Other religions

[80sU2isBest]

But joyful girl, you're forgetting one thing. Many religions claim to be the only way. Christ in particular said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Now, if all religions lead to God, how do you reconcile the fact that several make claims to be the only way? Since Christ himself said that He is the only way, I must assume that if He is the Son Of God, Christianity is the only way. If He is not the Son of God, then Christianity is a complete and utter falsehood.

 

[AM]

All the Manifestations of God have the same metaphysical nature and the same spiritual stature. There is absolute equality among Them. No one of Them is superior to another.

The differences which exist between the teachings of the various Manifestations of God are not due to any differences in stature or level of importance, but only to the varying needs and capacities of the civilizations to which They appeared (big difference between people who lifed 2000 years ago or today).

However, the Bah?'? doctrine of the oneness of the Manifestations does not mean that the same individual soul is born again in different physical bodies. Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Bah?'u'll?h were all different personalities, separate individual realities. Their oneness lies in the fact that Each manifested and revealed the qualities and attributes of God to the same degree: the spirit of God which dwelled within any one of Them was identical to that which dwelled in the others.



[This message has been edited by AM (edited 04-11-2002).]

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Big enough to express Itself to those who aren't Christian, to those who will never hear about Christianity...

I realize that you don't believe the Bible, but I thought you might be interested to know that the Bible teaches this very thing about God. In the book of Romans, Paul wrote: "what may be known about God is plain to them , because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." He's saying that God expresses himself to everyone, Christian or not, through his creation. Based on this fact he's saying that everyone is accountable to God, whether they've ever seen a bible or heard of Jesus or not.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
But joyful girl, you're forgetting one thing. Many religions claim to be the only way. Christ in particular said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Now, if all religions lead to God, how do you reconcile the fact that several make claims to be the only way? Since Christ himself said that He is the only way, I must assume that if He is the Son Of God, Christianity is the only way. If He is not the Son of God, then Christianity is a complete and utter falsehood.

Jesus was the way for the people at that time, within that culture, and for all who have resonated with him since. I do believe a Son of God is the way. But I also believe that there have always been, and will always continue to be, Sons of God on this earth, in different cultures.


[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 04-11-2002).]

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by AM:
All the Manifestations of God have the same metaphysical nature and the same spiritual stature. There is absolute equality among Them. No one of Them is superior to another.

The differences which exist between the teachings of the various Manifestations of God are not due to any differences in stature or level of importance, but only to the varying needs and capacities of the civilizations to which They appeared (big difference between people who lifed 2000 years ago or today).

However, the Bah?'? doctrine of the oneness of the Manifestations does not mean that the same individual soul is born again in different physical bodies. Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Bah?'u'll?h were all different personalities, separate individual realities. Their oneness lies in the fact that Each manifested and revealed the qualities and attributes of God to the same degree: the spirit of God which dwelled within any one of Them was identical to that which dwelled in the others.

[This message has been edited by AM (edited 04-11-2002).]

AM--a colleague of mine belongs to the Bah?'? faith and when she and I talk about spirituality, we feel a kinship with one another. I think it is a beautiful religion.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase:
I realize that you don't believe the Bible, but I thought you might be interested to know that the Bible teaches this very thing about God. In the book of Romans, Paul wrote: "what may be known about God is plain to them , because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." He's saying that God expresses himself to everyone, Christian or not, through his creation. Based on this fact he's saying that everyone is accountable to God, whether they've ever seen a bible or heard of Jesus or not.

It's not that I don't believe in the Bible. It's more that I don't believe it was necessarily intended for the masses of people to come in future generations, although I am happy for anyone who finds truth in it thus giving their life meaning. I believe it was written for the people of that time, and that its original message has been distorted throughout time from its numerous translations, and that for me it is not easy to adapt it for today's spiritual seekers. But I appreciate you sharing that quote and, again, I'm glad that others see it differently.

[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 04-11-2002).]

 

[martha]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
[BSince Christ himself said that He is the only way, I must assume that if He is the Son Of God, Christianity is the only way.[/B]

For Christians. For others, there are other paths, other ways. If one views Christianity as the only way for himself, that's fine. Like joyful girl, I never felt a resonance with Jesus. I still don't, but I believe in the divinity of Jesus; He was God on Earth. Now that I'm on a different path, I can understand Jesus more and appreciate who He is and what He did. It's good.

