The Covenant Context of Salvation

[TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY]

Neither @JoshebB nor me are discussing the deity of Christ here, my sister.
It is our brother @TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY who mentioned this off topic. I don’t know why. We have plenty of threads to discuss that subject.

If those who deny the diety of Christ are waiting for the day of the LORD
wherein all shall stand before HIM , to say to those who preached HE is alpah and omega , first and last ,beieving to prove us wrong ,
MY ADVICE to them is DO not wait for that day , you wont be proved right and we will not be proved wrong .
YOU GONNA SEE HE WHO SAID i am alpha and omega , the first and the last , AND buddies , ITS TOO LATE ON THAT DAY , YE CALLED HIM
the LIAR .

 

[TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY]

why on earth men feel so entitled to come in and attack the diety of Christ on a christain website
and why on earth the church feels the need to not warn them
FRIENDS its beyond me . we christain , not buddist , not muslim , no hari kari karsihna or any otherfalse god or prophet .
We children of TRUTH and its about HIGH time we start defending it a wee bit more than we been doing .
Our duty is not to find common ground , ITS TO preach TRUTH so as to be a co helper to the TRUTH .
My commandments COME OF GOD and i learned them well by grace IN that bible .
The pattern the early and true church taught , kept and praticed IS the ONLY pattern i am obligated too
SEEING I AM OBLIGATED TO THE ONE TRUE HOLY GOD who shall accept NO other religon or beleif
and has TESTIFIED OF THE SON , not budda or muhammed or any other false religoin . To those
who think that sounds harsh or mean . BELEIVE YOU me , i truly believe paul , peter , jude , james and the others
WOULD darn sure site have been far more grave . SEEING the things i see they wrote and said .

 

[Marvelloustime]

why on earth men feel so entitled to come in and attack the diety of Christ on a christain website
and why on earth the church feels the need to not warn them
FRIENDS its beyond me . we christain , not buddist , not muslim , no hari kari karsihna or any otherfalse god or prophet .
We children of TRUTH and its about HIGH time we start defending it a wee bit more than we been doing .
Our duty is not to find common ground , ITS TO preach TRUTH so as to be a co helper to the TRUTH .
My commandments COME OF GOD and i learned them well by grace IN that bible .
The pattern the early and true church taught , kept and praticed IS the ONLY pattern i am obligated too
SEEING I AM OBLIGATED TO THE ONE TRUE HOLY GOD who shall accept NO other religon or beleif
and has TESTIFIED OF THE SON , not budda or muhammed or any other false religoin . To those
who think that sounds harsh or mean . BELEIVE YOU me , i truly believe paul , peter , jude , james and the others
WOULD darn sure site have been far more grave . SEEING the things i see they wrote and said .

@TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

@TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY
View attachment 1471

Hi, @Marvelloustime

Nobody in this thread is denying that Jesus is the Christ.
The thread is focused on the covenants between God and men, particularly salvific covenants. If you have something to comment on that please go ahead.

 

[Marvelloustime]

when you read my next post you gonna understand the why my friend . wait for it , it comes quickly
but not nearly as quickly as the First and the last who was dead and is alive . on that day , souls gonna be terrified who denied HIM
HIS gospel , His deity . just saying . wait for it i will send it soon .

@TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY

 

[Studyman]

The Abrahamic Covenant is:
UNILATERAL
UNCONDITIONAL

God ALONE will establish the Abrahamic Covenant.
There are no conditions on Abraham.
The Covenant will be fulfilled, no matter what Abraham does or does not do.

Yes, this world's religious businesses and sects "Who come in Christ's Name", have their religious philosophy. And truly "many" follow the path they promote, as prophesied. But for me, I advocate that men "Believe God" through "HIS WORD", concerning Abraham.

Gal. 3: 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it (his belief) was accounted to him for righteousness.

To say Abraham didn't have a part in the Covenant with God is foolishness, based on what is actually written in scriptures.

What did God say to Isaac?

Gen. 26: 4 And "I will make" thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

So here is the so called "Abrahamic Covenant" to which you speak. So according to God, why was it made with Abraham?

5 "Because" that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, "my" commandments, "my" statutes, and "my" laws.

So the popular religious philosophy promoted by this world's religious businesses and sects, that God's Covenant with Abraham had nothing to do with anything Abraham did or didn't do, does not accurately reflect the Biblical Record.

As you can see, according to what is actually written by Inspiration of God, Abraham "Yielded himself" to God.

