Is Belief In His Deity Essencial to salvation?

[SteveVH]

steveVH, so I understand that Jesus is God. Father is God. Holy Spirit is God. They are all Gods. There is no other God beside them.
Yet there is only One God.
Is that alright??

For some reason I didn’t pick up the entire quote the first time.

NO, they are not all Gods. That is what you keep repeating but you are in error as to what we believe. They are three persons in ONE GOD. You are trying to create a straw man in order to easily tear it apart. Please do not tell us what we believe; rather listen to us as to what we believe. God is incomprehensible. I do not expect you to fully grasp Him. We do not pretend to. We believe, as I said before, because it is revealed truth, not because we intellectually grasp it.

 

[SteveVH]

How can I be interested in your belief of Trinity when I do not understand it. I have explained my present reach into the mystery of Trinity in my last edited post . You have approved it. But again you tried to disagree. I cannot understand what is wrong. May be you want to complicate things for me beyond my comprehension.

You can see my previous post again and let me know where you need to amend things. Please do not take me on any perilous journey into the world of the unknown. Religion cannot be so complicated for the people.

Planten, would you agree that the nature God, the creator of the universe, the uncaused cause of all things might be so above us in all things that our human minds may not be able to grasp Him completley? Would you agree that if our finite minds could grasp Him completley that He would be no greater than us?

The Christian understanding of the nature of God is that He is a Trinity of Persons, not separate beings. The human being is made up of a physical body with a soul and spirit, yet we remain one being, not three. I am trying not to be rude, but you keep repeating falsehoods as to what we actually believe. No one is asking you to agree with our beliefs, but please stop trying to distort them to fit your argument.

 

[elvisman]

The point that I was making is that the impulsive expression “Oh my God!” by an astonished Thomas is NOT an acknowledgement by him that Jesus (pbuh) is God.

That’s not what Thomas said.

He said, "My lord and my God!"
Your attempt to minimize the poignance of what he said is based on your total misunderstanding and ignoranceof the Scriptures.

 

[elvisman]

I think you missed the point he was making. When Thomas said “My Lord and My God” he may not have been referring to Christ, but to God the Father.

Why would Jesus admonish Thomas for Thomas saying “My Lord and My God” to God the Father?

The verse in question says as follows:

**John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” **

If the scripture said: Thomas then referred directly to him and said “My Lord and my God!” that would be a slam sunk reference to Jesus as God.

The antedotal evidence certainly favors the Scriptural reference for Thomas referring to Jesus as God in this verse, but even the last verse in this chapter doesn’t clarify it for us. It states as such:

John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

This debate could have been laid to rest had the verse been stated as such: but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is God and the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

I for one am thankful we have a Church we can turn to, to resolve such matters of what has been taught from the very beginning because sola scriptura can be bent and shaped to fit the meaning you want it to mean.

**Wrong. I *didn’t *misunderstand a thing. **

Jesus would have admoinished Thomas for using the Lord’s name in vain anyway - whether he was speaking about Jesus or the Father.

Thomas was a Jew and wouldn’t have made that sort of blasphemous statement in front of Jesus - and Jesus definitely would have chided him for it had he done this.

An understanding if the Scriptures and simple common sense points to the fact that Thomas was speaking to Jesus about Jesus.
Also, as SteveVH already stated, they didn’t use that kind of modern-day figure of speech in those times. It wasn’t taken as lightly as it is today.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman, please do not read too much in what Thomas said. hamba is right. It could be an expression of extreme joy to see Jesus alive. There was no Jesus God business in what he said.

Thomas had not believed that the Master (Jesus) was alive. That was all. That is why he said that he would not believe unless he saw the wounds and unless he put his finger in the wounds. He was right in all that too.

But when he met Jesus and saw the truth in front of him, when he faced the truth right in front of him, he was overjoyed and said something : " My Lord and my God! " He did not address Jesus that he was his Lord or his God. He praised his Lord and his God for the survival of Jesus.

You people are reading too much into things and sometime you are taking things literally. Could you please explain the son of God literally?? or Spiritually??

The words of Thomas were those of surprise and extreme joy. That is all. Did he say, “oh my Master, Jesus, You are my Lord and my God??” Not at all.

Why to rely on Thomas only?? What about other apostles?? The other Ten?? Why did they never say that Jesus was God? It means the other Ten denied the divinity of Jesus because they never uttered those words “Lord and God”. So it is a vote of one man (Thomas) against the other Ten.

We cannot permit you to take far fetched meanings of the words of the bible. If Thomas said a few unrelated (ambigous) words, it does not make Jesus as God. Please note that making a man into God is a very serious matter. The Jews would never do that. It cannot rest upon the words of just one man (Thomas) who was also a high level Jew.