------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by martha:
For Christians. For others, there are other paths, other ways. If one views Christianity as the only way for himself, that's fine. Like joyful girl, I never felt a resonance with Jesus. I still don't, but I believe in the divinity of Jesus; He was God on Earth. Now that I'm on a different path, I can understand Jesus more and appreciate who He is and what He did. It's good.

You say that Christ was God on earth. But can Christ be a liar and God at the same time? Do you believe that God lies? Christ said he was the only way. If he is not the only way, then he is a liar. And how can a liar be God?

 

[V Nura]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Originally posted by martha:
For Christians. For others, there are other paths, other ways. If one views Christianity as the only way for himself, that's fine. Like joyful girl, I never felt a resonance with Jesus. I still don't, but I believe in the divinity of Jesus; He was God on Earth. Now that I'm on a different path, I can understand Jesus more and appreciate who He is and what He did. It's good.

You say that Christ was God on earth. But can Christ be a liar and God at the same time? Do you believe that God lies? Christ said he was the only way. If he is not the only way, then he is a liar. And how can a liar be God?

what if christ never said that...the bible was canonized 500 years later...can you remember a conversation you had 5 years ago?...how about 500??? Christians place waaaaay too much emphasis on the bible. What if Christ meant that the universal teachings he taught were the only way?

in the book of job..god puts a man through hell just because he wants to win a bet. Personally god being a liar is quite tame, to him being irresponsible as he's portrayed in that story.

 

[martha]

Have at it, kids; I'm done here. I'm not up to rehashing the same points over and over again. It was interesting for a while, but I just don't care enough to continue. Some people insist on walking the path that is exclusionary and narrow. That's fine, but not for me. My faith is strong and real and alive, and I'm happy with my life and choices. I'm not into dogmatic arguements.

------------------

You have fairly generic bunions. --my podiatrist, 4-11-02

 

[foray]

martha, I'm not sure who's being dogmatic (as it's a tricky word): anyone who doesn't let up is considered dogmatic. I assume you are saying that the Christian argument (i.e Christ is the only way) going on here is dogmatic; well, I guess the other side of the argument has to be considered dogmatic, too, because the other side of the argument is adamant that all paths lead to God. Of course, I am only assuming that you are directing your post to the Christians here, and I wanted to respond to that.

joyfulgirl, I'd like to bring your attention to another passage in the Bible, talking about those who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ (this is to answer the question, 'will they be saved as well?'):

A letter to the Romans, written by Paul the apostle: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declares righteous.

In other words, let's consider remote tribes in Borneo who have not heard of Jesus Christ and what he did. We can't say that they won't be saved simply because they haven't heard, as it is unfair. Rather, the tribe will inevitable form their own codes and law, and as long they obey their law, their conscience bearing witness as well, they will be accepted by God. So, in this way, God is 'bigger', too.

foray

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Arun V:
what if christ never said that...the bible was canonized 500 years later...can you remember a conversation you had 5 years ago?...how about 500??? Christians place waaaaay too much emphasis on the bible. What if Christ meant that the universal teachings he taught were the only way?
in the book of job..god puts a man through hell just because he wants to win a bet. Personally god being a liar is quite tame, to him being irresponsible as he's portrayed in that story.

