Must a Christian beleive that Jesus is god?

Aside from the Society of Friends (Quakers) are there any sects that claim to be Christians but do not necessarily believe that Jesus is god?

Quakers consider themselves to be Christians, but do not require members to believe that Jesus is god, nor do they deny such a claim.

Do some Christians deny that Quakers are Christians?

Again: Is belief in the diety of Jesus necessary to being considered a Christian?

BTW: Do all Christian sects believe in the Trinity concept?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unitarians (I believe) don't accept Trinity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True.

Pretty much by definition, Christians kinda hafta believe Jesus is God.

• If he's not God (ie, the perfect sacrifice to bear all our sins), then we're not forgiven, and we must bear our guilt forever. If God hasn't forgiven us, why should we forgive each other?
• If he's not God, then he's not coming back to judge us, so it doesn't matter how we live (and we all take a dirt nap when we die).
• If he's just a really nice/wise fellow, then why follow him exclusively (ie, maybe someone else has a better perspective on life)?
• If he's not God, then he couldn't perform all those miracles, and so, important parts of the New Testament (at least) are lies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do Mormons?
Jehovah Witnesses don't, I think...
Muslims are a sect of Christians (Nestorians) and they don't

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why do we have to make an issue about trinity . Is it going to help me to live a Godly life ? no
Quakers believe in God and in the teaching of Jesus , they are children of God as any God fearing person.
What ever God open their hearth and the Holly spirit guides them.
We don't have to march under the same beat . Let the holly spirit guide us all.

 

Jehovas Witnesses don't believe that he is God. They also don't believe in the trinity, at least in the sense that other xtians do.
John 1:1 states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
They believe that "the word" was gods very first creation in heaven before he created earth or the universe. The Word was god in the sense that it was made from the same "makeup" as god, but it was a part of god that he had separated from himself. And it was through The Word that god created everything. The word had the appointed task of creating everything, but everything that The Word does is Gods will. It was through The Word that God created The earth and the universe and everything we know. The Word is the only thing that god himself created. Jesus, was The Word embodied in human form. This is what is meant when Xtians say that god sent his only begotten son to earth. Jesus had already existed in heaven since the beginning of time. He did not become aware of his pre earthly existence until he was baptized by John the Baptist.
So when they (Jehovahs Witnesses) speak of "The father", they are talking about God himself. When they speak of "The Son", they are speaking of "The Word" who took human form on earth as the man Jesus.

Now on to The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a slightly more difficult concept. God himself resides in heaven. He does not himself enter the universe or come to earth. The Holy Spirit is, as JWs call it, "Gods active force on earth. What this means is a few things. The Holy spirit is kind of like a spark of God, or a tiny piece that inhabits all living things on earth. Imagine a toaster. On its own, when it is not plugged in, it serves no purpose. It cannot make toast. But when you plug it into the socket, it now has some electricity flowing in it and it can serve a purpose. The electricity in the toaster is kind of like the holy spirit. It inhabits all of us and is what gives us life. It is also what compels us to do good deeds. So when good things happen on earth, it is "Gods active force on earth.

The holy spirit is also what god uses to talk directly to humans on earth. When Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving the 10 commandments from god, and carved them into the side of the mountain, it was "Gods active force", or The Holy Spirit on earth. And when Moses asked to see god, and God said that if Moses were to see gods face, he would surely die, so god allowed Moses to see gods backside, well, that was actually The Holy Spirit that Moses saw.