Take it or leave it.
These are the (Biblical) facts.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, this world's religious businesses and sects "Who come in Christ's Name", have their religious philosophy. And truly "many" follow the path they promote, as prophesied. But for me, I advocate that men "Believe God" through "HIS WORD", concerning Abraham.

Gal. 3: 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it (his belief) was accounted to him for righteousness.

To say Abraham didn't have a part in the Covenant with God is foolishness, based on what is actually written in scriptures.

I AM NOT debating this Studyman.
The Covenants are readily available for all to study.
Here's my statement again.
THE COVENANTS CANNOT BE GLEANED FROM ONLY SCRIPTURE.
THEY MUST BE STUDIED LIKE THE TRINITY MUST BE STUDIED.

You're mentioning Isaac below. What does Isaac have to do with the Abrahamic Covenant?

Here's my question to you since you THINK Abraham had something to do with the Abrahamic Covenant (besides being the one to whom the promise was made)....

WHAT DID THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT STATE?
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABRAHAM HAD TO DO WITH IT?
DID ITS FULFILLMENT DEPEND ON ABRAHAM OR ON GOD?

What did God say to Isaac?

Gen. 26: 4 And "I will make" thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

So here is the so called "Abrahamic Covenant" to which you speak. So according to God, why was it made with Abraham?

5 "Because" that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, "my" commandments, "my" statutes, and "my" laws.

So the popular religious philosophy promoted by this world's religious businesses and sects, that God's Covenant with Abraham had nothing to do with anything Abraham did or didn't do, does not accurately reflect the Biblical Record.

As you can see, according to what is actually written by Inspiration of God, Abraham "Yielded himself" to God.

No. Again....
ABRAHAM had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the ccovenant that carried his name.
Please answer the questions above.

 

[Studyman]

@TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY
View attachment 1474

It seems prudent to point out more of the warnings of this same Jesus "of the bible" in this same chapter.

Matt. 24: 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come "in my name", saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Jesus could have warned about Buddhism or Islam or even Atheists here. But HE didn't. He Specifically warned about "MANY", who call Him Lord, Lord. His greatest fear for me was that I would be deceived by "Christians", or as Paul describes, men who "Transform Themselves" into apostles of Christ.

My friend Pancho, although we disagree concerning the importance of the Holy Scriptures in the life of men, and the teaching promoted therein, isn't a professing Christian. He doesn't come in Jesus' Name.

There are men who call Jesus Lord, Lord who preach to others that Jesus wasn't a mortal man like other men. That HE didn't overcome the temptations of this world through Faith in His Father, or by humble obedience to Him. They promote that when the going got tough for Jesus, HE just kicked in some God Powers no other human has ever had access to. And by this power, HE was able to overcome sin in this world.

They promote that God is like a coach of a team whose Son is one of the players. And God gives His Son performance enhancing drugs but withholds these same drugs from all the other players. Then when His Son outperforms all the other players, His Father the coach gives Him the Trophy and all the Glory.

This philosophy, promoted by "Many" who come in Christ's Name, demeans the commitment and Faith of Jesus, in my view, and demeans the Father as unjust and deceitful. And makes a mockery of the Holy Scriptures.

Ps. 45: 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre (The Lord's Christ) "of thy (God's) kingdom" is a right sceptre. (The Lord's Christ)

7 Thou ( The Septre, the Lord's Christ) lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore (Because of this) God, thy (The Septre, the Lord's Christ's) God, hath anointed "thee" (Septre, Lord's Christ) with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (All other humans)

There are many who say the Spirit of Christ didn't come to earth as a mortal, Flesh and Blood Human being. This is the Anti-Christ, as it is written.

 

[Studyman]

I AM NOT debating this Studyman.
The Covenants are readily available for all to study.
Here's my statement again.
THE COVENANTS CANNOT BE GLEANED FROM ONLY SCRIPTURE.
THEY MUST BE STUDIED LIKE THE TRINITY MUST BE STUDIED.

You're mentioning Isaac below. What does Isaac have to do with the Abrahamic Covenant?

Here's my question to you since you THINK Abraham had something to do with the Abrahamic Covenant (besides being the one to whom the promise was made)....

WHAT DID THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT STATE?
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABRAHAM HAD TO DO WITH IT?
DID ITS FULFILLMENT DEPEND ON ABRAHAM OR ON GOD?

No. Again....
ABRAHAM had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the ccovenant that carried his name.
Please answer the questions above.

