Why does christianity consider Jesus(pbuh) as God?

[dawny0826]

You just believe but you don't understand what you believe. Because, you just want to believe in it.
What I want is not just to believe blindly.
What I want is to understand what I believe. This is very normal.
If you don't do that, all belive is in vain, since you can never catch the real divine message.

Regards.

HUH?!

My God doesn't make mistakes. I pray for spiritual guidance EVERY SINGLE TIME I open my Bible. I trust that the Word of God is truth.

I'm not the one questioning the beliefs of Christians...you are.

 

[dawny0826]

Our prophet stopped Mecca from being the most sin filled place in the world, and he took it away from some very powerful people. If I try to compare what Mohammed did, I think of what Moses did to the Pharoah... although Mohammed didn't split the sea or anything, they both took a very lost part of the world and made it straight. Not only did he do that, but he revealed the Quran and confirmed the messages that came before him. He also sprouted the fastest growing religion in the world. I'm sorry that it upsets you that I have a hard time following a book that was written years and years after the death of Jesus. I dont doubt Jesus, I doubt that he was a prophet of God, and I don't doubt his return, but I do doubt his divinity. How can you possibly think that Jesus is God? Especially conisdering what happened to him (in your eyes). Your telling me that God aloud man to beat him, and torture him? I find that to be an insult to God... in so many ways.

Peace and Blessings
Ezzedean Fadel

God allowed Christ's death on the cross because it is by the blood of Christ that we are saved from our sins. You'll never understand His divinity because you do not accept Christ as your Saviour.

And that's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs. As am I.

 

[Anastasios]

HUH?!

My God doesn't make mistakes. I pray for spiritual guidance EVERY SINGLE TIME I open my Bible. I trust that the Word of God is truth.

I'm not the one questioning the beliefs of Christians...you are.

Still it doesn't show that you understand, but believe.

anyway, my point is not to question you or christiany intentionally. But while there are things which are going wrong, I don't like to be blind of them.
I am just serious about these matters. That is all.

May Allah Bless you,
we should love even our "enemies". I totally agree.

Regards.

 

[Popeyesays]

God allowed Christ's death on the cross because it is by the blood of Christ that we are saved from our sins. You'll never understand His divinity because you do not accept Christ as your Saviour.

And that's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs. As am I.

Christ was killed by men. He did not die at the hands of God. Granted His death was a model of repentance and forgiveness in every way.

When you get down to it, Jesus delivered the message that GOD is salvation not the He was.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ezzedean]

God allowed Christ's death on the cross because it is by the blood of Christ that we are saved from our sins. You'll never understand His divinity because you do not accept Christ as your Saviour.

And that's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs. As am I.

This is true. I just feel more comfortable praying to the person whom Jesus himself prayed to. We're both good people, can we agree on that?

Peace and Blessings
Ezzedean Fadel

 

[dawny0826]

We're both good people, can we agree on that?

Certainly.

 

[dawny0826]

Christ was killed by men. He did not die at the hands of God. Granted His death was a model of repentance and forgiveness in every way.

When you get down to it, Jesus delivered the message that GOD is salvation not the He was.

Regards,
Scott

Most Christians would probably argue with you there. I believe God had his hand on the entire process.

John 3:16, imo is practically the CORE belief of Christianity...

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whosoever believeth in HIM shall not parish but have everlasting life."

 

[dawny0826]

Still it doesn't show that you understand, but believe.

anyway, my point is not to question you or christiany intentionally. But while there are things which are going wrong, I don't like to be blind of them.
I am just serious about these matters. That is all.

May Allah Bless you,
we should love even our "enemies". I totally agree.

Regards.

I understand quite well, thank you.

I walk by faith, not by sight.

And yes, we should love our enemies, which I do. And I certainly do not consider you an "enemy" because we believe differently. I'm very passionate about my beliefs but I do care about others and their beliefs...even if I don't understand where they're coming from.

 

[Popeyesays]

Most Christians would probably argue with you there. I believe God had his hand on the entire process.

John 3:16, imo is practically the CORE belief of Christianity...

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whosoever believeth in HIM shall not parish but have everlasting life."

I believe God had His hand on the process as well. But the process did not begin with Christ it began with Adam. Salvation is God's to grant. Jesus taught that whoever believed should find salvation, but He never said He was the source of that salvation - rather His teachings were the source of salvation - since He taught that God aves, then the circle of revelation is pretty complete.

