Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

[AlexDTX]

Well, actually, the website rules specify that the "Christians Only" sections are reserved for those who accept the website's Statement of Faith.

If the moderators want to talk to me they are welcome. Although I doubt that they will. Would it not be hypocritical for them to have a rule that forbids anyone from saying they are not Christians, yet they get to define what a Christian is? From what I have seen in 2 years of being on the forum, they do not behave in that way.

I would like to clarify my comment on what is considered heresy. The expression is most certainly used in the New Testament. We see it in Acts 24:14 when Paul is defending himself and states that the Jews considered the teaching of Paul as heresy, and of course, they were the ones in error. We see Paul use the term "heretick" in his epistle to Titus where he admonishes Titus (3:10) to reject heretics of his first and second admonitions. Those admonitions are not identified but the context suggest foolish and sinful behavior and foolish questions.

But a study of church history shows that men have expanded that to be whatever doctrine that group of men have decided. And history is replete with cruelty of church authorities burning at the stake and persecuting those they considered heretics.

It is one thing to be aware of the thoughts of other men. There is safety in the multitude of counselors. But it is another thing to be more concerned with what men think than what God thinks. Knowing what God thinks is a matter of faith in one's own ability to know his communication in interpreting Scriptures.

God is not concerned with the academic doctrines. He is more concerned with our behavior. When such things as the Nicene Creed are brought up, they are usually used by the poster as some kind of trump card.

The truth is, from the human point of view, everyone is a heretic to someone else. As far as Unitarians are concerned the doctrine of the trinity is heresy, for example. So, I am generally disgusted with such comments since they contribute nothing positive and tend to be condemnation. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, yet brethren routinely condemn brethren.

 

[Phantasman]

John clearly explains that the OT was to try to receive the kingdom of God "some other way" and they (Jews) died. Their God had not the ability to spiritually save them. It was not until Christ came that man could even be saved. Those Jews were in the deep sleep (Hades) until the Christ left the physical to save them (Matthew) his other sheep. John 10 explains that no one before his Chrism could be saved. And his sheep had to wait for him as Christ to save them.

10 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

If Jesus had been YHWH, the Jews would have heard Jesus voice when he walked among them. Since they didn't, and slayed him instead, I see no way Jesus and YHWH were anything the same. This "I AM" thing is nothing but words used to redirect spiritual thought, which the devil does with scripture constantly.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

Jesus is not the Father. That would be the heresy of patripassianism. It contradicts the Nicene Creed, which is the statement of faith for this website.


View attachment 208894

The Nicene Creed also contains heresy!

 

[Baby Cottontail]

The Nicene Creed also contains heresy!

What in the Nicene Creed contains heresy?

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

What in the Nicene Creed contains heresy?

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son

I have not got the time now to go into this, I will have to show what I mean from the Greek text. I will update later

It teaches a "subordination" within the Godhead of Jesus Christ to the Father, and the Holy Spirit, to both the Father and Jesus Christ. This is not about the "roles", but the "nature" of the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son

I have not got the time now to go into this, I will have to show what I mean from the Greek text. I will update later

It teaches a "subordination" within the Godhead of Jesus Christ to the Father, and the Holy Spirit, to both the Father and Jesus Christ. This is not about the "roles", but the "nature" of the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity.

Okay -- thanks. I will be interested in your opinion.

When I read that, though, I don't see it in the same way. After all, "begotten" is used in John 1. I see God from God, Light from Light, and true God from true God as saying that they are the same God -- there are not two Gods here.

As for how the Holy Spirit proceeds, this is the Western version of the creed, since it has "and the Son" in there. I do find that, at the very list, proceeding from the Father is also biblical -- as John 15:26 suggests.

 

[jaybird88]

Okay, but why does Jesus say Matthew 20:23 "to sit on my right hand my left is not mine to give ...but the Fathers"?

the disciples wanted to sit at the right hand of Jesus, do you think they were wanting to become Jesus by this?

 

[Phantasman]

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son

I have not got the time now to go into this, I will have to show what I mean from the Greek text. I will update later

It teaches a "subordination" within the Godhead of Jesus Christ to the Father, and the Holy Spirit, to both the Father and Jesus Christ. This is not about the "roles", but the "nature" of the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity.