God already answered your questions in the Scriptures I posted, but you didn't acknowledge.

WHAT DID THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT STATE?

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABRAHAM HAD TO DO WITH IT?

4 So Abram departed, "as the LORD had spoken unto him";

DID ITS FULFILLMENT DEPEND ON ABRAHAM OR ON GOD?

Gen. 26: 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Your argument is with God not me.

 

[GodsGrace]

God already answered your questions in the Scriptures I posted, but you didn't acknowledge.

I didn't acknowledge because I know FOR SURE that you're wrong.
Sorry 'bout that, I don't usually say this.

WHAT DID THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT STATE?

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

OK. So the point of the Abrahamic Covenant (actually there was more than one)
was:
In Abraham, God will bless all families on earth.
Through the revelation of the One True God through Abram...
all nations will come to know God.

Is this something that God ULTIMATELY did or that Abraham ultimately did?
WHO kept the promise?
God or Abraham?

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABRAHAM HAD TO DO WITH IT?

4 So Abram departed, "as the LORD had spoken unto him";

Asked above....
Abraham obeyed God.
But HE did not keep the promise...
GOD did.

DID ITS FULFILLMENT DEPEND ON ABRAHAM OR ON GOD?

Gen. 26: 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Your argument is with God not me.

My argument is with YOU.
I don't argue with God.

The SEED of Abraham will bless all the nations of the world NOT ABRAHAM.
Abraham obeyed God...but God's Covenant would have been fulfilled even if Abraham did not obey...perhaps through someone else.
This is the same case as with MARY....
Mary said OK and she obeyed.
What if she didn't?
Would God not have sent us a Savior??

In Genesis 26:5 we hear talk of LAND.
This is referring to the Covenants of LAND...

IF you're interested...or anyone reading along...you could start with the following...
but it'll require MUCH MORE reading if you want to get to know the Covenants.


First, God made a covenant with Abraham and promised personal and national blessings for Abraham and his descendants and worldwide blessings through Abraham and his descendants. This was an unconditional and everlasting covenant, and God’s provisions would come to pass regardless of whether Abraham or the nation Israel kept the covenant.

The Biblical Covenants: Land, Davidic, and New

In the last post, the biblical theme of covenant was continued, and we considered the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. It was discussed that after God created the nations, He chose one of those nati…

biblefanboy.com

 

[GodsGrace]

Neither @JoshebB nor me are discussing the deity of Christ here, my sister.
It is our brother @TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY who mentioned this off topic. I don’t know why. We have plenty of threads to discuss that subject.

OK I understand this.

My point was not debating about Jesus as God.
My point was that @TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY WAS speaking for all Christians when he stated that Jesus is God.
YOU said that he could not speak for all Christians.
Yes....he could.

As I said,,,if a person does not believe that Jesus is God...
it is not correct for them to call themselves a Christian.
By definition a CHRISTian MUST believe that Jesus is God.
Simple.

That was my only point.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Asked above....
Abraham obeyed God.
But HE did not keep the promise...
GOD did.

My argument is

I understand your point. God is faithful to his promises, and in the bottomline he has not any obligation to men, as his salvation is an undeserved gift.
However, the point I think @Studyman is suggesting is:
Would God have kept his promise if Abraham had not been obedient in keeping God's commandments?

I think the question is somewhat tricky... not something to quickly answer with yes or no.
We have abundant evidence in the Bible that God keeps his promises despite the bad behavior of men. For example, God never forgot Israel despite all their disobedience.
But we have also evidence in the Bible that when the people of Israel disobeyed and forgot God, bad things happened to them... the kind of things that God had warned them in the Torah. The books of the prophets are filled of this concept: if people don't do their part, God does not do his.

To me, this is all a didactic tool, an adaptation of God's revelation to the mindset of those times.

Now we don't think that if a hurricane strikes Haiti, it is because Haitians disobeyed God... or at least, that they disobeyed more than the Jamaicans who weren't hit by the same hurricane.
There were some confused minds that even thought that the Holocaust was a punishment to Jews for their bad behavior against Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand your point. God is faithful to his promises, and in the bottomline he has not any obligation to men, as his salvation is an undeserved gift.
However, the point I think @Studyman is suggesting is:
Would God have kept his promise if Abraham had not been obedient in keeping God's commandments?

I did bring up Mary, if you remember.
No matter what....God would have kept His promise.
He picked Abraham like He picked Mary....
Did God KNOW Mary would say yes?
Had He picked her because she was the right woman to be Jesus' mother?
Did she have a choice to say NO?

