Must a Christian beleive that Jesus is god?

[arauca]

The way of schizophrenics the weak willed.

I think there are more of your kind visiting shrinks then devoted Christians

 

[ChasingOceans]

The Christadelphians are a Christian group who believe Jesus is the son of God, but not God.. in the same way that a man is from his father, but is not his father. This is because, i as far as i can tell, there is no mention in the Bible of Jesus being God..

 

[Rav]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. - John 1:1-3

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. - John 1:14

The Word was God. The Word became flesh. God became flesh. Pretty clear.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. - Col 2:9-10

Again, pretty clear. Jesus was the fullness of the Deity (God).

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” - Hebrews 1:8-12

But why do we find examples in the Bible where God is referring to Jesus as "Lord" and "God" in one verse, and in the very next verse talks about being the God of Jesus? Further, why is Jesus also described as being the Son of God? Why does Jesus play a subservient role?

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!

- Philippians 2:5-8

Here we find out that it is by design. Jesus is indeed God, but was playing the role of a Son.

Of course it is possible when studying the New Testament to try to spin this the other way. Rather than interpret the subservience of Jesus in light of the verses that demonstrate that He is God, one can interpret the verses that seem to demonstrate that He is God in light of the verses that demonstrate his subservience. But I've never seen anyone build a scripture based case on that premise that is as consistent as the majority Christian view.

What I would say, then, is that any Christian who holds that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is likely, after careful study, to embrace Jesus as God. If on the other hand they have more liberal ideas about the veracity of the written word, they can justify significant departures from that majority view.

 

[Red Devil]

Christianity is an invention of man. Jesus was not a christian.

 

[Dinosaur]

Red Devil: Slightly off topic, but an interesting & likely valid POV.

Christianity is an invention of man. Jesus was not a Christian.​

Various posts to this Thread have convinced me that the dogma of most Christian sects require that a believer accept the notion that Jesus was/is god.

I am aware of one exception: The Quakers (Society of Friends) do not require such a belief. They are a small sect & I suspect that they would accept an atheist as a member. They are very behavior-oriented.

Your remark brings up a very different issue, which might be an interesting topic for another Thread.

I tend strongly toward a belief that Jesus was attempting to reform Judaism, not attempting to establish another religion.​

Christian theology seems to be more based on the later parts of the New Testament than on the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John.

To me, Jesus seems similar to Martin Luther who initially was attempting to do away with certain practices established long after the initial founding of the Catholic church.

BTW: I am an atheist who had a lot of religious training & education. When posting to a religion oriented thread, it seems correct to mention one’s faith or lack thereof, although it is easy to recognize born-again Christians & Islamics.

 

[Red Devil]

Dinosaur. Briefly. I was brought up in a catholic school and am a confirmed athiest. And, because I was brought up in a catholic school, my religious education was totally biased, wrong and full of hell fire and brimstone. I rejected the indoctrination at an early stage in my teens.

I do believe Jesus was real, and that he was obviously not divine. He was not christian because christianity did not exist in his lifetime, it was something invented later on. Jesus belonged to an organisation known as the Sons of God and that's where it becomes garbled into a 'son of god'. These wanted to change Judeah and rid themselves of the roman occupation.

In my opinion, what we apparently know about this persons life is written down by people who did not want him to be, or appear to be, a mere human. He is a creation of misinformation. The fact that he was no longer around to dissuade followers speaks volumes.

I am not a scholar, or even young anymore, but I do read and research things that interest me. This is my heart held belief of this person.

 

[The Marquis]

aaqucnaona, You do know that simply mocking something and describing it in a fashion that makes it sounds irrational doesn’t discredit it, right? ...... 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.

Zav, religion itself relies almost solely upon faith rather than reason.

Martin Luther himself said something along the lines of "...Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight....". While this is a quote from only one man among many faiths, he is nonetheless representative of a common theme.

I find it somewhat unreasonable, then, that a pattern of thought which denies reason should insist upon it as the only means by which any opponent of that faith should argue his case.

That is a pavise shield behind which the proponents of faith have a tendency to hide at their convenience, and one of the reasons by which religion, and in particular organised religion, have sheltered for so long in the face of the increasing proliferation of knowledge.

Given that religion relies to one degree or another on the denial of reason in favour of faith, is it any wonder that a frustrated non-believer should resort to something less than useful in order to communicate opposition?

Or, to state things a little more simply:
You theists are a mob of bloody hypocritical bastards, and everyone bloody knows it.