Jesus as God

[RachelKH]

Is Christian Science the only religion that claims to be Christian but does not believe Jesus is God? Why do they call themselves Christian then?

 

[BrianH]

Is Christian Science the only religion that claims to be Christian but does not believe Jesus is God? Why do they call themselves Christian then?

I do not know of any Christian Scientists on this forum. If you wish to understand their beliefs, I would look over their website. You will not understand their framework from a cursory look either. To understand their views, you have to understand their vocabulary and how they define words.

No, there are several Christian groups that are not Trinitarian. Now I understand that by orthodox Christian understand; that would mean they are not Christian. However, they would have different presuppositions. For them, orthopraxy (right practice of Christ’s teachings) would be more important than Orthodoxy (correct belief about who Jesus is). I am sure I have oversimplified the process but for example many liberal Protestants, New Thought groups, and others do not hold that Jesus is God but would call themselves Christian whether people like it or not

 

[RachelKH]

oh ok, so they are using a different definition of Christian. to mislead?

 

[Publisher]

oh ok, so they are using a different definition of Christian. to mislead?

No, they do not seek to mislead anyone. They believe they are Christians with a different understanding of Christ than those who call themselves “orthodox” Christians.

 

[Lapell]

No, they do not seek to mislead anyone. They believe they are Christians with a different understanding of Christ than those who call themselves “orthodox” Christians.

I wonder whose cue they follow… Muhammad’s maybe? Or the Jews’ (who don’t believe Jesus is God either)? I read somewhere that even some Jews for Jesus don’t believe he is God. I think some people in the United Church don’t believe it, either… (NOTE: not everybody in that denomination agrees with them, far from it, you understand!)

 

[RachelKH]

wow – i really didn’t know

which came first – ‘Christian’ meaning Jesus Christ as God, or ‘christian’ not believing Jesus as God? who is changing who’s meaning?

 

[Lapell]

No, they do not seek to mislead anyone. They believe they are Christians with a different understanding of Christ than those who call themselves “orthodox” Christians.

“Those who call themselves “orthodox” Christians” … Do you mean to say you don’t consider them orthodox at least on saying that Jesus is God? or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by this…

 

[spoiltvictorian]

“Christian Science is neither Christian nor scientific.” -George Bernard Shaw.

There are other cults who claim to be, or at one time claimed to be, Christian but deny the divinity of Jesus. Muslims, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists and Jehovah’s Witnesses come readily to mind.

 

[Lapell]

wow – i really didn’t know

which came first – ‘Christian’ meaning Jesus Christ as God, or ‘christian’ not believing Jesus as God? who is changing who’s meaning?

To be strict, our being “Christians” means that to us Jesus is… the Christ (or the Messiah). Only, from the very beginning, the Apostles and their successors have consistently taught that Jesus also is our Lord and our God. Which is why to have Christians who say that Jesus is not God is rather a strange thing, quite a contradiction in terms really.
They may have watered down the doctrine of the Church about the person Jesus, who, as strange as it may seem, has both the divine and the human natures but is only a DIVINE person, he is not a human PERSON. Otherwise there would be 4 persons in God, not 3!

 

[Lapell]

“Christian Science is neither Christian nor scientific.” -George Bernard Shaw.

There are other cults who claim to be, or at one time claimed to be, Christian but deny the divinity of Jesus. Muslims, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists and Jehovah’s Witnesses come readily to mind.

Muslims, Christians? Now there will be Muslims who may view this statement and be in great shock!!!

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Muslims, Christians? Now there will be Muslims who may view this statement and be in great shock!!!

Yes, but Muhammad really thought his new religion would be well received by Christians and Jews.

 

[LilyM]

wow – i really didn’t know

which came first – ‘Christian’ meaning Jesus Christ as God, or ‘christian’ not believing Jesus as God? who is changing who’s meaning?

First off, ‘Christian’ simply means a follower of Christ. Christians used to call Muslims ‘Mohammedans’, meaning followers of Mohammed. They certainly don’t believe that Mohammed is divine, however. So there’s nothing inherent in the term ‘Christian’ that means one must believe Jesus is Divine to qualify.

In terms of who came first, we really don’t know. Certainly we have John’s Gospel dating from mere decades after Christ’s death which is incandescent with belief in Christ’s divinity. We certainly also have longstanding disagreement as to whether He was divine or human. A number of very early heresies, including Arianism and Ebionism, propounded the view that He wasn’t divine. It took several hundred years for the Council of Chalcedon to finally completely settle the debates about His divine nature.