This, mind you, is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Jesus, and the trinity. They do not believe that god is a "triune" god, and point out that many pagans believed in Triune gods. So the idea of a trinity is pagan in origin. JWs do not use the word trinity. The use the words "God", "The Word/Jesus" and "Gods active force/The Holy Spirit"

Jehovas Witnesses do not call themselves "Christians", because they believe that Worship should only go to god. I don't know the exact passage, but there is somewhere in the gospels where a man bows down to pray to Jesus and Jesus lifts him up and says "Do not pray to me, but pray to him who sent me [God]".
So JWs do not pray to Jesus, or saints, or relatives or Mary or anybody except God. They see Jesus as the messenger of Gods word.
Imagine it this way, lets say That I am a billionaire, and I know of a village that is completely destitute. I want to help this village but I cannot go there, so I send you with a few million dollars to help them. You bring them the money and tell them it is from me. Now, sure they are appreciative to you for bringing this money, but it was from me. JWs see praying to Jesus as thanking the person who brought the money to them as if it was his own rather than the one who sent it in the first place.

Other Xtians don't really see JWs as "Christians", but they largely don't know what to think of them. JWs tend to call other Christians by their individual denomination, i.e. Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist etc. And they refer to the whole of "Christianity" as "Christendom", or "The kingdom of Christendom".

So, JWs highly rever Jesus, and follow his teachings, but do not worship him.

So, hope that wasn't too much to read.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think so. But if a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was God, then he or she isn't going to conform to Christian orthodoxy and might once have been condemned as heretical.

The ironic thing is that I doubt very much whether Jesus himself would have accepted the idea that he was God. Jesus was deeply Jewish and to Jewish ears, that kind of claim would have sounded like blasphemy. (The real Jesus might have been absolutely aghast at what people say about him today.) I'm more inclined to think that Jesus might have believed that he was perhaps the messiah, but only in the sense that he thought that he was a human being who had been chosen by God to be God's earthly instrument. Kind of a souped-up prophet. In that respect, I think that the Islamic vision of Jesus might be closer to the historical reality.

Many adherents of modern 'liberal' Protestant theology don't think that Jesus was literally God. You find many of these people speaking freely in the 'mainstream' Protestant denominations here in the US. The Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and so on. Questioning the divine incarnation idea is less common among the more 'evangelical' denominations. Among the Unitarians, the idea of Jesus as a human religious teacher is probably the most common view these days. If he was divine, he was no more divine than the rest of us can potentially be. The Catholics definitely include Christ's divinity among their most important doctrines, but I don't think that all Catholics necessarily believe it here in the States.

That depends on who is doing the 'considering'. There isn't really any single authority out there who can define who is and isn't a Christian. The Pope comes closest, since the majority of the world's Christians are Catholics and that church has a tremendous amount of history. But there are lots of different strands of Christian tradition out there, and not all of them are likely to accept all the others as brothers and fellow religionists.

The Unitarians historically haven't. I'm sure that many early Christians didn't believe in it (probably many of them never even heard of it), but once again, it was eventually adopted by the Church councils (4'th century Nicea and following) and it became a central element of Catholic orthodoxy. People who denied it were heretics.

Today people are no longer being burned at the stake for having unpopular theological ideas and there's lots more theological diversity these days, particularly among the more liberal Protestant denominations. So skepticism about Jesus' divinity or about the trinity probably wouldn't raise eyebrows in those churches. The minister might not be all that convinced either.

 

I person does not need to believe Jesus is god, to believe in god.

a Christian is not a Christian if he/she does not believe Christ is part of god.

So Yes. A Christian must believe Christ is god to be a Christian, but not to believe in god.

Post 3 was just about right.

 

I agree with the Quakers.
If you are from the west, and your ancestors came from the west, you will hold mainly Christian standards even if you do not accept the theology.
Just look at Dawkins the Atheist.
He's Christian through and through.
He could have been Archbishop of Canterbury, had he gone in a different direction.

 

On an aside, why is it now popular for Atheists to spell god in lower case G regardless of how it’s used? It’s bloody irritating as its not proper Grammar.

I mean the word god in and of itself may not be a name, but the same applies to river or rock. However, no one spells it rock Hudson or river Phoenix. In the context of how the word is used, the word God is often a name. This is because it identified a specific person, place, or thing in the sentence.

You ask if a Christian must believe that Jesus is god. This is clearly a reference to a specific person, named god, so why is it god and not God?