These questions would also pertain to Abraham.

They're hypothetical questions.
Looks like we have enough going on with just the facts!

And my point IS NOT that God is faithful to His promises --- which of course He is.

My point is that only one other person on this thread understands the Covenants and that's
@JoshebB .....

I'm not making anymore comments.

Like I said, there's plenty of info on the net....
I just don't understand why the posters here do not take advantage of it.

The Covenants are not a matter for debate:
They are what they are.
A person either knows them or they don't.
Although they are scriptural, they are not gleaned with scripture.

If I tell you the Abrahamic Covenant is UNCONDITIONAL
and you come back and tell me it's CONDITIONAL...
know what that tells me?
The person knows NOTHING about Covenants,
who makes them,
what they're for,
who fulfills them,
etc.

I've found only one item in this topic that is debated by theologians:
What is the sign of the New Covenant?

Want to take a guess?

I think the question is tricky... not something to quickly answer with yes or no.
We have evidence in the Bible that God keeps his promises despite the bad behavior of men.
We have also evidence in the Bible that when the people of Israel disobeyed and forgot God, bad things happened to them... the kind of things that God had warned them in the Torah. The books of the prophets are filled of this concept: people don't do their part, God does not do his.

To me, this is all a didactic tool, an adaptation of God's revelation to the mindset of those times.

Now we don't think that if a hurricane strikes Haiti, it is because God wants to punish the bad behavior of Haitians.

Not replying to the above.
Not relevant to Covenants.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I've found only one item in this topic that is debated by theologians:
What is the sign of the New Covenant?

Want to take a guess?

I don't know, but let me give it a try.
I would say the gift of Holy Spirit, the baptism (as an external sign of repentance) and Jesus' blood, on account of the three "witnesses" mentioned in 1 John 5:8
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

OK I understand this.

My point was not debating about Jesus as God.
My point was that @TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY WAS speaking for all Christians when he stated that Jesus is God.
YOU said that he could not speak for all Christians.
Yes....he could.

As I said,,,if a person does not believe that Jesus is God...
it is not correct for them to call themselves a Christian.
By definition a CHRISTian MUST believe that Jesus is God.
Simple.

That was my only point.

I will expose why I disagree with your view, and then I will not mention this subject in this thread. We can open a new one, my sister.
My disagreement is based in four reasons: biblical, historical, empiric and relational

1. Biblically, there is no single place where Jesus defined his disciples as those who believed he was God. Also, there is no single place on the Book of Acts or others in which Christians are defined as those who believe in the deity of Jesus. Nobody was asked to confess the deity of Jesus in order to join the first Christian communities.
2. Historically, millions have self-identified as Christians believing all kind of things, correct or incorrect, explicit or implicit, about the intimate nature of Jesus. There is no single century in which we couldn't find Christians who believe that only the Father is God. Even in this Forum, in 2025, we find from time to time people who understand the hypostatic union in different ways, without noticing that their view (who has nothing to do with their daily relation with Jesus) was considered heretic many centuries ago.
3. Empirically, following Jesus and loving Jesus has nothing to do with the specific belief in his deity. This is attested by the lives of thousands of people from many churches. Following Jesus is proved by the kind of life they live, and not by answering correctly to a quiz on Theology. My statement applies not only to Christian Unitarians or Jehovah Witnesses, but to people within churches of Trinitarian creed, who are not interested at all in exploring or defending the deity of Jesus, for the simple reason that they don't find it relevant their daily spiritual relationship with Jesus.
4. Relational, as calling a person who self-identifies as Christian non-Christian due to a theological difference, is not only a theoretical statement, but one with deep repercussions in the way people treat each other. In the face of the sectarism found in this Forum, it is equivalent of setting the difference between the saved and the damned.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know, but let me give it a try.
I would say the gift of Holy Spirit, the baptism (as an external sign of repentance) and Jesus' blood, on account of the three "witnesses" mentioned in 1 John 5:8
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Welll Pancho...you got one!
BAPTISM
the other is the EUCHARIST/or communion.

I'm not a scholar and have not come to a decided conclusion.
The Eucharist, begun at the Last Supper, would align with your idea of the blood,,,but more to the host/wafer and communion, or The Lord's Supper but Jesus did say THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.....and the next day He was hanging on the cross.

(The Holy Spirit would not be a sign).