 

[Lapell]

First off, ‘Christian’ simply means a follower of Christ. Christians used to call Muslims ‘Mohammedans’, meaning followers of Mohammed. They certainly don’t believe that Mohammed is divine, however. So there’s nothing inherent in the term ‘Christian’ that means one must believe Jesus is Divine to qualify.

In terms of who came first, we really don’t know. Certainly we have John’s Gospel dating from mere decades after Christ’s death which is incandescent with belief in Christ’s divinity. We certainly also have longstanding disagreement as to whether He was divine or human. A number of very early heresies, including Arianism and Ebionism, propounded the view that He wasn’t divine. It took several hundred years for the Council of Chalcedon to finally completely settle the debates about His divine nature.

That the doctrine about Jesus’ divinity was defined then doesn’t mean that the Church hadn’t taught that before! There were heresies that needed be clearly declared false doctrines.

 

[Publisher]

“Those who call themselves “orthodox” Christians” … Do you mean to say you don’t consider them orthodox at least on saying that Jesus is God? or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by this…

Christian Science does not hold an “orthodox” view of the diety of Christ. As I understand it the “Christ” entered Jesus of Nazareth…“Christ Spirit” and “Jesus” are two separate entities…the “Christ Spirit” or the “Word” of God came fully upon the man Jesus.

The development of orthodox Christology took place over several generations…by the time John was written a “developed” Christology had began to be believed…the divinity of Chist as an ‘orthodox’ belief was progressive. It was many years of “trying” to get it right…many of the proto-orthodox/catholic began calling those groups who did not hold to their beliefs “heretic”…many if not all of the early Christian controversies was surrounding the diety of Christ and his humanity and how both could exist together. Many of the “heresies” of the early church also dealt with these issues.

Christian Science tends to lead toward one of the more “gnostic” understandings of divinity…Divine Mind. Christian Scientists believe they have “rediscovered” the Divine Principal through which Jesus operated and taught. Sin is error…Truth is Divine Science…all matter is illusion and all that truly exists is Spirit…the material universe we perceive is error.

 

[LilyM]

That the doctrine about Jesus’ divinity was defined then doesn’t mean that the Church hadn’t taught that before! There were heresies that needed be clearly declared false doctrines.

I’m not saying the Church hadn’t taught it before, just that not all Christians believed it by any means. Certainly a large percentage were Arian at one point in history, no?

 

[chaunceygardner]

For the first few hundred years of Christianity (and in some cases beyond that) not all Christians or Christian communities agreed on exactly who Jesus was, when He became divine, or what it meant for Him to be the “Son of God”. This can easily be seen in the differences between the Apostles Creed and the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. The Nicene Creed reflects the changes made to better define the relationship of Jesus to God. This is one of the parts added: “eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father”.

The idea of Jesus being “one with the Father” was a long debated issue and resulted in the changes made to the creed and the labeling of those who did not accept the updated version as “heretics”. The history of the controversy and the debates are well documented.

When one carefully reads the Gospels one can see the progression of thought from Mark to John. In Mark, there is no mention of the origins or birth of Jesus, and He is not treated as always divine. Jesus talks mostly about God, not about himself. Then you get to Matthew and Luke who have the Nativity story and talk about His human origins (Son of David) and as one favored by God, through the actions of the Holy Spirit. It is only in John that Jesus is treated as eternal and as one with God.

It is easy to understand how various early Christian communities, who generally would be familiar with only one or two of the oral traditions that resulted in the four Gospels that we know today (with the Gospel of John being the last), would have different ideas about the relationship of Jesus to God. So the doctrine as we know it today WAS known and taught, but not universally.

 

[Shanaka]

So if “christian” means a follower of Christ, then why do so many Christians not understand that Jehovah Witnesses believe in Christ as the Son of God and follow what he taught? To do his Father’s will?

 

[Lapell]

I’m not saying the Church hadn’t taught it before, just that not all Christians believed it by any means. Certainly a large percentage were Arian at one point in history, no?

You have a point here, Lily. And even today there are some “Christians” who may not believe in Jesus’ divinity…

 

[Lapell]

So if “christian” means a follower of Christ, then why do so many Christians not understand that Jehovah Witnesses believe in Christ as the Son of God and follow what he taught? To do his Father’s will?

We won’t follow them because they teach errors not compatible with a genuine faith in Jesus the Christ. Also I read somewhere that when they reach to people they would use the Bible, while when they gather they use writings from their founder, not the Bible at all… Why would I then want to join them, tell me?

 

[Lapell]

You see, there are denominations which claim to follow Jesus Christ, but in a way incompatible with the Gospel. To follow Jesus the Christ is one thing, to follow somebody who would take the name Jesus the Christ but would turn out to be different from the One in the Gospel.