I really do think modern day Atheism is driven by Childish aspirations and not by actual thought when I see such nonsense.

 

You're probably right grammatically, but I think the main reason is that a non-believer doesn't want to infer by using "God" that they are accepting the existence. In other threads it's been suggested that just discussing religion somehow suggests a hidden belief, so the lower case is a downplay of the significance, whereas capitalization would project to some people acceptance and denial of their god.

It's probably more appropriate to use terminology like "your god" or "the biblical god", but that gets wordy.

 

No. There are several sects of christianity that believe Jesus is a deity, but not God himself. They believe that Jesus is the messiah and savior, but not God.

~String

 

Muslims are not a sect of Christianity. They believe Jesus was a prophet, not devine, not the son of God, and not the messiah. Their entire mythos and ritual is totally different. Their faith is orthopraxic, Christianity is not. Islam is closer to Judaism, though obviously, very different as well.

You're right about Witnesses and Mormons though.

~String

 

Rhaedas-

Proper grammatical form does not imply belief. The stated reason to leave god in lower case doesn’t really add up. I am also less inclined to give the benefit of a doubt to people. I really think spelling god in lower case is just a pedantic means of ridicule. It really proves nothing and only shows illiteracy.

By the way, discussing God is not the same as discussing Religion. It is a false dichotomy to think of Atheism and Religion as opposites, and it is false to think of Theism and Religion as the same thing.

 

I know this is below the belt, but:
anyone who can beilieve a god, his son and a ghost are all one can believe anything.

 

aaqucnaona, You do know that simply mocking something and describing it in a fashion that makes it sounds irrational doesn’t discredit it, right? As an example, in another Thread someone gave Dawkins summery of Christianity, which pretty well did the same thing. Dawkins chose words to describe Christianity selected precisely because he wants others to see it as ridiculous, but just because Dawkins described it thus doesn’t mean that actual Christians are idiots. The same applies here.

In fact, you can do this with anything, and thus depict anyone who believes in anything as stupid.

Let me demonstrate.


Anyone who believes that Time moves slower for some people but not others just because some people are moving faster than others will believe anything.


Anyone who be;ives that all animals are related, even those who eat other animals, and that man came from a Monkey will believe anything.


Anyone who believes black people, who clearly display the traits of animals, are the equal to white, obviously better developed people, will believe anything.


See, I can just as easily make any belief look stupid by simply describing it in a way that makes the belief seem Childish. But in the end you leave out details and, I’m sure like Dawkins, if you elaborated would misrepresent the beliefs.

You can do this with anything, and thus justify any alternate belief. This is why Ridicule doesn’t work. I don’t care if Dawkins say’s it does.

By the way, before I am challenged, I am not actually ridiculing Relativity, Evolution, or the idea of Equality of the Races. I am making a point about this Tactic. In this Thread I am not going to actually defend what I’ve said, except in terms of how it relates to your argument against Christianity which relies on Ridicule and not on Reason.

 

You're hijacking this thread, aren't you?

Is the question of whether or not to capitalize the word 'god' really a grammatical issue? 'God' isn't really a proper name like 'Mike', 'Lloyd' or 'Yahweh'. What it names seems to be more of an abstraction, a religious function.

And traditionally, the word seems to be capitalized if it refers to a/the monotheist deity, traditionally assumed in the Western context to be the Judeo-Christian god. It's left lower case when it refers to polytheist gods, 'pagan' gods and the like.

So the practice of capitalizing and not capitalizing the word seem to be associated with implicit judgements about the relative status of different concepts of deity.

I typically follow convention and use the capitalized form when I'm talking about the kind of monotheistic conception that's typically assumed by default in most Western discussions of 'God'. But if the discussion is broader and more comparative, and if other conceptions of deity are being included in the discussion, I sometimes intentionally leave the word lower-case throughout so as not to privilege the Christian-style conception.

 

There could be a simpler explanation. Using the lower case makes sense in context where "god" is an entity, not a name.