 

[synergy]

I will expose why I disagree with your view, and then I will not mention this subject in this thread. We can open a new one, my sister.
My disagreement is based in four reasons: biblical, historical, empiric and relational

1. Biblically, there is no single place where Jesus defined his disciples as those who believed he was God. Also, there is no single place on the Book of Acts or others in which Christians are defined as those who believe in the deity of Jesus. Nobody was asked to confess the deity of Jesus in order to join the first Christian communities.
2. Historically, millions have self-identified as Christians believing all kind of things, correct or incorrect, explicit or implicit, about the intimate nature of Jesus. There is no single century in which we couldn't find Christians who believe that only the Father is God. Even in this Forum, in 2025, we find from time to time people who understand the hypostatic union in different ways, without noticing that their view (who has nothing to do with their daily relation with Jesus) was considered heretic many centuries ago.
3. Empirically, following Jesus and loving Jesus has nothing to do with the specific belief in his deity. This is attested by the lives of thousands of people from many churches. Following Jesus is proved by the kind of life they live, and not by answering correctly to a quiz on Theology. My statement applies not only to Christian Unitarians or Jehovah Witnesses, but to people within churches of Trinitarian creed, who are not interested at all in exploring or defending the deity of Jesus, for the simple reason that they don't find it relevant their daily spiritual relationship with Jesus.
4. Relational, as calling a person who self-identifies as Christian non-Christian due to a theological difference, is not only a theoretical statement, but one with deep repercussions in the way people treat each other. In the face of the sectarism found in this Forum, it is equivalent of setting the difference between the saved and the damned.

You are essentially promoting people who are ignorant that Jesus is YHWH/Jehovah/Adonai and saying that's the way to go.

The name Lord comes directly from κυριος as written in the Greek OT (Septuagint), and that in turn comes directly from YHWH/Jehovah and Adonai as written in the Hebrew text.

The Apostles followed the Septuagint and called Jesus κυριος (Lord) which is the Greek name for YHWH and Adonai. They did not use the name "Lord" (κυριος) for anyone besides Jesus and God the Father in the New Testament. While κυριος could be used culturally as a term of respect or authority, the Apostles specifically used "Lord" (κυριος) to indicate divine authority, reverence, or worship when referring to Jesus or God the Father.

For example, Peter addresses Jesus as "Lord" (κυριος) with the understanding of His divine nature, particularly after Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:36). Similarly, "Lord"(κυριος) is also used in prayers addressed to God the Father (as in Acts 4:24). The Apostles reserve this title, in its spiritual sense, for the divine alone, and there is no record of them calling any other human "Lord" in the same way as they did for Jesus and the Father.

As if that wasn't enough, Jesus explicitly declared himself "I Am" (John 8:58), the very name of the OT God (Ex 3:14). Also, John declared the Word (the Preincarnate Jesus) in John 1:1 as being God, translated from θεὸς in Greek and from Elohim in Hebrew.

 

[GodsGrace]

I will expose why I disagree with your view, and then I will not mention this subject in this thread. We can open a new one, my sister.
My disagreement is based in four reasons: biblical, historical, empiric and relational

1. Biblically, there is no single place where Jesus defined his disciples as those who believed he was God. Also, there is no single place on the Book of Acts or others in which Christians are defined as those who believe in the deity of Jesus. Nobody was asked to confess the deity of Jesus in order to join the first Christian communities.
2. Historically, millions have self-identified as Christians believing all kind of things, correct or incorrect, explicit or implicit, about the intimate nature of Jesus. There is no single century in which we couldn't find Christians who believe that only the Father is God. Even in this Forum, in 2025, we find from time to time people who understand the hypostatic union in different ways, without noticing that their view (who has nothing to do with their daily relation with Jesus) was considered heretic many centuries ago.
3. Empirically, following Jesus and loving Jesus has nothing to do with the specific belief in his deity. This is attested by the lives of thousands of people from many churches. Following Jesus is proved by the kind of life they live, and not by answering correctly to a quiz on Theology. My statement applies not only to Christian Unitarians or Jehovah Witnesses, but to people within churches of Trinitarian creed, who are not interested at all in exploring or defending the deity of Jesus, for the simple reason that they don't find it relevant their daily spiritual relationship with Jesus.
4. Relational, as calling a person who self-identifies as Christian non-Christian due to a theological difference, is not only a theoretical statement, but one with deep repercussions in the way people treat each other. In the face of the sectarism found in this Forum, it is equivalent of setting the difference between the saved and the damned.

I'm tired Pancho and must close down.
Just quick: (No need to start a new thread unless the OP or a moderator complains....)

