Do all Christians believe Jesus is God and or God's Son

[tradeunionsupporter]

Do all Christians believe Jesus is God and or God's Son are there any Christians sects that believe he is human and not God don't many Liberal Christians deny that Jesus is God do all Christians and all of Christianity agree that Jesus is God or are there any sects of Christianity that disagree ?

[Le Socialiste]

Not the Christians I know (including myself). I have many friends who believe Jesus was just a man; some are even skeptical about his very existence. I don't know about any branches or sects of Christianity that officially believe Jesus was just a man, but several liberal/progressive religious denominations hold members that maintain the his mortality (or nonexistence). This is something I've noticed as being significantly tied to the younger members of said organizations/denominations (i.e. late teens/young adult).

[Johnny Kerosene]

Isn't like the definition of Christianity the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of god or something like that? Well, according to the user above me, that's not true, but the majority, and by majority, I mean probably more than 90% of Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and most believe in the trinity, meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same thing, or whatever.

[Le Socialiste]

I wouldn't claim those who don't believe Jesus is the son of God are the majority - clearly, they're not. But they do exist. Again, curiously enough it's mostly young people who say or believe this. And I wouldn't say believing in the "divine nature" of Christ makes you a Christian. For the vast majority, sure. It's a hard thing to explain.

[Astarte]

Do all Christians believe Jesus is God and or God's Son are there any Christians sects that believe he is human and not God don't many Liberal Christians deny that Jesus is God do all Christians and all of Christianity agree that Jesus is God or are there any sects of Christianity that disagree ?

There are actually many interpretations, but the orthodox/catholic/protestant view is essentially that Jesus is the same as God, He is the self begotten. I think the only ones that do what you are talking about are Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses...

As for the many different historical interpretations of Jesus by Christians outside of the Church, many occurred before the Roman Catholic Church was established or were branded heresies. Their views on the spiritual quality of Jesus were of diverse and varied theological interpretation.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm

This second link is especially fascinating as it shows a list of heresies historically up until modern times as recorded by the Catholic Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heresies_in_Catholicism

[freepalestine]

Do all Christians believe Jesus is God and or God's Son to christians he is the messiah.also similarly in islam,يسوع المسيح -jesus christ.
although i guess different perspectives

[Johnny Kerosene]

to christians he is the messiah.also similarly in islam,يسوع المسيح -jesus christ.
although i guess different perspectives

Isn't he considered a prophet in Islam? Along with, Adam, Moses, and Abraham. And of course Mohommad, but he's the final one or whatever.

[Shropshire Socialist]

Not all Christians, but they tend to be in the minority. Many liberal Christians believe that he was just a man, and that the resurrection and second coming are all spiritual rather than physical.

Many liberation theologists also hold to this view, which is why it was banned amongst members of the Catholic Church.

[hatzel]

Many liberation theologists also hold to this view, which is why it was banned amongst members of the Catholic Church.

I feel there might have been a somewhat more significant reason than that :rolleyes:

[MarxSchmarx]

The Eastern Churches, at least early on, had a very nuanced position about this whole thing. In general the prevailing view was that Jesus's divinity was an unanswerable question, and many early eastern orthodox theologians were uncomfortable with the idea that if Jesus was divine, then the divine would be knowable to mere mortals. Indeed, they felt that to consider Jesus "divine" would detract from the mystery and awe that was accorded to God.

Of course over the centuries this rather curious view got diluted but survived in certain eastern sects and in the more mystical and monastic versions of eastern Orthodox Christianity. Still, I think the question of Jesus's divinity has largely developed in the western church's theology in part because the western church clung more closely to the old testament god.

[ComradeMan]

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine,
Deum verum de Deo vero.

I don't think you can "officially" be a Christian unless you accept "Fílium Dei Unigénitum".

