Would you still believe in God, if you found out that

[Elijah John]

Would you still believe in God if you discovered that Jesus is not God? If so, what form would that new found realization take? Would you then become a Jew? A Muslim? Or a free-lance, "heretical" Christian?, A Jehovah's Witness? Something else?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Of course!!! Who is "Jehovah" or "YHVH"? Certainly not Jesus. How can anyone ignore completely the Father of Jesus and everything else as well?

A Jehovah's Witness does what Jesus did---witness about God Almighty and the wonderful things he has done and what he will do. (Revelation 1: 5)

"May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, NWT, KJV)

"There is to us one God, the Father..." (I Corinthians 8: 6)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Would you still believe in God if you discovered that Jesus is not God?

I think I would need more information. Does the Bible still exist? Because if it did, it couldn’t be the same Bible. The Bible that has been revealed to the Church established by Christ shows Jesus is God. .

Yup, same Bible. Many HJ scholars have concluded from their studies of the Bible (as well as cultural, religious and historical context) that Jesus is not God, nor did he ever claim to be. Even some former Catholics, like John Domic Crossan (who was a Priest) and Karen Armstrong, (who was a Nun). Granted, most other Catholics and Protestants have not come to this realization.

And granted as well that a turn to Judaism is a viable option. But it is not the only one, as the existence of many Jehovah's Witnesses clearly demonstrate, even here on our boards.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I think I would need more information. Does the Bible still exist?


Yup, same Bible.

So, you mean the Bible that was given to us by Christ’s Church? That same Church who tells us Jesus is God? See, you don’t really get to have it both ways. You can’t say you accept the authority of the Church by accepting the Bible she gave us, but then say the Bible doesn’t say what the authoritative Church says it does. That is simply illogical.

The Bible did not fall from the sky. If you know history, you know Christ established His Church, who in turn He gave authority to compile the Bible. His Church chose exactly what was to be included as part of the canon and what was not. It is that Bible that Charles Taze Russell took and thought he could change. He trusted Christ’s Church in giving us the Bible, but then renounced the Church, took the Bible and said I’ll take it from here. If he didn’t have authority to do this, that does not sound like a good idea to me. I would think one ought to take his cues from the early Church – from Christendom. And what does Christ’s Christian Church teach? If you study history the evidence is clear-- she teaches the divinity of Christ.

If you Google what do Christians believe. This is what comes up . . .

In Christianity, Jesus is believed to be the Son of God and the second Person of the Holy Trinity.

THAT is Christianity. I’m not sure what it is you believe in.

Many HJ scholars have concluded from their studies of the Bible

Many scholars and those in academia have concluded from their studies that the entire Bible is bunk. I’m not all that convinced of something just because I can find someone who believes it.

[William]

Elijah John: Would you still believe in God if you discovered that Jesus is not God?

William: Who would Jesus be then, if not GOD? What would this 'discovering' have to consist of?

Elijah John: If so, what form would that new found realization take?

William: Obviously it would get down to discovering who Jesus was, if not GOD.
The way I understand Jesus, he is the representative person of the real YHWH, in human form ... who had all but being largely ignored and used as a means of manipulating people under false concepts of GOD for a large part of Israels history.

Therefore, your question takes on an interesting conundrum when supposed that 'it is/can/will be 'discovered' that Jesus did no represent the true YHWH.

Obviously Jesus was very focused upon this point when in public - making no bones about the fact that the Jews had largely already -and for a long time - abandoned the true YHWH for the false one they had chosen to create, for their own national agenda.
The promise of YHWH sending a 'messiah' was part of that deception created by Israel about YHWH. It boosted the soldiers morale to be told that GOD promised them a mighty warrior who would destroy Israels enemies...'one day'.


Elijah John: Would you then become a Jew?

William: What is "A Jew' that one could 'become' one? According to Jesus - in his time, the answer was "Follow the real YHWH by listening to my voice and following me."
It stands to reason that discovering the real YHWH is in The Christ.
Not that I am arguing that Christianity isn't guilty of the very things that Israel was guilty of when Jesus first showed up on the scene - one has to admit that the given parameters governing YHWH in relation to Humans, there comes with this the most difficult task of trying to covey your self as you truly are, when Humans just want to make you into something they think is more useful...given in general, more useful things have to do with a more instant gratification and comfortable lifestyle.

Through Jesus, YHWH obviously took this into account..."The Buck Stopped There" ...only...people still prefer to judge one another in the name of their various beliefs, theists and non-theists alike.
There is no thing left for YHWH to do in regard to Human Beings. The Job was done.

Elijah John: Something else?

William: Truly, your question cannot be answered Elijah John...until you give the reader a clear example of this 'thing' your premise implies - can be 'discovered' - about Jesus, not being YHWH.

Elijah John:And granted as well that a turn to Judaism is a viable option. But it is not the only one, as the existence of many Jehovah's Witnesses clearly demonstrate, even here on our boards.