And Jesus never in his life time said that he was God. If he said “I am.” it has no meaning. Why did Jesus say, “I am.” Why he did not say “I am God.”?? If the Jews ask him “Are you the son of God” and he says “I am.” It is understandable.

If the Jews ask him "ARe you God?’ and he said “I am.” or “yes, I am.” then it could mean something. But there is no such thing.

If the council of Jews accused him of blasphemy, you are only providing the proof. That is not fair. You are taking support from the statements of the Jews who were then bent upon killing Jesus. You mean they were right??. I could not believe that.

No, hamba2han is wrong, as are you.

As I pointed out in my last post, this would have been a grave sin – not to mention great insult to Jesus for Thomas to have used God’s name in vain.

Secondly, I AM is a reference to God as I already showed you (Ex. 3:14). Jesus was speaking to Jews who knew EXACTLY what he was saying. That’s why they wanted to stone him to death for blasphemy in John 8:59.**

Lastly– you keep saying that none of the others called Jesus God. Are you for real? I’ve already showed you several places in Scripture where they DO:**

Philippians 2:6
**Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: **

Colossians 2:9
**…For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. **

**1 Timothy 3:16 **
**And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. **

**Timothy 6:15 **
**…who [Jesus] is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 1 **

Hebrews 1:8
**But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. **

**Titus 2:13 **
**Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; **

PS –** Instead of jumping in on my conversations with others – why don’t you try answering my post #17, that I wrote directly to you.**

 

[hamba2han]

They didn’t speak in modern day parlance and this would have been seen as taking the Lord’s name in vain. I seriously doubt Thomas would have done that at such a moment.

2000 years ago, someone who was pricked with a needle would probably have said “Ouch” or something like that… as would someone who is pricked with a needle would say today.

2000 years ago, someone who was told a joke would have probably laugh in the same manner as people today would laugh.

2000 years ago, someone when informed of a family tragedy would react in very much the same manner as would someone today.

The point that I am making here is that human emotions and reactions have always remained the same throughout the course of human history.

Therefore, someone like Thomas who was in a state of utter astonishment and joy at discovering that Jesus (pbuh) was still alive would have reacted in pretty much the same manner as someone today would react if he hears news that a loved one who was feared dead in a motor accident for example, is then suddenly found alive and well.

And besides, I fail to see how an impulsive expression of utter amazement and joy like “Good Lord… Oh my God!” could be construed as taking the Lord’s name in vain because he is in fact at the time, subconsciously remembering God when confronted with such a situation.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Wrong. I *didn’t *misunderstand a thing.

Jesus would have admoinished Thomas for using the Lord’s name in vain anyway - whether he was speaking about Jesus or the Father.

Thomas was a Jew and wouldn’t have made that sort of blasphemous statement in front of Jesus - and Jesus definitely would have chided him for it had he done this.

An understanding if the Scriptures and simple common sense points to the fact that Thomas was speaking to Jesus about Jesus.
Also, as SteveVH already stated, they didn’t use that kind of modern-day figure of speech in those times. It wasn’t taken as lightly as it is today.

(1) If Thomas was praying out loud in front of Jesus and the rest of the apostles to God the Father, it wouldn’t be blasphemous.

Regarding the figure of speech - I concur that this language would not have been used at that time and would have been blasphemous in that context.

(2) You are insulting the intelligence of people who can think for themselves by saying they lack common sense by not seeing the connection that Thomas was referring to Jesus. Perhaps they are ignorant of the Truth, but they don’t necessarily lack common sense because of it.

(3) To be quite honest, wouldn’t it have been simple common sense for the author to have been more explicit in the Gospel about the nature of Christ as being God? If it was that critical of a teaching, why is it so vague?

I do not doubt the Truth of the Triune Godhead. However, it is poor apologetic practice to call someone essentially an idiot for not getting the point you are trying to stress.

 

[SteveVH]

2000 years ago, someone who was pricked with a needle would probably have said “Ouch” or something like that… as would someone who is pricked with a needle would say today.

2000 years ago, someone who was told a joke would have probably laugh in the same manner as people today would laugh.

2000 years ago, someone when informed of a family tragedy would react in very much the same manner as would someone today.

The point that I am making here is that human emotions and reactions have always remained the same throughout the course of human history.

Therefore, someone like Thomas who was in a state of utter astonishment and joy at discovering that Jesus (pbuh) was still alive would have reacted in pretty much the same manner as someone today would react if he hears news that a loved one who was feared dead in a motor accident for example, is then suddenly found alive and well.

And besides, I fail to see how the impulsive expression of utter amazement and joy like “Good Lord… Oh my God!” could be construed as taking the Lord’s name in vain because he is in fact at the time, subconsciously remembering God when confronted with such a situation.