Not going to debate the Trinity in this forum. But a good question would be:

Are the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit one in the same? Did Jesus create them? Or was it through them he was begotten?

 

[jaybird88]

Being tempted doesn't mean that someone has to have a bent towards sin. Temptation doesn't equal sin. It does not have to lead to sin.

Adam and Eve also did not originally have a sinful nature. They were tempted, and they sinned. That is when they started having a sinful nature.

our sin nature is how we our tempted, if Jesus did not have this then He was not tempted as we are. scripture says He was tempted just the same as the rest of us.

 

[he-man]

the disciples wanted to sit at the right hand of Jesus, do you think they were wanting to become Jesus by this?

Do yu think Jesus could be God sitting on the throne, if he cant even grant anyone the ability to sit on the left or the right? Matthew 20:23

 

[jaybird88]

Do yu think Jesus could be God sitting on the throne, if he cant even grant anyone the ability to sit on the left or the right? Matthew 20:23

i think the Father sits at the throne just like Jesus said. it only becomes confusing when one tries to apply doctrine to all this.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

God knows exactly what a person understands and why they reject or accept what is true. That is sufficient for me. I do not see much value in pretending to know why a person thinks as they think. The gospel is a message to be delivered what a person does with it once it is delivered is up to them.

True.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Please don't take it that what I wrote was meant against you personally, I didn't even see the post you are referring to TBH.
I meant to engage with the argument where I saw it at the time, and in a general sense the practice of beating people over the head with academic theological doctrine before they can be accepted is a common practice of the Church.

Yeah, that is definitely not my intention here. I don't want to beat anyone over the head with this. I do want us to discuss the truth we find in Scripture, though.

I wouldn't have this discussion with a new believer, as it would be too confusing for them. I would just tell them the gospel, plain and simple.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

I thought I'd share my personal studies that I have done for over 25 years now, on the Holy Trinity. Please feel free to comment/criticize/give advice, if you will. STUDIES ON THE HOLY TRINITY

Thanks. I will have a look at that. It would probably be best if people contacted you privately about this, so as not to derail the thread? That's just my suggestion.

 

[Hillsage]

I disagree. Doesn't scripture and the Trinity say that Jesus has always coexisted with the Father and the Holy Spirit?

I honestly don't see where this question is a response to one thing in my somewhat post. A post which had scriptural support for every point I was dealing with. So your one line response befuddles me. Does it mean that you now 'do' agree with my whole post's position and the scriptures given? Or does your 'question' mean you still totally disagree, but want to divert me on this new bunny trail? A trail which appears to even ask me to give you a scripture for your POV which I actually disagree with, but for reasons which I doubt are even on your mind?

Let me just say this, concerning your question above; To answer you best, I'd like to ask you two things. What do you know about the similarity between 'Jesus and you' being triune beings, which consists of 'spirit and soul and body'? Also, have you ever studied as to why scripture says "Jesus Christ" 136 times and "Christ Jesus" 86 times? Questions like these 2 figure in to where my answer for 'your question' above, will have came from. And quite honestly, those who are simply religiously indoctrinated are usually pretty clueless to things I've studied at length with the influence of just those 2 questions for you. And since the scriptures are as shallow or as deep as the ones interacting, knowing where others can 'swim or drown' figures in to where 'we' should go...don't you think?

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Fully human would include being able to sin, and I am sure Jesus who is God is incapable of sinning > James 1:13.

Also, God can not change; so God could not change from being divine to being fully human like a created being is human.

So, I would need for someone to speak for oneself about what he or she means by fully human and hypostatic union. And what one group claims is heresy does not necessarily speak for what God considers to be heresy.

Hebrews 2:14-15 says Jesus partook of flesh and blood. This means He lived in a flesh and blood body like we do. But it does not say He had our human nature which is capable of sinning. So, someone would need to explain what he or she means by "fully human", if it does not mean Jesus was capable of sinning.

Another thing it can not mean, Biblically, is that Jesus could become angry, for one example, like we can, because "the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:20). The way humans get angry is sinful if it is in their own human egos. The way Jesus got angry was righteous in the Holy Spirit and oneness with our Heavenly Father, since Jesus and the Father are one and the Father in Jesus did the works.