Arun V, it's obvious you don't believe in the validity of the Bible. Martha made the statement that Christ was God, but that he's not the only way. My discussion with her is from a totally different angle. I was basically asking her how she could believe Christ when he said he was God, but not when he said he was the only way. This argument doesn't apply to you because you don't even believe Christ when he said he is God. However, I will answer some of your questions anyway.
(1)The reason I can have so much in the Bible even though it was canonized a long time after Christ is because I know that if God wants the world to hear the Gospel message, He's gonna find a way to keep the word together. Quite frankly, compared to some of the other things He has done (water into wine, raising Lazarus and Himself from the dead, etc.), it would be the LEAST of his miracles.
(2)If Christ would have meant that the universal teachings he taught were the only way, he would have said it that way. What he said was "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me". If you want to argue that he didn't say those words at all, that's one thing, because it is ultimately a matter of faith. However, if you accept that he said those words, you can't argue that he meant something totally different.
(3)You misrepresent the book of Job. God did not put Job through hell to win a bet. Satan told God that Job was only faithful to God because of all God have given him, that he would be faithless if it were all taken away. Satan asks for permission to put him through the ringer.
God, knowing that Job will be faithful, grants him that permission - but with limits.
That's not a "bet". That's a test. And you know what? All his children go through tests - all the time. Tests are what strengthen us. They're for our own good. But then, you left out the end of the story - the part where Job stands faithful through the test and is given twice what he has lost!
If you want to question God's "justice" in allowing this test, I suggest you read God's answer to those claims, Job 38-41. Then, read Job's response to that and the incredible blessings he received when completeing and passing the test with flying colors, Job 42.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by martha:
Have at it, kids; I'm done here. I'm not up to rehashing the same points over and over again. It was interesting for a while, but I just don't care enough to continue. Some people insist on walking the path that is exclusionary and narrow. That's fine, but not for me. My faith is strong and real and alive, and I'm happy with my life and choices. I'm not into dogmatic arguements.

martha, I was not "re-hashing the same points over and over again". I brought up a new point; a point that you obviously would rather not answer at all. That's fine. You called my path "exclusionary and narrow". You are right on one point, but you couldn't be more wrong on the other".
Christianity IS a narrow path, the Bible even says this. But, by claiming to be the only way, that's natural.
But "exclusionary"? Hardly! I would say, in fact, that it's very INCLUSIVE. The Bible says that "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to everlasting life." Anyone who accepts Christ as Lord will be saved - the offer is open to absolutely everyone; black, white, yellow, brown, fat, skinny, tall, short, people who have been Muslims all their lives, people who have been Athiests all their lives, even people who have been Satanists all their lives. How in the world is that "exclusionary"?

 

[V Nura]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Originally posted by Arun V:
what if christ never said that...the bible was canonized 500 years later...can you remember a conversation you had 5 years ago?...how about 500??? Christians place waaaaay too much emphasis on the bible. What if Christ meant that the universal teachings he taught were the only way?
in the book of job..god puts a man through hell just because he wants to win a bet. Personally god being a liar is quite tame, to him being irresponsible as he's portrayed in that story.

Arun V, it's obvious you don't believe in the validity of the Bible. Martha made the statement that Christ was God, but that he's not the only way. My discussion with her is from a totally different angle. I was basically asking her how she could believe Christ when he said he was God, but not when he said he was the only way. This argument doesn't apply to you because you don't even believe Christ when he said he is God. However, I will answer some of your questions anyway.
(1)The reason I can have so much in the Bible even though it was canonized a long time after Christ is because I know that if God wants the world to hear the Gospel message, He's gonna find a way to keep the word together. Quite frankly, compared to some of the other things He has done (water into wine, raising Lazarus and Himself from the dead, etc.), it would be the LEAST of his miracles.
(2)If Christ would have meant that the universal teachings he taught were the only way, he would have said it that way. What he said was "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me". If you want to argue that he didn't say those words at all, that's one thing, because it is ultimately a matter of faith. However, if you accept that he said those words, you can't argue that he meant something totally different.
(3)You misrepresent the book of Job. God did not put Job through hell to win a bet. Satan told God that Job was only faithful to God because of all God have given him, that he would be faithless if it were all taken away. Satan asks for permission to put him through the ringer.
God, knowing that Job will be faithful, grants him that permission - but with limits.
That's not a "bet". That's a test. And you know what? All his children go through tests - all the time. Tests are what strengthen us. They're for our own good. But then, you left out the end of the story - the part where Job stands faithful through the test and is given twice what he has lost!
If you want to question God's "justice" in allowing this test, I suggest you read God's answer to those claims, Job 38-41. Then, read Job's response to that and the incredible blessings he received when completeing and passing the test with flying colors, Job 42.

I'll sum this up very neatly...I Don't beleive in the validity of the bible...but that doesn't mean I discount the teaching of christ.