BIBLICALLY: The NT proves that Jesus considered Himself to be God.
He came back to life...I think the Apostles were aware of this.
Thomas: MY LORD AND MY GOD.


HISTORICALLY: I believe everyone understands the hypostatic union the same way......I could be wrong about this.
I think you're thinking of the Trinity. JESUS IS GOD. The Early Church Fathers believed Jesus was God.
What you're failing to understand is this:
If a person wants to be known as Jewish, he must have specific beliefs.
If a person wants to be known as Mulim, he must have specific beliefs.
If a person wants to known as Christian, he must have specific beliefs.

These beliefs were established 2 thousand years ago after Jesus ascended.
We are not allowed to change the tenets of a religion.
If someone believes only Father is God,,,that's OK...but they would be Jewish...NOT Christian.
People on these forums can believe whatever they want to believe...
but they cannot change the tenets of the Christian religion.
They have no authority to do this.

EMPIRICALLY: JWs are NOT Christian because the do not believe Jesus is God.
This has to be perfectly clear.
It is rather horrifying that you state that some people DO NOT FIND IT RELEVANT in exploring that Jesus is God.
Well, THAT is the whole point of Christianity! JESUS IS GOD!
A person could follow Jesus...but that does NOT make him a Christian UNLESS he believes Jesus is God.
And why follow Jesus if a person doesn't think he's God?
Does that person realize he's worshipping an idol?

RATIONAL: Believing Jesus is God in NOT a theological difference.
It is at the very core of Christianity.
The very fact that I've explained this to you already 3X now and you still don't understand this (and you're very intelligent) is proof positive that Christianity is being WATERED DOWN and losing its very definition. If Jesus is not God....there is no Christianity.
And I never state anything about a person being saved or damned. I don't believe doctrine saves anyone...they could be saved and I'm happy for them BUT they cannot define themselves as CHRISTIAN.

If you reply...I'll respond tomorrow.
But you really either accept this or not....
I don't really know what else to say.
How do YOU think YOU have the authority to define Christianity?
NOT because you're of a different faith, but this question should be
addressed to all those who write CHRISTIAN under their avatar and then
go ahead and attempt to prove that Jesus is not God.
The tenets of the Christian religion have already been set...
NO ONE has the authority to change them.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are essentially promoting people who are ignorant that Jesus is YHWH/Jehovah/Adonai and saying that's the way to go.

The name Lord comes directly from κυριος as written in the Greek OT (Septuagint), and that in turn comes directly from YHWH/Jehovah and Adonai as written in the Hebrew text.

The Apostles followed the Septuagint and called Jesus κυριος (Lord) which is the Greek name for YHWH and Adonai. They did not use the name "Lord" (κυριος) for anyone besides Jesus and God the Father in the New Testament. While κυριος could be used culturally as a term of respect or authority, the Apostles specifically used "Lord" (κυριος) to indicate divine authority, reverence, or worship when referring to Jesus or God the Father.

For example, Peter addresses Jesus as "Lord" (κυριος) with the understanding of His divine nature, particularly after Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:36). Similarly, "Lord"(κυριος) is also used in prayers addressed to God the Father (as in Acts 4:24). The Apostles reserve this title, in its spiritual sense, for the divine alone, and there is no record of them calling any other human "Lord" in the same way as they did for Jesus and the Father.

As if that wasn't enough, Jesus explicitly declared himself "I Am" (John 8:58), the very name of the OT God (Ex 3:14). Also, John declared the Word (the Preincarnate Jesus) in John 1:1 as being God, translated from θεὸς in Greek and from Elohim in Hebrew.

Could you please read my post no. 278?
This has been disturbing me for some time now.
Whether the other member believes Jesus is God or not is irrelevant because
he is not Christian.

What about those that call themselves Christian and then go on to debate Jesus' divinity?

 

[synergy]

Could you please read my post no. 278?
This has been disturbing me for some time now.
Whether the other member believes Jesus is God or not is irrelevant because
he is not Christian.

I agree with what you wrote. A wishy washy Christianity lends itself to a thousand heresies that are just itching to attack Christianity. Pancho promotes ignorance.

What about those that call themselves Christian and then go on to debate Jesus' divinity?

Depends on alot of factors. Are these people who should know better or are they people who were misinformed? Are they deliberately spitting on the Bible or were they brainwashed by people around them? As for people who deliberately spit on the word of God, Jesus reacted to a situation like that when he emphatically declared the following:

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.”