So, in case anyone claims that Jesus had human emotions the way we do, this is not correct, since His emotions were spiritually rooted in God, and our emotions often are of our own egos and sin, mainly about our own selves and ones we prefer to love while we do not love any and all people as ourselves.

Jesus was always about God and loving.

However, it is clear He got hungry and tired. But I consider this was only in His body. So, this could be what ones mean by fully human. He could experience what His body could feel. But He could not be controlled by how His body was hungry or suffering. Because, deeper, He was almighty in control.

And so, Jesus could not be controlled by emotions which are dominating and dictatorial, like we humans can be.

I suppose it all depends on what a person means by "human nature." I think we have to look back to the Garden of Eden and how humans were originally created to get an idea of what being fully human is -- not the corruption that happened afterward.

I don't view it as a change from being fully God to being fully human. Rather, I see it as Jesus (who was still fully God) took on an additional nature -- a fully human nature. This would make Jesus both 100% God and 100% human at the same time -- not 50% God and 50% human. Not 90% God and 10% human, or any other combination.

I don't think that being fully human means that a person has to have a sinful nature. Why? Because Adam and Eve weren't originally created with a sinful nature. If Jesus is the Second Adam, then it would follow that He was like Adam originally was -- having no bent towards sin.

I'm not good at defining what hypostatic union is, but I can provide a link that can introduce you to the idea:
What is the hypostatic union?

I do think that Jesus was capable of sinning -- as Adam was capable of sinning before the Fall. Jesus did not give into the temptation to sin ever, though.

I don't agree that Jesus did not have human emotions like we do. I do believe He experienced what it was like to actually be human because He was actually human. I believe this is shown by the shortest verse in the Bible -- Jesus wept. Jesus also felt compassion. He was moved. And....He had to have felt deep pain before the crucifixion and during it.

And, yes, He did get angry, but as you said, it was righteous anger. He did not sin in His anger. We can, too, display righteous anger, but we often sin when we get angry.

And...yes, Jesus did feel hungry and tired.

 

[jaybird88]

has it dawned on anyone that we are discussing salvation based on a doctrine that didnt exist in the days of Jesus and the 12 when they were teaching salvation?

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

Okay -- thanks. I will be interested in your opinion.

When I read that, though, I don't see it in the same way. After all, "begotten" is used in John 1. I see God from God, Light from Light, and true God from true God as saying that they are the same God -- there are not two Gods here.

As for how the Holy Spirit proceeds, this is the Western version of the creed, since it has "and the Son" in there. I do find that, at the very list, proceeding from the Father is also biblical -- as John 15:26 suggests.

Reading this "Creed" (which had its basis on an earlier "Creed" produced by an friend of the arch heretic, Arius) in the English language, without any investigation, gives the "sense" of its being Biblical and Orthodox. Which can also be the case if read in the Greek text.

Lets start with the term "begotten" in this Creed (and others), which is claimed to be the same meaning of the term used by the Apostle John. The Greek word being, "Μονογενῆ", which, apart from its "theological" meanings by certain Christian leaders, says nothing of any "begetting". The literal meaning is "of a single kind", or "unique", which is what Greek lexicons by Thayer and Arndt & Gingrich show. The classical Greek lexicon by Liddell & Scott, give the meaning as, "the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single". The early Church was being challenged on the Person of Jesus Christ, with leaders like Origen, Lucian of Antioch, and Arius, to name some, who taught that Jesus Christ was "created" by God the Father. The Old Latin New Testament (before Jerome's), rendered, "Μονογενῆ", by "unicus" (unique). However, this was later changed, and adopted in Jerome's Latin Vulgate, by the Latin "unigenitus", which answers to the Greek, "μονογέννητος", and does mean, "only-begotten". This was used by the early Church "fathers" to combat the Arian heresy, and adopted into the Creeds. This was further taken from Origen's heretical teaching of the "eternal generation of the Son from the essence of the Father", thereby making the Father, "Fons Deitatis", which is not taught anywhere in the Holy Bible, and is clearly heretical, as it makes the Father to be the "source" of the "being" of both the Son and Holy Spirit. ""Μονογενῆ", in the Bible when used for Jesus Christ, is done for the "unique" relationship that He has with God the Father, and Holy Spirit, and His Incarnation, as the God-Man. It says nothing about any "begetting, or originating" from God the Father.

