Why christians believe that jesus is God?

[Ahmadi]

As one of JW i do not believe that Jesus was God , so it was quite reasonable for Jesus to pray to his father in heaven because he was Gods son and not God himself .so the bible does not contradict itself when the correct understanding is applied

Isn't it true that Jesus was not the only person called the "Son of God" or am I wrong?

Isn't it also true that Jesus has been called "Son of Man" many times as well as the "Son of God"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Farhan,

please save your time. I have heard the obsequious arguments before in an attempt to proseletyse Christians to Islam. Let's stick to the subject of the thread which is why CHRISTIANS believe. If you want to discuss other issues, please start another thread which I can easily ignore, rather than poison this one. Thanks in advance.

 

[Ahmadi]

Farhan,

please save your time. I have heard the obsequious arguments before in an attempt to proseletyse Christians to Islam. Let's stick to the subject of the thread which is why CHRISTIANS believe. If you want to discuss other issues, please start another thread which I can easily ignore, rather than poison this one. Thanks in advance.

Well, I will start another thread, I guess. All I wanted was a healthy discussion and I am not "poisoning" anything.:tsk: If you have firm faith in your beliefs and can prove me wrong, I would be more than happy to quit Islam right now and accept Christianity. Just blaming me for presenting strong arguments is not the way to do it.

The other thing is that I don't follow the mainstream Muslims of today and I have a slightly different version of the story of Jesus. I was only trying to present what you might never have heard before from other Muslims.

Since some folks have a problem with my arguments:banghead3 , I will not place them here. You might be interested in the following webpage for a detailed account on my view that Jesus was just a man. It's all based on the bible. Thank you!
http://www.alislam.org/books/jesus-in-india/chap01.html

Farhan

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't think your arguments are that strong... I just hate to see people hijack a thread. I would not participate in such a thread and so it WOULD poison it for me. Anything else that I feel needs to be said about this will be done via PM.

 

[Katzpur]

God is pan-dimensional. He exists over many different dimensions, both spiritual and physical. Consequently, God can be here on earth physically and spiritually still in heaven. If I knew how he did that, I would be God. I'm just glad he is able.

I don't buy into that at all. It's certainly not scriptural either. God is nowhere near as mysterious as man has made Him. He is definitely not a contradiction; He is not simultaneously corporeal and non-corporeal. He does not occupy physical space and simultaneously exist elsewhere at once. This is neo-platonic philosophy, plain and simple. Jesus didn't teach these things about Himself or His Father and neither did His Apostles.

While we have a spiritual aspect to our lives we do not yet have our spiritual embodiment. We will get this when we are clothed "incorruptible" at the final trumpet sound.

Where do you get this "spiritual embodiment" phrase? If you are saying that when we are resurrected, we will be immortal beings, with a spirit and a perfect body which will never again be subject to death. If that's what you're saying, I would agree with you. But I'm not quite sure that's what you're saying. Actually, I'm really pretty confused about what you're saying. Would you mind trying again. (If you feel that you need to "talk down" to me to help me understand, I won't be offended.)

How much of this do we NEED to understand? Very little. Very little. It will be made clear as we really NEED to understand it. Do I understand it completely? Not at all. What I "know" I have gleaned from the scriptures and since I do not feel it promotes love, I find it at the back of my spiritual "to do" list.

I agree that God only tells us what we need to know, that He gives us information line upon line, precept upon precept, and that as we are ready for additional knowledge, He will provide it. What I don't agree on is that you got any of this "pan-dimensional" stuff from the scriptures. If you did, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

That's a bit heavy for me Kathryn; as you know I'm a bit new to this, and that is deep - I'll see if I can work out an answer, but you might have to wait for the Mighty Doc for a reply!

Heavy? Deep? If you're serious about this, I don't understand why. Nothing could be quite as deep or heavy as the nature of God as defined by the creeds. LDS doctrine is simple by comparison. But you go ahead and work out your answer. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject.