I certainly understand your point, however, to assume that they used the expression “Oh my God” 2000 years ago in a completely different culture is stretching it a little. In fact he said “My Lord and My God”. Why do you want to go to such lengths to try and disprove such a straight forward (and appropriate) response, keeping in mind that this is not the only text that shows His divinty. If I were trying to refute it I would say that the fact that Thomas “thought” He was God doesn’t necessarily mean He is. But I think Thomas was speaking the truth and Jesus certainly didn’t refute it.

 

[elvisman]

(1) If Thomas was praying out loud in front of Jesus and the rest of the apostles to God the Father, it wouldn’t be blasphemous.
Regarding the figure of speech - I concur that this language would not have been used at that time and would have been blasphemous in that context.

Thomas wasn’t praying - he was reacting. READ the text.

(2) You are insulting the intelligence of people who can think for themselves by saying they lack common sense by not seeing the connection that Thomas was referring to Jesus.

(3) To be quite honest, wouldn’t it have been simple common sense for the author to have been more explicit in the Gospel about the nature of Christ as being God? If it was that critical of a teaching, why is it so vague?
It’s only vage to the spiritually prideful. to the true believer - it’s as clear as crystal.
I do not doubt the Truth of the Triune Godhead. However, it is poor apologetic practice to call someone essentially an idiot for not getting the point you are trying to stress.

**That’s a cop-out. **Nobody is calling anybody an idiot.
I am speaking to the fact that the Scriptures - IN CONTEXT proclaim that Jesus is God - explicitly as well as implicitly.
Hence, it doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to deduce what Thomas was saying here.

ANYTBODY can challenge anything. BUT when the evidence is presented to them and they basically answer with, “Well, so what?”, they are the ones being insulting.

**If your sensibilities are such that you can’t handle different opinions thanyour own - a debate forum may not be the best place for you.

 

[elvisman]

2000 years ago, someone who was pricked with a needle would probably have said “Ouch” or something like that… as would someone who is pricked with a needle would say today.

2000 years ago, someone who was told a joke would have probably laugh in the same manner as people today would laugh.

2000 years ago, someone when informed of a family tragedy would react in very much the same manner as would someone today.

The point that I am making here is that human emotions and reactions have always remained the same throughout the course of human history.

Therefore, someone like Thomas who was in a state of utter astonishment and joy at discovering that Jesus (pbuh) was still alive would have reacted in pretty much the same manner as someone today would react if he hears news that a loved one who was feared dead in a motor accident for example, is then suddenly found alive and well.

And besides, I fail to see how an impulsive expression of utter amazement and joy like “Good Lord… Oh my God!” could be construed as taking the Lord’s name in vain because he is in fact at the time, subconsciously remembering God when confronted with such a situation.

**And I already explained that Jesus would have admonished Thomas for using the Lord’s name in vain anyway - whether he was speaking about Jesus or the Father.

Thomas was a Jew and wouldn’t have made that sort of blasphemous statement in front of Jesus - and Jesus definitely would have chided him for it had he done this.
Screaming out, "My God!", - other than in prayer - is using the Lord’as name in vain - especially by a Jew of the time.

No - the arguments so far against what Thomas meant are extremekly weak.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

If your sensibilities are such that you can’t handle different opinions than your own - a debate forum may *not *be the best place for you.

You*** do understand that the reason for apologetic work is to defend the faith right? Perhaps your goal here is not to defend the Catholic faith but to instead debate it. There is ***a difference. When you debate by calling your “challenger” lacking simple common sense, tells me that you ought to be the one that should leave the debate to cooler heads than your own.

 

[elvisman]

You*** do understand that the reason for apologetic work is to defend the faith right? Perhaps your goal here is not to defend the Catholic faith but to instead debate it. There is ***a difference. When you debate by calling your “challenger” lacking simple common sense, tells me that you ought to be the one that should leave the debate to cooler heads than your own.

My goal is to defend - AND debate if needs be.
In this case, both have been necessary because of some pretty ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.

You keep claiming that I am name-calling - and I am not.
I only said that an understanding if the Scriptures and simple common sense points to the fact that Thomas was speaking to Jesus about Jesus.

**I never said that anybody on this forum lacked common sense. I am insinuating that they’re simply not using it. There IS a difference.

**

 

[Nine_Two]

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” … John 20:28

For someone who is in a state of astonishment, couldn’t this impulsive blurt of expression be logically translated as “My Lord… Oh my God!” in modern-day parlance?

No. You don’t even have to know Greek to see it if you bother to look it up.

“Ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου”

και means “and” so you just have to look at what is on each side, you’ll notice they have the exact same structure.

Going into what you do have to know Greek to get, both use the nominative form, “Oh my God” would be in the accusative form. So no, he’s saying “My lord and my God.”