I do believe jesus was god...I just don't dont believe the bible is 100 percent accurate account of his life.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Arun, I'm not here prove that the Bible accurately records all of Jesus's words, but I think I do need to point at least one thing out that I think supports that it's very likely that the Bible is historically accurate (i.e. what it says Jesus taught is really what he taught).

Although you're right that the new testament (second half of the bible) wasn't officially canonized until the 5th century, the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were almost certainly written by 60 AD, within a few decades of the events that they record. And writings of early church fathers show that these gospel accounts were accepted by the early church in the 1st century. They were so widely accepted by early Christians that the need for official canonization was not seen until centuries later when people were trying to add other books to those that were being used by the church.
Certainly if the gospels had been written and were being read in 60 A.D., there were people around who could have disputed their accuracy far better than we can today.

All this to say that I think it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really did say that he was God and the only Way, simply because it's written in the Bible.



[This message has been edited by Spiral_Staircase (edited 04-12-2002).]

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Sorry AM! I know this was supposed to be about religions other than christianity. Ok, back at it...any Wiccans in the house tonight?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
You say that Christ was God on earth. But can Christ be a liar and God at the same time? Do you believe that God lies? Christ said he was the only way. If he is not the only way, then he is a liar. And how can a liar be God?

Again, what I believe is that if Jesus was the only Son of God in that region at that time, then he was the only way for those he taught during his mission on Earth.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Arun V:

I'll sum this up very neatly...I Don't beleive in the validity of the bible...but that doesn't mean I discount the teaching of christ.

I do believe jesus was god...I just don't dont believe the bible is 100 percent accurate account of his life.

I totally agree.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by foray:

joyfulgirl, I'd like to bring your attention to another passage in the Bible, talking about those who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ (this is to answer the question, 'will they be saved as well?'):

A letter to the Romans, written by Paul the apostle: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declares righteous.

In other words, let's consider remote tribes in Borneo who have not heard of Jesus Christ and what he did. We can't say that they won't be saved simply because they haven't heard, as it is unfair. Rather, the tribe will inevitable form their own codes and law, and as long they obey their law, their conscience bearing witness as well, they will be accepted by God. So, in this way, God is 'bigger', too.

foray

Again, since the Bible is not my source of truth, its quotes don't mean a whole lot to me.

 

[foray]

No, that passage I shared with you was simply contributing to what Spiral_Staircase said "He's saying that God expresses himself to everyone, Christian or not, through his creation. Based on this fact he's saying that everyone is accountable to God, whether they've ever seen a bible or heard of Jesus or not." I wasn't imposing anything on you.

Out of interest, though, you also mentioned that the Bible is a text so far removed by this time, in that it has been transcribed and re-transcribed, so that it's lost its original meaning. What is your religion; is it Buddhism as well? And does it have old Buddhist (or whatever religion you follow) scrolls that it is based on? My best friend is a Buddhist and she told me that Buddhist scrolls are just as 'removed' as any old texts may be. They have been interpreted, re-interpreted, transcribed and passed down thru the generations.

Also, I don't understand exactly how you reconcile this: accepting all religions as being one way to God, yet reject some (eg., you reject the doctrine of Jesus being *the* Son of God). Care to elaborate?

foray

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by foray:
No, that passage I shared with you was simply contributing to what Spiral_Staircase said "He's saying that God expresses himself to everyone, Christian or not, through his creation. Based on this fact he's saying that everyone is accountable to God, whether they've ever seen a bible or heard of Jesus or not." I wasn't imposing anything on you.

Ok, thanks.

Originally posted by foray:

Out of interest, though, you also mentioned that the Bible is a text so far removed by this time, in that it has been transcribed and re-transcribed, so that it's lost its original meaning. What is your religion; is it Buddhism as well? And does it have old Buddhist (or whatever religion you follow) scrolls that it is based on? My best friend is a Buddhist and she told me that Buddhist scrolls are just as 'removed' as any old texts may be. They have been interpreted, re-interpreted, transcribed and passed down thru the generations.

No, I am not Buddhist. I follow an esoteric path with a living master similar to martha's path.