[hatzel]

many early eastern orthodox theologians were uncomfortable with the idea that if Jesus was divine, then the divine would be knowable to mere mortals

...which might go some way to explaining all those charges of heresy thrown in the direction of the great mystics...I remember posting in another thread not long ago that the greatest lesson of Christianity is precisely that: that the mortal and the divine can and, in fact, do occupy the same 'plane' of 'being,' and I feel that this assertion can be repeated here...

[MarxSchmarx]

...which might go some way to explaining all those charges of heresy thrown in the direction of the great mystics...I remember posting in another thread not long ago that the greatest lesson of Christianity is precisely that: that the mortal and the divine can and, in fact, do occupy the same 'plane' of 'being,' and I feel that this assertion can be repeated here...

Well, part of the problem with esp. western Christianity is that it sees in the nicene creed no less that such a connection between man and the divine can be constructed. Although all churches agree on this point, the question is whether this means that Jesus was more divine or more human. I think the west has for better or worse thrown its lot in with the idea that Jesus is more divine, whilst the east has to a large extent accepted that Jesus's divinity is shared in all of us. This goes to no small extent to appreciate the charges of pantheism and even athieism inherent in early founders of the eastern church.

And I think it will be up to historians to explain rather trivially why a similar version of religion that arose in constantinople in the east in 500 AD did not arise until the Dutch protestants seriously challenged Spinoza to think about the divine more systematically. Just as an aside.

[Mind_Zenith]

The New-Thought denomination, the Unity School of Christianity, believe Jesus to be more of a scaffold for human life rather than something to be worshipped. They consider his life to be an example of good-doing and godliness, and consider his station as "Son of God" as a universal affirmation for all people to take up. I know they're pretty influential in the most liberal denomination in my little part of the world, the Uniting Church of Australia; indeed, a lot of members of that church are simply Christian Deists, who don't believe Jesus was anything more than a spirit-filled man.

[Franz Fanonipants]

no

islam otoh

[tradeunionsupporter]

There are Liberal Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

[NGNM85]

That is the litmus test for Christianity. Acceptence of Jesus Christ as the lord, and one's personal savior, is the most fundamental tenet of Christianity. Anyone who does not accept this proposition is not a Christian.

[chimx]

I don't think you can "officially" be a Christian unless you accept "Fílium Dei Unigénitum".

And look how that evolved with Christianity in the first 100 years of the church. Look at the first gospel that was written: the gospel of Mark. There is no virgin birth and Jesus doesn't become divine until after the resurrection. In Matthew and Luke, the next to gospels, the divinity of Jesus comes during the divine virgin birth. It isn't until the last gospel, John, written around 100C.E., that you see the idea of the trinity develop in early proto-orthodox christianity.

[Klaatu]

Jesus was NOT a god. He was a MAN. According to scripture:

1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

John 1:18
'No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Jesus was not actually "God" until it had been decided so at the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[chimx]

Well I disagree. There were a variety of sects within Christianity for the first 400 years of its existence. What became Catholicism or orthodox christianity today was just one sect that happened to win out. Their belief in the trinity began to develop around the time the gospel of john was written, which is by far the most trinity-friendly:


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

The council of Nicaea made it official and was a way for the orthodox christian sect to legitimize their beliefs in the face of a very diverse christian relgion that believed everything from no trinity, to polytheism, gnosticism, to all sorts of wacky things.

[RGacky3]

Many gnostics believed he was just an enlightened man, the idea of the trinity is'nt in the bible at all, it only came at the council of nicea, at that point platonic theory and influences from roman had religion mixed in.

In the early (first and second century) church, the idea of whether Jesus was divine or not was a hotly debated subject and by no means was there a consensus.

[chimx]

certainly not, but i think the gospel of john, a proto-orthodox text, indicates the existence of the trinity debate in pre-nicaea times.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

According to Karen Armstrong (a British ex-Catholic nun who now teachers at a rabbinical school and who regards herself as a "free lance monotheist") in The History of God, there was a huge struggle within Christianity to enforce the idea of Jesus as god or part of god and it wasn't really until the 4th century if I remember, with the Council of Nicea that this idea became codified as the official "mainstream". Even then there was a struggle against Arianism.Even with the defeat of the "Arian Heresy" Arianism took on a new life among the Germanic "barbarians". It was almost a matter of chance (and a lot of politics) that "mainstream" Christianity became mainstream.There were other directions Christianity could have evolved.

