Does anyone know how many religons believe Jesus was the son of God rather than God in human form? Those of you who are still Christians, do any of you now believe Jesus is God?
Son of God vs.God
by Mazzie Brossmann 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
glenster
Both views
(Jesus as God's own Wisdom personified and sent to people, similar to Wisdom
in the intertestament Wisdom literature and basically like the Logos idea in
that Logos isn't a separate created being from the Demiurge,
and Jesus as a sinless created being, some considering him archangel Michael)
see Jesus as the Son of God and not God comprehensively. The first is the
majority view, but I don't know of a poll that shows the percentage that are
Unitarians.
My focus is mainly in the JWs leaders, who misrepresent the comparison. That
aside, and looking at what's left to better be able to compare, the mainstream
view has the stronger case for having been the believers' original intention.
What I have on it and early related history is on pp.6b to 10 at the next link.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/ -
snowbird
I have come to believe that He was, He is, and He will always be God.
Sylvia
-
reniaa
We have 34,000 Christian denominations and growing. The majority think Jesus is somehow Almighty God. In past history any desenting opinion to a triune God was heavily censored by torture, execution, burning of documents, keeping the bible for only a select few to read and even war.
Men like Sir isaac Newton who believed in one God and that Jesus was his actual son had to keep their viewpoints hidden, secret papers after sir isaac Newton's death were found showing he One God believer in the father. And certainly trinity was not taught by the first century christians as a term or a doctrinal concept it is also completely absent from the bible itself.
the first expression of trinity itself appeared in later centuries and had people believing 'wisdom' was the third part of the trinity it got changed to holy ghost later.
Look up arian beliefs for early some followers of One God belief.
Reniaa
-
isaacaustin
Your first sentence is correct. The second is assertion not based on fact. The thrid builds on that circular logic. The fourth is a request.
-
PSacramento
I view Jesus as the Son of God, not just ANY Son, THE SON, the total "embodiment" and manifestation of all that God is, so in a sense, Yes, Jesus is God for in him dwells all that God is.
I do not view Jesus as YHWH or THE God.
-
reniaa
psacremanto trinity demands you must view Jesus as YHWH becasue of DEUT 6:4
Deuteronomy 6:4 (New International Version)
4 Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, is one YHWH. [a]
This scripture shows YHWH is the one True God. Jesus himself affirms this very scripture.
Mark 12:28-29 (New International Version)
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [a]
If Jesus himself affirms that his father YHWH is the One God to try and put that on Jesus is against Jesus's own wishes and more importantly his belief.
Reniaa
-
isaacaustin
Reniaa said: Deuteronomy 6:4 (New International Version)
4 Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, is one YHWH. [a]
trinitarians have to get past it because it shows YHWH is the only true God and the ONE.
Mark 12:28-29 (New International Version)
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [a]
My reply: That is not a problematic verse for trinitarians. The Hebrew word rendered here 'one' is echad- which has a meaning of unified rather than the cardinal number 'one', as opposed to Yachwid, which can only denote one, as in singular.
-
darkl1ght3r
Reniaa, the problem here is the ambiguity of the Bibles description of God's nature. In my own research I have come to the conclusion that the Bible writers THEMSELVES were divided on the issue (they were divided on MANY issues). For example, John and Paul both explicitly believed Jesus to be both God and the Son of God, the 'Son of God' referring specifically to Jesus in the flesh. Other writers seem to make more of a distinction between the two. I could go in depth but I'm at work and I don't have my research in front of me.
You are correct in that the trinity doctrine itself did not arise untill several hundred years after Christ, however the belief that Jesus and God are one was widespread and accepted as early as the first part of the second century (look it up). Evidence shows that essentially ALL of the earliest church fathers accepted this view. (The quotes in the "Trinity" brochure were dishonestly taken out of context.)
What sealed the deal for me however, was the Old Testament prophecies and sayings that applied specifically to Jehovah. However, the NT writers took many, many, of those passages from the OT and then applied them directly to Jesus. You're going to tell us that they didn't know what they were doing when they did that? And the supposed 'confusion' that it would inevitably cause?
For example there is the passage of (I forget the exact wording) 'The one crying out from the wilderness, preparing the way for JEHOVAH'. Yet in the NT 'The One Crying Out' is described as John the Babtist who prepares the way for Jesus. There is another OT vs. that poetically describes Jehovah actually being sold for 30 pieces of silver. Then there is the "Alpha-Omega/First-Last" confusion in Revelation, where the WT cant even keep straight who is being spoken of, and uses warped resoning to differentiate the two titles. There are numerous other examples of descriptions and titles applied to God that the NT writers quoted but applied to Jesus, I can post them later but something tells me you're aware of them but choose to ignore their significance.
The funny thing is, when you look for the Societys comments on such parallels, they're silent on the matter. It's as if they'd rather have the rank-and-file unaware that they exist, than risk them seeing the obvious connections. So there's whole chunks of the Bible that the WT pretends arn't there. They focus on a core sampling of maybe 200-300 or so scriptures to support their doctrines, and beat those into the rank-and-file. (Don't believe me? Try to find the Societys comments on Luke 21:8. I think theres ONE refrence on the CD-Rom, IIRC)
The FACT is... the conclusion that Jesus is God is a logical one that comes from the Bible itself, and from an attempt to reconcile what is said about both Jesus and Jehovah. NOT from some supposed "Pagan influence". When ALL the evidence is considered (not just the WT's cherry picked and twisted "evidence"), you see the rational behind mainstream Christianity's veneration and worship of Jesus. Going by scripture, it is a logical and defensable conclusion, and certainly has more weight behind it than the WTs view.
But hey, what do I know? I don't believe either of them are God. I'm an atheist. :)
Dark
-
Narkissos
It is only "vs." if you assume it is.
Actually, in Semitic usage (among others) being "a son of god(s)" basically means being "of the god-kind" (just like being a "son of man/men" means being "of man-kind"). Which is approximately equivalent to what "being (a) god / God," as a qualitative predicate (like in John 1:1), means.
Sometimes the thought of actual generation is still very present along with that "kind" or "category" usage -- a son of man is literally the son of a man as much as he is "of man-kind" (and no less so than his father). Sometimes it recedes into the background, as in the "guild" usage of Hebrew ben -- "sons of the prophets" or "sons of the gatekeepers" eventually meaning little more than (professional, registered) "prophets" or "gatekeepers".
Of course monotheism changes the deal to an extent. When Islam says that God has no son it means basically the same thing as the scholastic Christian doctrine that God is not a kind (deus non est in genere). But Christianity is stuck with the formulations of Scripture, where Son of God plays a major role, and it has generally lost sight of the categorial use of "son of".
See also http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/66342/1/Son-of-God-some-background