 

[Katzpur]

Isn't it true that Jesus was not the only person called the "Son of God" or am I wrong?

Jesus is the only person to have been called "the only begotten Son of God." All of us are God's children, His sons and daughters, His offspring. He is the Father of the spirits of all of His children, but Jesus Christ was only His Son "in the flesh." They have a true father-son relationship.

Isn't it also true that Jesus has been called "Son of Man" many times as well as the "Son of God"?

Jesus had many, many titles. He is both the "Son of God" and "Son of Man." These two titles are definitely not mutually exclusive. Jesus is the Son of the archetypal Man, the perfect heavenly Man, the Eternal Father.

 

[Scuba Pete]

He is not simultaneously corporeal and non-corporeal.

You have a supporting scripture for this?

Where do you get this "spiritual embodiment" phrase? If you are saying that when we are resurrected, we will be immortal beings, with a spirit and a perfect body which will never again be subject to death. If that's what you're saying, I would agree with you. But I'm not quite sure that's what you're saying. Actually, I'm really pretty confused about what you're saying. Would you mind trying again. (If you feel that you need to "talk down" to me to help me understand, I won't be offended.)

I Corinthians 15:40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. NIV

Sorry if I EVER appear to be condescending. However, I would recommend reading the entire chapter and seeing that "perfect" is not the word that is used. Imperishible is what is used, and that is the "Spiritual embodiment" to which I refer. What I believe, I try to garner from the scriptures... when I am shown that my belief is in error, I change. It has happened before and will happen many, many more times as I learn to understand.

 

[Katzpur]

You have a supporting scripture for this?

No, I don't. But in reading the scriptures, I find that God is far more knowable than most people want to believe He is. I believe that those people who knew Jesus Christ and His Apostles personally had a far better understanding of the nature of God than did anyone on the face of the earth three or four hundred years later. You have made so many statements that describe God in non-scriptural terms that I just wonder how you can conclude by saying that your understanding of His is scripturally based. I believe that He was the one who created the laws by which the universe operates. When the Bible speaks of Jesus Christ walking the earth and praying to His Father in Heaven, I find it far more logical to simply believe that that's what took place, instead of trying to interpret the scriptures in such a way that I have to conclude that the Father and the Son are both here, there and everyone, corporeal and non-corporeal, etc. etc. I just don't think it's anywhere near as "mysterious" as mainstream Christianity has forced it to be.

I Corinthians 15:40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. NIV

Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm familiar with this scripture. I can see how you are interpreting it. I agree with you to a certain extent, but believe it has a further meaning concerning the hereafter. (I don't want to go into it here, since it would be totally off the subject of the thread.)

Sorry if I EVER appear to be condescending.

No, Doc! I wasn't accusing you of being condescending in the slightest. I wasn't being sarcastic either. I was literally saying that I didn't understand you and that if you wanted to try to explain in a very, very simplistic way what you were getting at, I wouldn't be offended. I think that people sometimes talk right past one another because they take for granted that they have similar enough backgrounds that what they say is going to be understood by the other party. I was doing nothing more than giving you permission to start at a kindergarten level so I could work up to being able to discuss this intelligently with you.

However, I would recommend reading the entire chapter and seeing that "perfect" is not the word that is used. Imperishible is what is used, and that is the "Spiritual embodiment" to which I refer. What I believe, I try to garner from the scriptures... when I am shown that my belief is in error, I change. It has happened before and will happen many, many more times as I learn to understand.

I have read it in the past, but will do so again. It's a chapter that would be fun to discuss in more detail.

Kathryn

 

[Ahmadi]

I don't think your arguments are that strong... I just hate to see people hijack a thread. I would not participate in such a thread and so it WOULD poison it for me. Anything else that I feel needs to be said about this will be done via PM.

I apologize...