Also, as I understand, the concept of the Trinity more evolved within the Greek tradition.It was originally supposed to represent an interior spiritual experience of "God". Western Christians took this concept literally instead of metaphorically, where it makes far less sense.

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels is an interesting "synopsis" (no pun intended) of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Some of the gospels give a much different view of Jesus. Mary Magdelene may have been Jesus' g/f.She had her own gospel, so the "disciples" weren't all (sometimes) celibate men.The other disciples were jealous of her.Jesus regarded Peter, supposedly the "rock" of the church, as not very bright.Jesus was close to Judas. I haven't read it but as I understand the Gospel of Judas points to Judas as sort of a "yang" to JC's "yin", a necessary evil, who in betraying JC was equally doing the work of God.

There's a story, I think from the non-Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas of Jesus being a school yard bully. As a young child the guy didn't fully realize the extent of his powers and struck a school mate dead. Later he regretted this and brought the kid he killed back to life.

[chimx]

While i agree with everything you are saying regarding early schisms within the first christians, gnostic gospels were written way after the gospels in the NT. relying on them for historical accuracy is even more foolish than relying on the gospels that made it into the bible.

[ComradeMan]

While i agree with everything you are saying regarding early schisms within the first christians, gnostic gospels were written way after the gospels in the NT. relying on them for historical accuracy is even more foolish than relying on the gospels that made it into the bible.

I'm not sure about all of that-

Gospel of Thomas as early as 50 AD although general scholarship points to around 150 AD. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts are very old indeed. Remember the Gnostic Gospels are varied and don't really form one "corpus" as such, at least not in a canonical sense.

Who knows?

I wonder how much else lies buried in the sands of Egypt.

[chimx]

Gospel of Thomas as early as 50 AD although general scholarship points to around 150 AD.

If the GoT was 50AD, then that would mean it predated the gospel of mark, which i find very unlikely. Most scholars think it was written a few decades after John, which is the last of the 4 gospels written in the NT. And even more importantly, the GoT is not really a gnostic text due to its content. It is often associated with gnosticism because it was discovered with a collection of later gnostic literature.

But yes, there is a lot of lost stuff that would be nice to have. Q source obviously, but lots of stuff that paul talks about in the NT regarding other sects

[ComradeMan]

If the GoT was 50AD, then that would mean it predated the gospel of mark, which i find very unlikely. Most scholars think it was written a few decades after John, which is the last of the 4 gospels written in the NT. And even more importantly, the GoT is not really a gnostic text due to its content. It is often associated with gnosticism because it was discovered with a collection of later gnostic literature.

That's not what I've read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

This would it make it contemporaneous more or less. The idea of the Gospel of John being the last of the gospels is also disputed and perhaps refuted by the discoveries at Qumran.

Some sceptics do challenge that Thomas is a gnostic gospel although I find the argumentation a bit lame.

[chimx]

The gospel was apparently written near the end of the 1st century.[38][39] Bart Ehrman argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that he believes clearly do not belong to their context, and believes that these suggest redaction.[40]

The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel (c. 200) supports AD 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing.[41] Scholars set a range of c. 90–100.

-wikipedia

I have never heard anyone argue that john wasn't last on the big 4 list. just look at this wikipedia article that summarizes scholarly beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree with your posts.

[ComradeMan]

-wikipedia

I have never heard anyone argue that john wasn't last on the big 4 list. just look at this wikipedia article that summarizes scholarly beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament

They are arguments indeed but personally I also think there is a problem with this reasoning. Only a tiny fragment of all the texts we have that were ever written in the ancient period have been preserved or handed down to us. Secondly to state that whatever was written in xyz ignores the possibility of the final version being compiled and presumably that is the version that was preserved.