Also, I don't understand exactly how you reconcile this: accepting all religions as being one way to God, yet reject some (eg., you reject the doctrine of Jesus being *the* Son of God). Care to elaborate?

foray

I'm sorry, I really don't know how I can be any clearer. I accept that Jesus was *the* Son of God for his disciples and anyone else who resonates with him.

Okay folks, I think I am done here, too.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by foray:
martha, I'm not sure who's being dogmatic (as it's a tricky word): anyone who doesn't let up is considered dogmatic. I assume you are saying that the Christian argument (i.e Christ is the only way) going on here is dogmatic; well, I guess the other side of the argument has to be considered dogmatic, too, because the other side of the argument is adamant that all paths lead to God. Of course, I am only assuming that you are directing your post to the Christians here, and I wanted to respond to that.

joyfulgirl, I'd like to bring your attention to another passage in the Bible, talking about those who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ (this is to answer the question, 'will they be saved as well?'):

A letter to the Romans, written by Paul the apostle: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declares righteous.

In other words, let's consider remote tribes in Borneo who have not heard of Jesus Christ and what he did. We can't say that they won't be saved simply because they haven't heard, as it is unfair. Rather, the tribe will inevitable form their own codes and law, and as long they obey their law, their conscience bearing witness as well, they will be accepted by God. So, in this way, God is 'bigger', too.
foray

Foray, that is an excellent commentary on that passage! I will use that in my life, if it is not copyrighted!

 

[foray]

joyfulgirl, I think I understand now. Took me the second time. And my apologies if I stepped on your toes and martha's.

foray

 

[melon]

Originally posted by foray:
A letter to the Romans, written by Paul the apostle: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declares righteous.

That's Romans 2:12, for reference's sake.

In terms of what St. Paul meant by it, he was in dialogue with the Jewish Christians of Rome. By "law," he is purposely ambiguous. St. Paul never does state what he means by "law," which, of course, the Jewish Christian audience is supposed to assume "Mosaic Law." By the end of Romans, he makes sure to state his own core belief that the "law" is in reference to Jesus' commandment to "Love God and love one another."

The obvious debate at this juncture in time was whether converts to Christianity had to adhere to Jewish Mosaic Law or not. St. Paul did not believe so, and much of his epistles reflect this view. This is contrary to the incorrect belief that tries to say that he made "ritual law" distinctions. St. Paul himself believed only in the Golden Rule.

Ultimately, in my long-winded manner, I think that foray's interpretation is very good, although I do think it is a stretch that St. Paul was referring to non-believers. St. Paul was making an appeal for Jewish Christians to accept Gentile Christians, whose own "law" was equally valid in his eyes. Faith, ultimately, is more important than one's expression of it, as long as it is sincere, for God knows one's heart and one's intentions.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy

 

[HeartlandGirl]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:

Okay folks, I think I am done here, too.

I bowed out awhile ago, too. But joyfulgirl, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on religion and spirituality. This thread, however, has turned into a debate rather than a discussion.

------------------
U2 @ The Blooming Heart

 

[V Nura]

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase:
Arun, I'm not here prove that the Bible accurately records all of Jesus's words, but I think I do need to point at least one thing out that I think supports that it's very likely that the Bible is historically accurate (i.e. what it says Jesus taught is really what he taught).

Although you're right that the new testament (second half of the bible) wasn't officially canonized until the 5th century, the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were almost certainly written by 60 AD, within a few decades of the events that they record. And writings of early church fathers show that these gospel accounts were accepted by the early church in the 1st century. They were so widely accepted by early Christians that the need for official canonization was not seen until centuries later when people were trying to add other books to those that were being used by the church.
Certainly if the gospels had been written and were being read in 60 A.D., there were people around who could have disputed their accuracy far better than we can today.

All this to say that I think it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really did say that he was God and the only Way, simply because it's written in the Bible.

[This message has been edited by Spiral_Staircase (edited 04-12-2002).]

Spiral all I'm saying is that you can't discount other's beliefs. The idea that gad can some in human form. And when people use the bible to rationalize their view..I simply like to point out that you can't always do that. The most important aspect..is that one adhere to the teachings of their belief..not what religion you are.