 

[Nine_Two]

How can I be interested in your belief of Trinity when I do not understand it. I have explained my present reach into the mystery of Trinity in my last edited post . You have approved it. But again you tried to disagree. I cannot understand what is wrong. May be you want to complicate things for me beyond my comprehension.

You can see my previous post again and let me know where you need to amend things. Please do not take me on any perilous journey into the world of the unknown. Religion cannot be so complicated for the people.

Look at what he quoted from you again, he took out the part which he is arguing against.

 

[Nine_Two]

I certainly understand your point, however, to assume that they used the expression “Oh my God” 2000 years ago in a completely different culture is stretching it a little. In fact he said “My Lord and My God”. Why do you want to go to such lengths to try and disprove such a straight forward (and appropriate) response, keeping in mind that this is not the only text that shows His divinty. If I were trying to refute it I would say that the fact that Thomas “thought” He was God doesn’t necessarily mean He is. But I think Thomas was speaking the truth and Jesus certainly didn’t refute it.

Similar expressions were in use that long ago, at least by the Greeks, which is how we can tell that this is not the case when Thomas is speaking.

 

[Nine_Two]

Using a translation and then finding similar sounding things in that language is always dishonest in the extreme. It would be like if I took Surrah 22:6 of the Koran which says “Allah… has power over all things” and decide that it couldn’t be that, but it actually means Allah has power over most things, but since there are at least 22 other minor gods, Mohammed clearly meant most things.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

How does one reconcile this with what the Athanasian Creed states:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; etc”…"This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. "

do you have the whole quote? the etc… part? How old is this?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

The Jews didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ.

Some did, most of the early Christians were jews.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Jesus can’t be God because the writings of Jews, Old Testament, sayings of Moses and other Israeli prophets will not allow it. Jesus was a Jew and he belonged to the Jews. Theree was not any christian to be seen.

Jesus never sid that he was God. The theory that Jesus was God is a derived theory, not a direct word of speech. The derived theory can be wrong too. It is such a serious subject that it cannot go un-noticed. The Muslims do not believe and do not allow any other God beside the One God.

The problem of the Christians is that they believe in three gods (Father, son and holy ghost). But then they have to run back to One God also. Why all that futile exercise??

It is not good to take preferred meanings from such words as: “The Father and I are one…”

That is true.

“Any one who has seen me has the Father…”

True again. But is it to be taken literally?? Surely not. There can be other very good more appropriate explanations of those verses. The Jews of his time, accused Jesus of many fals ethings. Those things must be considered false by the present day christians too. Otherwise they will be blaming (accusing) Jesus of those false things.

One of those was that he was the King of the Jews. He denied it.
The other was that he was God or son of God. Jesus explained that too and did not admit it. So why should the christians take up the same stand as that of the Jews who were enemies of Jesus in his time.

Whatever, the people of Jesus (Jews) did to Jesus as accusations, the same things are believed by the present day christians. We Muslims do not believe those things. Jesus never said in direct words that he was God. So no one should say such things by own derived meanings.

Samething about Trinity. Jesus never said there three gods in One God. He did not say that God the Father is composed of three gods. He talked about God (The Father) and talked a little about the son too. He talked about the holy spirit too which was right. Alright. He believed in the holy spirit. But never said that son was God or holy spirit was also a god, or part of God.

I hope that this riddle will soon be solved, somehow. We Muslims believe in Jesus to be a very good man, i.e. a prophet and that is the highest status for any man. That is as much as we Muslims can allow. There had been many prophets before Jesus. It is not anything unusual.

This is not a thread to debate His divinity, this is a thread for those that believe in His divinity and want to discus whether or not that belief is necessary for salvation. Because you reject the new testament you have little to offer this discussion. I would welcome discussion with you in other topics.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

They deny him when they deny his divinity.

**You seem too think that just because there were disagreements in the Early Church that Jesus’ divinity *wasn’t ***decided until the 4th century. This is ignorance in its purest form

**When the Church declared doctrines or dogmas, it *wasn’t ***because it discovered a “new truth”. It was to reiterate what was always believed. It has bveen showed - several times, I might add - in the Scriptures that Jesus is God and proclaimed it himself.

You can defame the Fathers all you want but you can’t argure with the explicit teachings of Scripture on the matter, your ignorance and spiritual pride notwithstanding . . .

I wasnt sudjesting it was a new truth, only that it wasnt understood by the entire church until that time. that is true dispite my “ignorance”. I have said on this thread that I believe there is more than enough scripture to support His deity but despite that some people get confused by the texts that establish His humanity and cant reconcile them with His divinity.
What do you mean by “defame the Fathers”? What spiritual pride? Im just trying to have a discussion.