doom]

Can anyone please clarify this:
There are many who claim the title ''Christian,'' yet deny the Divinity of Jesus. If Christian means disciple of Jesus Christ, and him, by inference, being a mere mortal with inherent traits such as fallability, why and how do you incorporate him in your faith? Should you not focus on God (the Father) only?

As it stands, human beings can and will believe whatever they like. In the case of religious ideas, the standards for qualifying for one title or another are merely to identify oneself as such.

The word 'Christian' is in common usage, obviously and the definition you use 'disciple of Jesus Christ' seems to me like a perfectly legitimate usage of the term. However, as I believe the right to free expression to be unalienable in the legal sense, it is also unalienable in the literal sense. That is you and I cannot in any way shape or form change someone's mind for them, least of all about religious topics. Thus, anyone who identifies themselves as a 'Christian' is, in fact, a Christian by virtue of free expression. The relative divinity of Jesus in any particular person's belief structure is irrelevant to their chosen title. Both points are necessarily within the unilateral control of each individual.

Essentially, telling someone who believes themselves to be Christian that they are not Christian will yield little to no results. They will continue to believe themselves a Christian until they decide to believe otherwise. You may be able to change their mind, but I can assure you that is a very steep uphill battle.

 

[Philda Tressie]

As it stands, human beings can and will believe whatever they like. In the case of religious ideas, the standards for qualifying for one title or another are merely to identify oneself as such.

The word 'Christian' is in common usage, obviously and the definition you use 'disciple of Jesus Christ' seems to me like a perfectly legitimate usage of the term. However, as I believe the right to free expression to be unalienable in the legal sense, it is also unalienable in the literal sense. That is you and I cannot in any way shape or form change someone's mind for them, least of all about religious topics. Thus, anyone who identifies themselves as a 'Christian' is, in fact, a Christian by virtue of free expression. The relative divinity of Jesus in any particular person's belief structure is irrelevant to their chosen title. Both points are necessarily within the unilateral control of each individual.

Essentially, telling someone who believes themselves to be Christian that they are not Christian will yield little to no results. They will continue to believe themselves a Christian until they decide to believe otherwise. You may be able to change their mind, but I can assure you that is a very steep uphill battle.

In my OP I sought answers to that which I did not understand. I did not tell anyone what they are/aren't, neither did I attempt to change anyone's mind.

 

[Sir Doom]

In my OP I sought answers to that which I did not understand. I did not tell anyone what they are/aren't, neither did I attempt to change anyone's mind.

Who said you did?

 

[Philda Tressie]

Who said you did?

It is implied in your response.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I remain surprised by the assertion that "there are many who claim the title 'Christian,' yet deny the Divinity of Jesus". May I ask where you've encountered this attitude?

I'm not convinced that it's at all well represented here at RF.