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, I don't. "snip" You have made so many statements that describe God in non-scriptural terms

Let me get this straight. You have NO SCRIPTURES to refute my beliefs, but you contend that they are non-scriptural. Maybe what you MEAN to say is that they disagree with YOUR understanding, but accusing me of otherwise without scriptures to back it up is pretty harsh. You ask for my scriptural basis, and I would gladly provide scriptures (as I have done) or tell you that this is merely what I think. I take my scripturality pretty seriously.

 

[Katzpur]

Let me get this straight. You have NO SCRIPTURES to refute my beliefs, but you contend that they are non-scriptural. Maybe what you MEAN to say is that they disagree with YOUR understanding, but accusing me of otherwise without scriptures to back it up is pretty harsh. You ask for my scriptural basis, and I would gladly provide scriptures (as I have done) or tell you that this is merely what I think. I take my scripturality pretty seriously.

I'm not quite sure what I did to get you so angry with me, Doc. But whatever it was, I'm sorry.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am not angry Kat... just amazed. Calling someone's beliefs "unscriptural" without any supporting scriptural basis is amazing to me. One should not be so quick to label others without cause and then be surprised that they take exception to that labeling.

How would YOU feel if I did that to you?

 

[C&N]

What is this thread even about anymore?

 

[may]

Isn't it true that Jesus was not the only person called the "Son of God" or am I wrong?

Isn't it also true that Jesus has been called "Son of Man" many times as well as the "Son of God"?

Jesus was the only be-gotten son of God
(1 John 4:9) By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life...John 3;16so this only begotten son was the only one that was created by God alone . all the other sons of God in the heavens were created after this

All things came into existence through him,(the only-begotten son) and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. yes he was by Jehovahs side as a master worker

The Son happily served as his Father’s "master worker." (Proverbs 8:30)

then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. ...colossians 1;15-16


The Bible says: "Apart from [the Son] not even one thing came into existence." (John 1:3) and yes you are right , Jesus was called the son of man ,because when he came to the earth he was born of a woman an earthly woman.but Jesus had a pre-human life in the heavens before his father sent him to earth to be born of a woman

 

[Mister Emu]

I have a question may, do you believe the Bible to be incorrect in John 1:3 then? If Jesus were created, than not everything was created by Him, true?

 

[James the Persian]

And what kind of "Orthodox" am I? I am an unorthodox Greek orthodox. Just joking. But seriously, I am Greek Orthodox, I just don't go to church so I figured I would make a joke.

I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but if you believe the sorts of things you have written on this thread, you are not Orthodox at all. You may well have been baptised into the Greek Orthodox church but your beliefs are well beyond the pale of Orthodoxy. Believing that Christ was not God but some 'God-like' man, as you appear to, is a heresy defeated at the Council of Nicea (Arianism) and one which is explicitly countered in the Creed. It seems difficult for me to reconcile your views with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and nobody who cannot recite it and mean every word can possibly be Orthodox. You have far worse problems than those you raised in the Eastern Orthodox forum to worry about by the looks of this. Maybe you should consider changing the religion displayed in your profile because at present, frankly, it is a lie.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

C&N: Feel free to join us other "Rabble Rousers" who refuse to take canned asnswers as "sufficient".

 

[James the Persian]

C&N: Feel free to join us other "Rabble Rousers" who refuse to take canned asnswers as "sufficient".

Given that I chose to convert to Orthodoxy, I hardly think this is an accurate description of me. Neither agreeing with Orthodox doctrine nor disagreeing with Protestant/Non-denominational beliefs is evidence of blind faith and a lack of personal investigation. If, however, someone wishes to call themselves Orthodox whilst following the heresy of Arius, I feel that it is appropriate for me to point out that they are not Orthodox. I don't remember asking him to accept canned answers, and I'd be more than happy to discuss things with him, but being Orthodox is a matter belief and a way of life, not simply being baptised into the Church.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

I apologise mon ami... there are enough without trying to tear us down. There are many who have converted to Orthodoxy and to other forms of Christianity and to a person they eschew the "canned answer". I stand corrected.