My personal belief is that the bible has been edited to give the church a greater influence. I have very little faith in the church to maintain the integrity of records.(i'm a doubting thomas).

I'd ratehr be a good jew than a bad hindu, or a good christian than a bad hindu.


There is a part of religion that I like to call..divine paperwork. it's the part that says..even if your a good guy..if your not this this and this...your goign to hell. I dont' believe god is exclusionary based on how you honor him, just on what's in ones heart.

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Wow.
What a thread.
Good pts Arun.
I think one has to be SUPER sensitive to each others internal religous beliefs.
Its very touchy.
For example if you tell someone there religous views are not quite accurate, its like telling a fellow -"Hey, I think your girlfriend is ugly."
Not a good move.

Interestingly, on Arun's pt., after reading several Near Death Expierences books the overwhelming similarity that souls who passed to the other side and returned back here was -
not how good of a religionist they were on Earth but-
how they treated there fellow human beings on a daily basis-ie-"The Golden Rule".
People are shown life reviews and how their actions affected others.

Love you guys-
Out-
Diamond

[This message has been edited by Diamond The U2 Patriot (edited 04-14-2002).]

 

[gvox]

Originally posted by Arun V:
you are dodging the point...in christianity god is viewed as one in three father SON, and holy spirit. So if the son is part of the trinity...and jesus says I and my father am one.....

He's not dodging the point, he is correctly evaluating Jesus' statement in the context of when Jesus said it, why, and to who, rather than simplistically isolating one phrase and basing an entire doctrine on it.

One of the most popular beliefs held in alot of Christian faiths, but not all, is that Jesus is God. Notably, the bible itself does not teach this doctrine, Jesus himself *never* claimed to be God, and it wasn't even introduced into the church as a concept until around 4 C.E., long after Christ had risen. There are two passages that hard core Trinity believers will refer you to (the rest are just following whatever their preacher told them), and you have referred to one already. The Jews thought that Jesus' claim to be the son of God with the weight of Divine Messenger was sheer blasphemy. Similar to how a ruler of a nation may look with disbelief at a messenger from a ruler of another nation. So Jesus, the messenger, God's Son, basically said 'lookit, you see/hear me, you see/hear God'...its funny because after he said this, they rushed him and wanted to kill him, saying, 'a-ha! This man claims to be God!' to which Jesus said 'hey, you said it, not me'...Im paraphrasing here but I think you get the point...

The other passage is John 1:1, which, it has been proven, was mistranslated in earlier editions of the Bible (ie King James version)to read 'and the Word (Jesus) was God'. More careful scrutiny of the original manuscripts lead many bible scholars to conclude that an accurate rendering of the original text into English would result in the passage reading "...and the Word was <b>a</b> god"

Again, I want to note that apart from that one passage mentioned earlier, nowhere did Jesus claim he was God, instead always referred to Him as His father, his creator, his superior. I have often challenged pastors to point me to the passage where I can find the popular phrase 'God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit', but so far not one can..because it doesn't exist.

Not every Christian believes that Jesus is God Himself, or part of a triune deity. Interestingly, the concept of a triune god is actually a derivative of 'pagan' teachings with origins in the kingdom of Babylon. The rest of the bible is full of passages where God demands exclusive devotion and worship to Him, and Him only.

I don't believe in Christ as God, but that in no way diminishes my belief and faith in Jesus as our redeeming saviour, God's Son, and the rightful heir to God's throne, upon which the bible promises Jesus will rule as king.




------------------
"...well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!"
BTBS, Rattle and Hum

 

[gvox]

[/b][/QUOTE]
that's what IIIIII tried to say earlier..jesus not only says he's the SON of god...but that he is god.

[/B][/QUOTE]

NO! He said "I and the Father are one", not "I am God" or "I am the Father". Reading that Jesus was claiming to be God from that statement is just an interpretation, and that is where religion has gone all wrong througout times, they keep interpreting the bible to fit their own doctrines.

See my other post, sorry Im just getting caught up here! : )



------------------
"...well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!"
BTBS, Rattle and Hum

 

[AM]

thanks for all your posts folks, but please keep in mind that the subject of this thread is 'other religions' than christianity.