Scholars often point to language in the texts for dating and apparent contradictions but if materials had been passed down orally too, as we know is the case with other ancient works, this might explain the apparent contradictions in language.

The fragment from Qumran 7Q5 is from the Gospel of Mark- although this is controversial I'll admit seeing as it is such a small fragment.

But I suppose at best it will only be a case of different scholar's opinions and a consensus on material of this nature will always be difficult to establish.

However:-

"The noncanonical Dead Sea Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) suggest an early Jewish origin, parallels and similarities to the Essene Scroll, and Rule of the Community.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John#cite_note-51) Many phrases are duplicated in the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are sufficiently numerous to challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the last to be written among the four Gospels[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John#cite_note-52) and that it shows marked non-Jewish influence.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John#cite_note-Out_of_the_Desert-53)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John#Date
Citations
52 Rule of the Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Community). "And by His knowledge, everything has been brought into being. And everything that is, He established by His purpose; and apart from Him nothing is done." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Community
53 Roberts, “An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library XX, 1936:45-55.
54 Out of the Desert (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html

[chimx]

and it is true that the earliest copy of the gospel of john we have predates any of the other copies we have of the other gospels. but given how they were written, what's in them, etc., scholars believe john was written at the end of the 1st century.

But I don't really know what you mean by a final version? We do not have any of the original copies of anything in the new testament. All of the gospels that we have are copies of copies of copies, most about 100-200 years old. The oldest copies of the gospel that we have are still subject to 100+ years of copying errors, sectarian additions and subtractions, forgery (it is well established for example that the last few chapters in the gospel of mark are forged), etc.


"The noncanonical Dead Sea Scrolls suggest an early Jewish origin, parallels and similarities to the Essene Scroll, and Rule of the Community.[52] Many phrases are duplicated in the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are sufficiently numerous to challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the last to be written among the four Gospels[53] and that it shows marked non-Jewish influence.[54]"

I think the biggest case for john being written last is just how much of a theological divergence it is from the other gospels. It is by far the most unique and theologically detached. It has the strongest connection to the later christian idea of the trinity, which was slowly being developed at this time. He calls himself "I am", which is obviously a reference to god in the OT when he is chatting with moses. he is the "light of the world", "bread of life", etc. etc. etc. Plus John is the biggest break from Judaism, whereas the other gospels fit within jewish culture. Read John 3 for example, or John 7 towards the end. Christianity by this time was beginning to define itself as its own sect outside the world of judaism.

[mak1976]

Isn't he considered a prophet in Islam? Along with, Adam, Moses, and Abraham. And of course Mohommad, but he's the final one or whatever.
Hey Jhonny: Yes U r right. In Islam Prophets are really serious business as they are Gods direct representatives but they are also considered humans (pure ones) as there is Only One Creator and All the rest...created beings including Prophets. Muhammad (pbuh) is considered the last and Jesus(pbuh) second last. Before them most notable were Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, Issac, Joseph, Jacob, Noah, Elias, Lot, and of course Adam (peace be upon all of them). In Islam it is mentioned that there are 126,000 prophets send by God to advise straying mankind but alas :rolleyes: still His greatest creation often acts worse than the lowest creation.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

There were, but the Church took care of them soon enough.



http://arthuride.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/spanish-inquisition.jpg

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Holy shit I just noticed that the user above me revived a two year old thread to make a correct but weirdly defensive statement about islam.

What on earth?

[Sasha]

I think that for many Christians today the divinity of jezus is like the flat earth concept was for ages for any thinking people living near or on the sea; a theological concept, not something people, even many in the clergy, actually believe(d) if pushed.

[Sentinel]

Mak1976, this is a thread from 2011. Feel free to start a new one on the same subject, but there is no point in replying to posts made 2 years ago.

Closed.