Is your belief in God, entirely dependent upon

[Elijah John]

Is your belief in God entirely dependent upon your belief that Jesus himself is God, the 2nd person of the Trinity?

If the arguments of skeptics here on these boards, or the arguments of Historical Jesus Scholars such as Bart Ehrmann or John Dominic Crossan, or even the arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Jews suddenly clicked in your mind, with a light-bulb-"aha" realization that Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries every called him "God", what would you do?

Would you retain your general belief in God, as Father? Would you join another religion such as Islam or Judaism? Would you attempt to salvage what you can of Chrisitanity in a unitarian (small "u" not necessarily UU) fashion?

Or would that discovery cause you to become an atheist or an agnostic?

[marco]

But to present the "Old Testament God" as a foil for Jesus, and a contrasting Deity is a false dichotomy. Remember, Elijah's enounter with God not in booming thunder or in the destruction of cities, but in the "still small voice"? The portrait of God in the Hebrew Bible is not quite so simplistic as you sometimes seem to convey.

Nor is Jesus always benevolent and benign, as you know.

No bad book is bad on every page; no good man is good every hour. Jesus presents a Father figure and the figure we have in the OT is generally a rather frightening, judgmental, passionate being. We can look for the still small voice of calm but we can't forget the destroyer of nations. I see the OT God as a figure who demands subservience or else; the pages where he is calm don't - for me - erase that picture. Jesus did him a huge favour by presenting him as a God of love, mercy and forgiveness. But then we hear his desperate appeal to be released from suffering on a cross and we suspect the old God has come back. Actions speak louder than words.

But I accept that I may be seeing with myopic eyes.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

True. But we csn flesh out any details you feel pertinent.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

True.

This honest response is refreshing.

But we csn flesh out any details you feel pertinent.

This response is less so. My objection clearly explains the pertinent details. Your refusal to address them is puzzling.

[WPG12]

Being that it is written that Jesus compared himself to the serpent that was lifted up in the desert, and Paul says all of those things were written for our admonishment, maybe it would be a good thing to know what the rest of the story of that brazen serpent was.

They brought that brazen serpent into the temple and worshipped it, the Hezekiah "who did what was right in the sight of God" took that brazen serpent out of the temple and broke it in prices. That's the rest of the story, after being lifted up for men to look on and be healed.

No, if Jesus were not God it would not affect anything.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Is your belief in God entirely dependent upon your belief that Jesus himself is God, the 2nd person of the Trinity?

That’s like asking is your belief in God dependent upon God being your creator? I assume your belief in God is that He is the creator of everything because you see that as Truth. Well, my belief in God is dependent upon all that is True. So, if I believe Jesus is God as true, then of course my belief in God is dependent on that.

If the arguments of skeptics here on these boards, or the arguments of Historical Jesus Scholars such as Bart Ehrmann or John Dominic Crossan, or even the arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Jews suddenly clicked in your mind, with a light-bulb-"aha" realization that Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries every called him "God", what would you do?

Right back at ya, but change the Jesus is not God to God did not create the heavens and the earth. What would you do? What would you do if others revealed that God in fact did not create the world, that His kingdom is not to come, nor His will?

Would you retain your general belief in God, as Father? Would you join another religion such as Islam or Judaism? Would you attempt to salvage what you can of Chrisitanity in a nitarian (small “u� not necessarily UU) fashion?

Or would that discovery cause you to become an atheist or an agnostic?

Well, I couldn’t continue to be a Christian because I believe we can know Jesus is God from Sacred Tradition (the Church) and Sacred Scripture. The trinity is the crux of Christianity and Bible believing Christians. If it is wrong about that – then why would other things that have been revealed thru Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture be truth?

So, I guess denying the Trinity would scrap Christianity and Biblical revelation for me. Though, I suppose it could remain that a God exists, however I would have no public revelation (information) about who He is so it would be difficult to speculate much about Him, what He would want or expect, His plans or will, man’s purpose, etc.

[brianbbs67]

God is what He is. Yeshua, Joshua, is what he is. Why would a prophet of the Lord lose my faith in the Lord? Could they be the same? Yes. Are they, IDK? But, it doesn't matter to me, as God is Lord. How He reveals Himself is just window dressing. The important thing is to believe and trust Him.

[Elijah John]

Well, I couldn’t continue to be a Christian because I believe we can know Jesus is God from Sacred Tradition (the Church) and Sacred Scripture. The trinity is the crux of Christianity and Bible believing Christians. If it is wrong about that – then why would other things that have been revealed thru Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture be truth?

So, I guess denying the Trinity would scrap Christianity and Biblical revelation for me. Though, I suppose it could remain that a God exists, however I would have no public revelation (information) about who He is so it would be difficult to speculate much about Him, what He would want or expect, His plans or will, man’s purpose, etc.