Regards,
Scott

 

[SecondBoy]

I don't understand "three person and one god " three isn't equal one
if three person are God then there are three Gods not one.
and if Jesus is God why shouldn't you worship(adore) him?if he isn't the same God?
yes God that you know him as Father?

 

[Anastasios]

Second Boy, Trinity is totally out of logic for a non-Christian (well to me even for Christians too, but they are accepting as it is, they don't question it naturally). I don't think that people can explain it to you. it is not a straight forward belief, but very tortuous. It was probably put as a distinction from Judaism, but this not only issue untill 4th AD century many things changed. The original teachings of Jesus were already forgotten by "Christians" who were a new group formed despite Jesus didn't intend to bring a new religion:

Matthew 5: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
​

It is quite clear he didn't want to put the people into another belief, but he wanted to correct them by being a very god sample who fulfils the law of God (OT). But it changed after Paul (well, even we are not sure scholarly that all those letters were written by him). Though they are trying to find some good reasons for that, to me as a seek of being different than Jews, they gave up using some of commandments of OT, i.e. circumcision (Gen. 17.10-27; Gen. 21.4; Gen. 34.14 in many places etc...), pork prohibition (Lev. 11.7; Deut. 14.8) etc... the original doctrinal shape of Christianity was given by Constantine, who was not Christian, in 325 AD (Concil of Nicea). for the process of Trinity belief:

"AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.


That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.
Constantine's Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?


AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom's Trinity began to come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology."THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

​

Well actually there are many things to write about it but this may help to understand the process, which was done totally by the initiatives of humankind, not of God.


Regards.

 

[nutshell]

The original teachings of Jesus were already forgotten by "Christians" who were a new group formed despite Jesus didn't intend to bring a new religion:

Christ wasn't bringing a new religion, he was bringing a new law to the religion that already existed. And as the scriptures and Christ himself state, that religion would begin with Simon Peter, who would be the rock and foundation of that religion.

 

[Anastasios]

Christ wasn't bringing a new religion, he was bringing a new law to the religion that already existed. And as the scriptures and Christ himself state, that religion would begin with Simon Peter, who would be the rock and foundation of that religion.

No my friend Jesus didn't bring a new law. He kept the Holy scriptire of law (OT) and he ordered that even a letter will not be changed and will be practised totally. He just entrusted the original philosophy of teachings of OT to Peter. You are aware of Dead Sea Scrolls I think.
If there would be something like that a new institution like trinity or sonship, he would certainly have made it clear in his two famous sermons, the Sermon on the Mount and Lord's Prayer. But not a single sign can be traced.

Otherwise you wouldn't be still keeping the Old Testament as law Book (though you are using it partially).

Regards.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

I ask this respectfully...what did YOUR prophet do for you?

Islam believes that all of the prophets, from Adam, through Moses and Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed, all simply carry messages. The prophet is only a messenger. His role is to convey. All he did was recite the word of God. Other than delivering the message, he really didn't do anything.

But in Islam, the concept of Original Sin does not exist. No one is at fault for another's misdeeds, and therefore no one is born guilty of sin, requiring salvation. We bring individual sin upon ourselves. As a result, there is not the need for a "Saviour."

In a nutshell, Islam believes God presented his religion to the Jews, who misinterpreted the scripture, so He sent Jesus to re-educate. In the following centuries, however, Christians misinterpreted the Word, so God sent Muhammed.

Muhammed, is the "Seal of the Prophets," who carried the final teachings.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

Can you apply the same standard to the Qur'an?

Regards,
Scott

Yes. The Quran was compiled within 20 years of the death of Muhammed and has not changed since. There have been no deletions of chapters, reductions of chapters, or changes to the original Arabic text. Versus the Bible, which has gone through numerous revisions throughout its existence.

One problem facing Islam is the collected traditions of Muhammed, called Hadith. The Hadith were compiled over a long period of time and having varying levels of authenticity, and throughout the centuries there have been debates over which Hadith are true and which are not. Some believe the Hadith are required to be followed. Others, like me, believe they're guidelines. The Quran is the only book of God.

 

[James the Persian]

Islam believes that all of the prophets, from Adam, through Moses and Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed, all simply carry messages. The prophet is only a messenger. His role is to convey. All he did was recite the word of God. Other than delivering the message, he really didn't do anything.

But in Islam, the concept of Original Sin does not exist. No one is at fault for another's misdeeds, and therefore no one is born guilty of sin, requiring salvation. We bring individual sin upon ourselves. As a result, there is not the need for a "Saviour."