William: Jesus clearly wasn't about getting folk to "turn to Judaism" but rather - he wanted folk to understand that Judaism had turned from YHWH.
Notice that Jesus did not call GOD, "YHWH"? Do you think this was an oversight?
Do you think that ignoring my observations and questions means you won't have to face this, eventually?

[Elijah John]

.
Notice that Jesus did not call GOD, "YHWH"? Do you think this was an oversight?
Do you think that ignoring my observations and questions means you won't have to face this, eventually? [/color]

Whose name was Jesus referring to then, when he taught "hallowed be thy name"?

Are you suggesting that Jesus was not a Jew, and was instead some kind of panentheist? Evidence please.

Also, do you believe the real, historical Jesus (a Jew) taught Jesus-worship? The way I read it is that he taught worship of YHVH alone, whom he knew as "the Father"

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by RightReason]

The RCC, Protestant Churches and Jehovah's Witnesses are disciples of Paul, Not Jesus. Or if Jesus, at best only indirectly through a Pauline lens, and based on Paul's vision.

Notice there is no mention of Jesus teaching's of love of God or neighbor in the Apostle's or Nicene Creeds. Not even the Golden Rule. If Jesus were not your sacrificial lamb, would you folks have any use for him at all?

And Jesus never taught the Trinity. No good Jew would. If you think so, where did he do this?

Yes, the Bible did not fall from the sky. I've said this many times on this site. Only I usually word it that the "Bible did not fall in-tact from Heaven". And go on to add that it was compiled by men, and by committee. I then sometimes ask, what makes you so sure that the Bible is the Word of God, in it's entirety? I can also ask those who appeal to the authority of the RCC, what makes you so certain that the RCC is infallible?

Seems to me that those who blindly follow the RCC are not much different than those who blindly follow the Bible or the Watchtower. All three seem to do so at the expense of God-given Reason.

Were the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and even John, "Catholics"?

The RCC has as good a claim to the Bible as any Protestant or JW. But none can claim proprietary rights to it.

What do I believe? I haven't hidden my beliefs, they are expressed in every post I make. And if you are still uncertain, they are summarized in my signature section.

And your characterization of HJ scholars is dismissive, simplistic, unfair and inaccurate.

[Avoice]

Their testament says
who by him (Jesus) do believe in God.
I believe that is the exact quote though Im going only on memory. But the meaning is the same.
They need Jesus to believe in God. Who BY HIM do believe in God. Only one way to
translate it. No jesus..no belief.

They need God to be like them. Human. They want God to think like them. They need to put a face on God. So much so that they see jesus in toast and tree bark.. IMPOSSISIBLE!! They cant possibly see jesus or mary. How could they? No one knows what they they looked like. Thats if they really existed. No, they are seeing Da Vinci's painting of them. Good grief

[William]

William: Jesus clearly wasn't about getting folk to "turn to Judaism" but rather - he wanted folk to understand that Judaism had turned from YHWH.
Notice that Jesus did not call GOD, "YHWH"? Do you think this was an oversight?

Elijah John: Whose name was Jesus referring to then, when he taught "hallowed be thy name"?

William: Your confusion is understandable. Many seemed to be confused as to who the GOD was which Jesus referred to.
My question to the reader was really "Why" did Jesus not refer to the One he called his Father as "YHWH""Jehovah" etc, and his recorded arguments with members of the Jewish priesthood confirm that he understood their idea of YHWH as being "The Devil".

So, Either Jesus was calling YHWH "The Devil" OR he was referring to the image of YHWH which Judaism had developed over the centuries, as 'The Devil"
Which do you think is more likely, given the evidence we have to go by?

Elijah John: Are you suggesting that Jesus was not a Jew,...

William: What do you mean "A Jew"? Do you mean, "someone who believes the image of GOD which Judaisms priesthood claimed was YHWH"? If so, then clearly Jesus was not, and the Jewish priesthood obviously didn't think so either.


Elijah John: ...and was instead some kind of panentheist? ...

William: What do you mean "some kind of panentheist"? There is only one 'kind' of Panentheist.
Panentheism meaning "all-in-God", is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time.
Clearly Jesus was indeed a Panentheist, given what he had to say about The Father.

Elijah John: ...Evidence please.

William: The evidence is in the books of the bible which attribute the sayings of Jesus, as well as in other books not in the bible which also attribute the sayings of Jesus.

Elijah John: Also, do you believe the real, historical Jesus (a Jew) ...

William: You should either explain to the reader why it is important to you that Jesus was "a Jew" and what that means exactly and why it matters to your argument. Obviously it appears very important to you.


Elijah John: Also, do you believe the real, historical Jesus taught Jesus-worship?

William: No more than I believe a real messenger of YHWH would teach the worship of religious ritualism, or falsify the image of GOD and lead people away from YHWH in the name of YHWH.