Next, we look at the other so-called "Orthodox" terms. "τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" (begotten from the Father before all ages); "Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός" (light from light); "Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ" (true God from true God). All of which seem to show the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His equality with God the Father. Wrong! In each case you will notice the use of the Greek preposition, "ἐκ", which does not mean "from", but, "out of", as "being derived from a source". God the Father is THE "Light", as in the actual "Sun". Jesus Christ is like the "rays" OUT of the Sun, and is "derived". Same with the Deity of Jesus Christ, it is "derived" from the "Essence" of the Father. This is clear from the use of "ἐκ", where we read of Jesus' "begetting" OUT OF the Father, before all ages! This is pure "subordinationism" of the "Essence" of Jesus Christ from the BEING of God the Father., In which case, Jesus CANNOT be "Essentially Equal" to the Father, and therefore must be His INFERIOR. Which is exactly was the "Creed" of Eusebius, which was the basis for the Nicene Creed, taught, and which the "Orthodox" Church, through compromise, adopted!

Next we read of the Holy Spirit, "τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον" (Who proceeds from the Father). But notice the same Greek preposition, "ἐκ", used, which again shows "derived" from the Father, and later included the Son. The "Orthodox" Church used John 15:26 for its textual basis for this, but changed the Greek preposition from "παρά" (from besides), to "ἐκ" (out of).

The Holy Bible Teaches that there is One God: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. One Godhead and Three Persons. Co-eternal, Co-essential, and Co-equal, in EVERY way.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

This is academic, so it does not really matter. However, He is one person in three persons which is why I say He is Jesus the Father and Jesus the Spirit as well as the Word and the man. To each your own.

Our language does help us to be clearer, and can clear up confusion (or add to confusion). One God in Three Persons is in line with what the church has taught. One Person in three Persons isn't what has been taught.

I wish there were an easier way to talk about the Trinity. It is a difficult concept for everyone, but this does not make it false. That's why it's good for Christians to talk to one another about it. We can help each other understand God better.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

I suppose it all depends on what a person means by "human nature." I think we have to look back to the Garden of Eden and how humans were originally created to get an idea of what being fully human is -- not the corruption that happened afterward.

I don't view it as a change from being fully God to being fully human. Rather, I see it as Jesus (who was still fully God) took on an additional nature -- a fully human nature. This would make Jesus both 100% God and 100% human at the same time -- not 50% God and 50% human. Not 90% God and 10% human, or any other combination.

I don't think that being fully human means that a person has to have a sinful nature. Why? Because Adam and Eve weren't originally created with a sinful nature. If Jesus is the Second Adam, then it would follow that He was like Adam originally was -- having no bent towards sin.

I'm not good at defining what hypostatic union is, but I can provide a link that can introduce you to the idea:
What is the hypostatic union?

I do think that Jesus was capable of sinning -- as Adam was capable of sinning before the Fall. Jesus did not give into the temptation to sin ever, though.

I don't agree that Jesus did not have human emotions like we do. I do believe He experienced what it was like to actually be human because He was actually human. I believe this is shown by the shortest verse in the Bible -- Jesus wept. Jesus also felt compassion. He was moved. And....He had to have felt deep pain before the crucifixion and during it.

And, yes, He did get angry, but as you said, it was righteous anger. He did not sin in His anger. We can, too, display righteous anger, but we often sin when we get angry.

And...yes, Jesus did feel hungry and tired.

Philippians 2:5-8 shows that Jesus Christ has always been Almighty God, and fully equal to the Father. He did not see this "equality" as something He needed to retain, but "humbled Himself", by taking on the full nature of a "human being", and becoming the God-Man, 100% God and 100% Man. Romans 8:3 (Greek text) shows that Jesus "human nature" was without sin, which is asserted elsewhere in the Bible. Luke 1:35, shows that the Holy Spirit ensured that the "human nature" that Jesus actually "derived" from Mary, was "without sin". Jesus also possessed a "human will", which include the "emotions", etc