In a nutshell, Islam believes God presented his religion to the Jews, who misinterpreted the scripture, so He sent Jesus to re-educate. In the following centuries, however, Christians misinterpreted the Word, so God sent Muhammed.

Muhammed, is the "Seal of the Prophets," who carried the final teachings.

Not all Christians believe in Original Sin either (as in the inherited guilt you speak of). We Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (Copts etc.) never have done but that doesn't mean that we have no need of a Saviour. The idea that the Saviour came to wipe away the stain of Original Sin is only one Christian interpretation and a relatively late (certainly not prior to Bl. Augustine of Hippo) and western interpretation at that. The need for salvation is not dependant upon a belief in Original Sin.

James

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

Not all Christians believe in Original Sin either (as in the inherited guilt you speak of). We Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (Copts etc.) never have done but that doesn't mean that we have no need of a Saviour. The idea that the Saviour came to wipe away the stain of Original Sin is only one Christian interpretation and a relatively late (certainly not prior to Bl. Augustine of Hippo) and western interpretation at that. The need for salvation is not dependant upon a belief in Original Sin.

James

Truly fascinating. It seems to me that the Orthodox are the nearest adherents to the original teachings of Jesus, after the Gnostics. Would you agree?

 

[James the Persian]

Truly fascinating. It seems to me that the Orthodox are the nearest adherents to the original teachings of Jesus, after the Gnostics. Would you agree?

Before the Gnostics, I would agree. I see Gnostic Christianity as little more than a syncretistic pre-Christian religion that borrowed elements of Christianity for its mythology. In terms of practice, the Oriental Orthodox are also very close to us (nigh on identical), though we have issues over Christology (mostly linguistic rather than real issues in my opinion). I see Roman Catholicism as rather more removed, certainly in terms of practice but also with respects to certain aspects of theology and ecclesiology.

James

 

[nutshell]

No my friend Jesus didn't bring a new law. He kept the Holy scriptire of law (OT) and he ordered that even a letter will not be changed and will be practised totally. He just entrusted the original philosophy of teachings of OT to Peter. You are aware of Dead Sea Scrolls I think.
If there would be something like that a new institution like trinity or sonship, he would certainly have made it clear in his two famous sermons, the Sermon on the Mount and Lord's Prayer. But not a single sign can be traced.

Otherwise you wouldn't be still keeping the Old Testament as law Book (though you are using it partially).

Regards.

Not all of Christianity believes in the trinity. I don't.

Further, the Old Testament represents the lower law or Law of Moses. Christ did bring the new and higher law. It's unfortunate you don't recognize that.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yes. The Quran was compiled within 20 years of the death of Muhammed and has not changed since. There have been no deletions of chapters, reductions of chapters, or changes to the original Arabic text. Versus the Bible, which has gone through numerous revisions throughout its existence.

One problem facing Islam is the collected traditions of Muhammed, called Hadith. The Hadith were compiled over a long period of time and having varying levels of authenticity, and throughout the centuries there have been debates over which Hadith are true and which are not. Some believe the Hadith are required to be followed. Others, like me, believe they're guidelines. The Quran is the only book of God.

I agree about the hadith - good guidance, but not sacred text.

The recision of Uthman is a delicate topic in many ways. Uthman was eventually killed by dissident muslims in his own home. Largely he was an ineffective caliph, being raised to that position when he was seventy and not clear of min. He was easily overwhelmed by his scribe and effective vazir, his cousin Marwan who had possession of Uthman's seals and wrote many orders under that seal of which Uthman was apparently ignorant. *

----------------------------
*He appointed Muhammad, a son of Abu-Bakr, governor of Egypt, and handed his decree to the deputation. Rejoiced, the members of the deputation and their new governor set out for Egypt. They had not gone far when they sighted a camel-driver speeding in their direction. He turned out to be in the service of the Caliph, and a letter was discovered on him, bearing the Caliph's seal and addressed to the replaced governor in Egypt, 'Abdu'llah Ibn Sa'd. It was an instruction to disregard the decree which the deputation held, and to behead the newly-appointed governor together with the rebel ringleaders. Maddened with fury the deputation hastened back to Medina, where 'Uthman, presented with evidence of his own perfidy, denied any knowledge of it. His word can be accepted, for Marwan held the Caliph's seal and always wrote on his behalf.
(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 175)


More to follow - regards,
Scott