Interesting, because the earliest Christians, the Jewish-Christians including the aposltles, the Ebionites, the community which produced the Didache, (attributed to the apostles) did not consider Jesus to be "God". The Messiah, yes, but God, no.

And the original Unitarians (not UUs) and modern day Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christiadelphians have no problem considering themselves Christians, though none of those groups proclaimed Jesus as "God" or understood him to be "God".

And outside of the Gospel of John, Jesus never even comes close to calling himself "God" or saying "I am God". If he had, no one would have listened to him. Remember, Jesus audience was not Paul's audience. Jesus audience were absolute, Shema-professing monotheists, not pagan polytheists. Trinitarianism developed not among Jews, but pagan converts to Christianity who bought their polytheistic mindset to the table, along with their calendar and holidays.

[Elijah John]

God is what He is. Yeshua, Joshua, is what he is. Why would a prophet of the Lord lose my faith in the Lord? Could they be the same? Yes. Are they, IDK? But, it doesn't matter to me, as God is Lord. How He reveals Himself is just window dressing. The important thing is to believe and trust Him.

And to love Him (and our fellow humans), as best as we understand Him. Trinitarianism works for many, but not for me. It would be a shame if anyone who comes to see Trinitarianism as error, were to jettison their faith in God altogether. Altogether unnecessary, imo. Absolute Monotheism is still a viable option, even in a Christian context.

Ironic too, if (as evidence seems to suggest) since Jesus preached absolute Shema-monotheism, and not Trinitarianism. It would seem a tragic irony if people were to lose their faith in the One whom Jesus preached, because they finally come to the realization that the preacher himself is not, in fact, God.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 17 by Elijah John]

Interesting, because the earliest Christians, the Jewish-Christians including the aposltles, the Ebionites, the community which produced the Didache, (attributed to the apostles) did not consider Jesus to be "God". The Messiah, yes, but God, no.

Say what now? Totally disagree. Early church writings show otherwise.

And the original Unitarians (not UUs) and modern day Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christiadelphians have no problem considering themselves Christians, though none of those groups proclaimed Jesus as "God" or understood him to be "God".

True. Although, the Unitarians congregation came into being in 1774 at Essex Chapel in London, founded by a former Church of England minister, Theophilus Lindsey. The JW’s weren’t founded until the 19th century (1870) by Charles Taze Russell who denied current Christian teachings like the Trinity and hell. And Christiadelphians were founded in 1805. According to Wikipedia . . .

“this movement sought a reform based upon the Bible alone as a sufficient guide and rejected all creeds. However, this liberality eventually led to dissent as John Thomas developed his personal beliefs and began to question mainstream orthodox Christian beliefs. They differ from mainstream Christianity in a number of doctrinal areas.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christadelphians

Sounds like an awful lot of personal interpretation going on there . . .

And outside of the Gospel of John, Jesus never even comes close to calling himself "God" or saying "I am God". If he had, no one would have listened to him.

And yet, that Jesus was God is exactly what the first Church taught and still does today.

Remember, Jesus audience was not Paul's audience. Jesus audience were absolute, Shema-professing monotheists, not pagan polytheists. Trinitarianism developed not among Jews, but pagan converts to Christianity

The Trinity was taught by Christ’s established Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was the accepted and established belief of Christendom. JW’s, not even existing until the 19th century, are a little late to the party. Charles Taze Russell thought himself qualified to personally interpret Sacred Scripture and even changed Sacred Scripture where he chose, when it didn’t fit into his existing personal theology. Was Charles Taze Russell a prophet? Where did his authority come? Remind me again how many failed prophesies he proclaimed?

I’m sorry, but if I am on a sincere search for truth regarding Christianity, I might want to go back a little further than the 19th century. It makes no sense to me to follow some guy who kept having to change what his church taught because what he was teaching was found out to be untrue. Please think about it. Pray about it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 19 by RightReason]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

You may want to check your facts, because according to Wikipedia, the Ebionites accepted Jesus as Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth. As did other Jewish-Christian sects.

Those Jewish Christian sects were in competition with the Pauline sects, and of course Paul won and his version of Christianity is the basis of what we have today, as mainstream "orthodox" (small "o") Christianity.

But victory does not establish veracity.

Also, have you read the Didache? Do you own a copy? I have, I do. In fact, (ironically) I bought one from a Catholic bookstore.

Nowhere in it's pages (even the pages of the one I got at the RC bookstore) does it refer to Jesus as "God" or indicate that he died to "pay for our sins". Instead, it speaks of the "two ways," the way of Life and the way of sin and death. Very much sounding like the Sermon on the Mount, and not at all ike the Gospel of John or the letters of Paul.

And not at all like the teachings of the RCC, or the Creed(s).