Do you believe that Jesus was not YHWH in the flesh of a human being?
It appears to me obvious that was what Jesus was saying. The Jewish priesthood and most of the Jewish public thought Jesus blasphemed and deserved to die.
That is understandable given how far from the Heart of YHWH Israel had willfully wandered.
Why is it that in your attempt to portray Christians as idolaters, you forget how the Jews of Jesus time had long since given over to idolatrous notions of YHWH?

Can you not understand that your concern about how Christendom has resorted to false images of GOD, is no different than what the Jews have done?
Why are you up-in-arms about the Christians doing so, while remaining okay about the Jews having done and still doing so?

Where in history since Jesus Historical Christ, have the Jews stopped practicing the things which Jesus told them was NOT of The Father, YHWH?

Elijah John: The way I read it is that he taught worship of YHVH alone, whom he knew as "the Father"

William: And what he taught in public about worship was that one worships The Father In Spirit and In Truth. Not in ritualism and idolatry.
One worships The Father by accepting The Son's message and loving your enemy.
The Jewish priesthood taught that one should hate their enemy, and that YHWH hated non Jews and that YHWH demands blood sacrifice and public executions by stoning...the list goes on.
Jesus taught a very different YHWH.
So different that there was no point in him referring to The Father, as YHWH, and thus he did not.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The RCC, Protestant Churches and Jehovah's Witnesses are disciples of Paul, Not Jesus. Or if Jesus, at best only indirectly through a Pauline lens, and based on Paul's vision.

Notice there is no mention of Jesus teaching's of love of God or neighbor in the Apostle's or Nicene Creeds. Not even the Golden Rule. If Jesus were not your sacrificial lamb, would you folks have any use for him at all?

And Jesus never taught the Trinity. No good Jew would.

I realize this is some good anti-Catholic propaganda, however your words above hold no basis from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. You seem to be in error in regards to history, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. You seem to completely miss the point of creeds. You seem to be wanting to reduce God, His laws, and the purpose of man to modern cultures platitude of the Golden Rule. One can’t love one’s neighbor as oneself until he first loves God. The minute you think you can do that, you will fall flat on your face.

what makes you so sure that the Bible is the Word of God, in it's entirety?

It’s the same faith that makes me sure God exists in the first place and sent His son, Jesus as our Savior. We accept all of it as a matter of faith. Why in the world would I believe some of the Bible, but not all of it? THAT would be illogical.

I can also ask those who appeal to the authority of the RCC, what makes you so certain that the RCC is infallible?

The same matter of faith. Jesus promised He would remain with His Church. He instructed us to listen to His Church. “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him�. We were even told regarding the priests or those in position of power to do as they say and not as they do. God is telling us, yes, my leaders are fallible men, but you are to listen to them. I will remain with my Church. I will guide her in all truth. You might not like Father So and so, but it isn’t about him. It is about me and you find me in my Church. Of course, if you leave my Church well then you are following your own personal theology not mine.

Seems to me that those who blindly follow the RCC are not much different than those who blindly follow the Bible or the Watchtower. All three seem to do so at the expense of God-given Reason.

Faith and reason are always required. No blindly following necessary. It is via reason we can know false prophets. It is via reason we could rule out certain churches/religions.

Were the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and even John, "Catholics"?

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic� mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),� or more colloquially, “universal.�

So, yes, I believe you could say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were of the universal Church.

The RCC has as good a claim to the Bible as any Protestant or JW. But none can claim proprietary rights to it.

Of course we can. The First Council of Nicea gave us the Bible. She decided exactly what was to be the canon of the Bible and what wasn’t – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course.

What do I believe? I haven't hidden my beliefs, they are expressed in every post I make.

So, it changes. You kind of make it up as you go? How can you be sure you are getting it right?

And your characterization of HJ scholars is dismissive, simplistic, unfair and inaccurate.

I disagree and would certainly turn that on you in your regards of the Catholic faith.

[Elijah John]

So, it changes. You kind of make it up as you go? How can you be sure you are getting it right?

You conveniently (deliberately?) omitted the part where I said if you are still unsure of my beliefs, they are summarized in my signature section. As stated in that section, those beliefs have not changed as long as I've been here on this site, and quite a while previous to that. Pretty much ever since I discovered that the Church (and all Trinitarian churches) has been misleading people about the Divinity of Jesus,. That discovery happened when I came across Matthew 16.28. And if Jesus is not God, there goes the Eucharist, right? At least as presented. After all what is the point of eating the body of a prophet?.

Your misrepresentation of my position by that important omission is dishonorable of you. Is this the kind of thing the RCC teaches now? I doubt it.

And again, why do you believe the Church? Please give a non-circular, reasoned answer. You seem to be appealing to the NT version of Jesus for the origin of Church authority, but also say that the NT itself is the product of the Church. That is circular reasoning.