I suspect many Protestants accept Jesus as god, but not the Trinity.Anything that doesn't fall into line with trinitarianism (ie, doesn't share the values or influence of Roman Catholicism)
https://www.quora.com/Which-Christian-denominations-do-not-believe-in-the-Trinity-Why-not
Is there a sect which calls itself Christian (follow Christian bible) without making Jesus into god?
I agree with your point, but what I was trying to find out is there a sect, rather than individuals, which calls itself Christian without the divinity of Jesus.Probably most of today's Unitarian Universalists. Many Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, ELCA Lutherans etc.
There's a big group of theologically "liberal" Protestants in both the United States and Europe who seem to treat Jesus as some kind of uniquely authoritative sage or philosopher. He might have been uniquely attuned to God, served as God's instrument by channeling God and by doing nothing but God's will, or something like that. But they don't believe that he was literally God.
I expect that many Roman and Orthodox Catholics think of Jesus the same way.
You mean Jesus as a secular moral figure, a philosopher?I agree with your point, but what I was trying to find out is there a sect, rather than individuals, which calls itself Christian without the divinity of Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theologySecular theology holds that theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God's nature.[2] It rejects the concept of a personal God and embraces the status of Jesus Christ, Christology and Christian eschatology as Christian mythology without basis in historical events.
On the other hand, what hope does a person have to live a Christ-like life if Jesus wasn't 100% human?What would be Jesus' claim to fame, if it wasn't for "divine intervention"?
Then he (scripture) should not have claimed to be son of god.On the other hand, what hope does a person have to live a Christ-like life if Jesus wasn't 100% human?
I am under the impression that Jesus did not claim to be the son of god, but that he was the messiah (still expected by religious Jews). Deification, as I understand it, was by later Christians, starting with Paul.Then he (scripture) should not have claimed to be son of god.
I hope to live at least as moral as any theist, and I'm an atheist. Be careful with assigning morality to any specific belief system. Almost all scriptural religions are exclusive by definition.
Well, from a quick search;I am under the impression that Jesus did not claim to be the son of god, but that he was the messiah (still expected by religious Jews). Deification, as I understand it, was by later Christians, starting with Paul.
http://www.christcreated.com/con/bible/contradictions/lord-world/Response (by a Christian);
Satan is the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and “the god of this world” (II Corinthians 4:4). However, Jesus Christ is more powerful than Satan, and so Jesus Christ is truly the lord of creation in the ultimate sense. One day, Christ will physically reclaim the earth as His kingdom.
The books cited were written well after the life of Jesus and after Paul. By then Christians had defied Jesus.Well, from a quick search;
http://www.christcreated.com/con/bible/contradictions/lord-world/
And that proves anything? Moreover, does it matter who is wrong here?The books cited were written well after the life of Jesus and after Paul. By then Christians had defied Jesus.
First, Jesus claimed to be the unique Son of God. As a result, the Jewish leaders tried to kill Him because in "calling God his own Father, [Jesus was] making himself equal with God" (John 5:18 NIV). In John 8:58 Jesus went so far as to use the very words by which God revealed Himself to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14).
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries...-claim-to-be-god-by-hank-hanegraaff-8825.htmlTo the Jews this was the epitome of blasphemy, for they knew that in doing so Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. On yet another occasion, Jesus explicitly told the Jews: " 'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God' " (John 10:30-33).
The knowledgeable theist is relying on the Gospel of John, written well after the life of Jesus. We have no way of knowing how accurate it is.And that proves anything? Moreover, does it matter who is wrong here?
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries...-claim-to-be-god-by-hank-hanegraaff-8825.html
Not my words. This is a knowledgeable theist speaking. Is he wrong?
OK, shall we strike every verse which has doubtful origins from scripture? Won't be much left....The knowledgeable theist is relying on the Gospel of John, written well after the life of Jesus. We have no way of knowing how accurate it is.
A little bit of arrogance makes Him all the more human.Then he (scripture) should not have claimed to be son of god.
I agree, that is part of the hubris of daring to compare oneself with a god.A little bit of arrogance makes Him all the more human.
Why are you placing obstacles where there exist none? Hope if one can be a good person without being Christian? What kind of question is that?On the other hand, what hope does a person have to live a Christ-like life if Jesus wasn't 100% human?