[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by sweetbilly

You know i've heard this before, however, i have yet to find anywhere in the bible where Christ said he wasn't the son of God and tons of places where he stated, quite emphatically, that not only that he was the son of God but that he was also God in the flesh and that any man whom sees the son is also seeing the father.

First of all, a statement in itself is no proof that the statement must be true. I could say that I am a woman, and say it consistently. Does not mean that I am a woman. Seems a moot point perhaps, but in no way statements of identity are the most important issue for all christians.

Second, you could easily interpret such a statement as a literary figure, with spiritual connotations. That often happens in religious traditions, including Christianity. I do not see a reason to exclude the possibility that Christ made use of these literary figures.

It was only decided in the fourth century by the Catholic Church that Christ, God and the Holy spirit were one. And we know, that the Bible was not written in 21st century English, and translations differ quite markedly. Some words in the original text, only appear once, and never in other sources. So we are only guessing what was written there. Not exactly exact.

So if these are the original words of Christ you are referring to, it is a completely different conception of God, than what is considered "normal" for christians nowadays - more Eastern inspired it appears.

So i have no idea how people have come to this idea that Jesus never claimed to be God incarnet, he did several times.

So, why is it that the Church accepted that position in the fourth century, and not two or three centuries earlier?

I guess what i'm trying to say is that i don't understand how two or more different groups that don't believe in the same thing about Jesus can say they are both followers?

It is not hard. Think of democracy, for instance. US democracy differs widely from Canadian democracy, UK democracy, French democracy etc. Still a lot of people can believe in their particular brand of democracy, and even hold that particular brand as the example of "true democracy." Yet, everyone calls themselves a believer in democracy.

AS an interesting question, I would like to ask: how can a Christian believe in democracy, as it seems completely without foundation in the Bible itself?

From what i understand there is only one way to believe in God, his way. The only question is who is correct in their biblical translations.

Nope. God did not issue 7321 totally clear orders. There is always an issue of interpretation (take for instance the ban on demanding interest on loans that has existed for quite a while, based on the bible itself). And of course forces in society that pressurize religion (and the other way around).