Johann
Well-Known Member
No, you definitely cannot be saved if you do not believe in the Deity of Christ Jesus, for Christ is God.
Can you be saved if you don't believe in the diety of Christ?
- Thread starter friend of
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, you definitely cannot be saved if you do not believe in the Deity of Christ Jesus, for Christ is God.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
No, you cannot be saved if you do not believe in the Deity of Christ Jesus, since Christ IS God.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
No, you cannot be saved if you do not believe in the Deity of Christ Jesus, since Christ IS God.
From my understanding Jesus Christ shed blood on the cross 2000 years ago, along with having returning go get his bride in 70Ad.
Ever since then the kingdom of God has been established upon the earth through believers who carry out in sharing faith of the way. To follow and believe on the one whom God sent, by growing and learning who Jesus was, and who God is.
I believe because of this Jesus has saved: on all accounts of us human beings.
All people who do not believe have been saved from Hell/grave/Sheol, Satan and his demons, their sins (though the have unbelieving heart at the moment / and even Christians have sin in their own life) - That is a freely given gift on part of God and His Son to all individuals.
When it comes to the notion of the “being saved to” the Heavenly Jerusalem, the kingdom on High - the requirement for this is Faith.
Faith in what though? The Gospel of Christ that helps people on having a renewed mind and renewed heart, that Jesus has had the victory.
Those who believe having faith, and are part of the kingdom having become a son or daughter being adopted by faith into the kingdom.
That is my overall view and stance on the subject.
Sharing the Gospel to me is actually sharing the story of the Gospel and not just bits and pieces for the most part I believe you are your own sufficient person who can take hold of the Bible and read it.
It is needful to be encouraged to stay in faith, and trust in God and realize the hope after this life is ultimately going to be with God. Where there is light, and love. I also believe it will be possible to helps those one the outside of kingdom in heaven. God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth that would include the lost.
Remember Jesus told his disciples to pick up the leftovers? There is a reason for that.
Last edited:
Amen it is where Salvation is founded, the power of God unto Salvation to learn the Gospel of Christ.
Desire Of All Nations
Well-Known Member
Yes, a person can be saved if they don't believe in the trinity, because it is simply not biblical. Even this Catholic scholar admitted it is not a biblical tenet.
As William Clarke explained, trinitarians tend to act like the trinity is taught because they force a modern view of the trinity into the text. They have to do it, because the only other options for them are to outright call the biblical writers liars or simply admit that they are in error. Trinitarians should especially take note of the part where he said that this doctrine "differed widely from the simplicity of the early faith" because it shows just far away from the beaten path their brands of Christianity really are.
As i've mentioned plenty of times before, the nature of God is supposed to be easy to understand, and it is. It is simply a matter of whether someone accepts what the Bible says or not. If someone is going to claim that biblical salvation required a person to believe in the trinity, they won't be able to concretely prove it because no prophet or apostle ever taught that God is a trinity.
Uh, what makes you think Jesus came back and retrieved His bride... in 70AD?
Jesus promised to return in a generation of time. That would be 70Ad. I do not believe the Bible ever says “and for each and all generations to come”. That is why I believe he came, in faith to establish the kingdom of God within believers now today in the Age we live in. We don’t live in their age anymore.
Good strong stance and it is correct. From what I have heard the first coined term “trinity” was actually a Gnostic. I don’t remember the name however.
Johann
Well-Known Member
As i've mentioned plenty of times before, the nature of God is supposed to be easy to understand, and it is.
It is? If God can fit into my three pound brain and I can fully "exegete" Him, then he is not worthy to be worshiped
Johann
Well-Known Member
All people who do NOT believe have been saved....!! from Hell/grave/Sheol, Satan and his demons, their sins (though the have unbelieving heart at the moment / and even Christians have sin in their own life) - That is a freely given gift on part of God and His Son to all individuals.
Maybe a mistake in the typing of words? Or is that how you believe?
I believe the universal atonement to all people by the blood shed of Christ. I also believe Jesus had the victory over the things I mentioned. Yes I believe Jesus had the victory over sin, death, grave/hell/Sheol/, Satan and his demons. Many people find my belief unorthodox however the Bible says these things.
I believe all people have been saved from sin, death, the grave, hell, Sheol, Satan and his demons. Whether they accept this or not is up to individual for Jesus himself has accomplished these things regardless if we say he has not.
However I do not believe all people are saved to the kingdom of God because that requires faith, and obedience to Jesus to to have love for God and love for others.
That is how I believe, thank you for asking.
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
But when Jesus returns He will be ruling the world. He isn't physically ruling on earth right now.
Matthew 25:31-32
^ hasn't happened yet
Okay so you don't believe Jesus will physically come again to rule this world and usher in the end of the age?
I believe it happened at the destruction of Jerusalem like he said. I don’t know how to give you a sufficient answer other than I believe by faith.
One day though I’ll be able to explain it if i would be disciplined enough to research more in to the historical events leading up to the destruction.
I believe by faith brother.
I’m happy right where I am believing Jesus had returned and that all things had been placed underneath his feet and he gave everything back to his Father.
Establishing the kingdom of God in believers now today, who are citizen of it, by faith. Believers who come to know Jesus should know their identity as a Christian.
Being born again, being a child of God, they are son or daughter of God when walking by the spirit, they have the holy spirit, the spirit of Christ, they are able to commune with God and God helps change their hearts and minds individually as the person seeks out God by faith. @friend of
One day though I’ll be able to explain it if i would be disciplined enough to research more in to the historical events leading up to the destruction.
I believe by faith brother.
I’m happy right where I am believing Jesus had returned and that all things had been placed underneath his feet and he gave everything back to his Father.Establishing the kingdom of God in believers now today, who are citizen of it, by faith. Believers who come to know Jesus should know their identity as a Christian.
Being born again, being a child of God, they are son or daughter of God when walking by the spirit, they have the holy spirit, the spirit of Christ, they are able to commune with God and God helps change their hearts and minds individually as the person seeks out God by faith. @friend of
Last edited:
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I apologize for the length of this, but there is a lot to address, so I'll break it up....
Let me give you one glaring example....
The KJV is a translation that many revere as authentic, but in today’s world is a dinosaur with its archaic English and odd phrasing, but the KJV was translated by trinitarians and its bias is obvious when you study it.
John 1:1 (a trinitarian’s favorite) is translated the same in most English Bibles because all believed in the indoctrinated trinity, and so the errors were not obvious. The absence of the definite article didn’t seem to matter, but in Greek, it was vital to identify the true God from the “theos” who was his son and which identified others as authorized by him, but who are not Jehovah.
If the Jews had retained the divine name (as their scripture had instructed) instead of eliminating it from their speech, we would not be having this conversation.
John 1:1 would have read....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah, and the Word was divine.”
Verse 14 would have been understood to mean the opposite of how it is read today....
“So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.”.....it has a completely different meaning.
“The Word” was not “ho theos” so not “THE God” but “theos” a divine one who was “with the God” “in the beginning”.....he was "an only begotten son". In order to be "begotten" one needs a 'begetter' who existed before him. Never do a father and son come into existence at the same time. It is God and his son who identify their relationship to humans. If it is not the same as we understand, then why identify themselves that way?
And since Jehovah had no “beginning” this too is important, because the Word did.
“These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God” (Revelation 3:14) Since the Revelation was given in a chain.....from God to Jesus to the angel, and then to John, (Revelation 1:1) this is God and his son both saying that Jesus is the “beginning of God’s creation”.
What else do we see when we read on? Verse 18 says in the KJV....
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” I guess you would not see a problem....most people don’t. But there is no “Son” in that verse. If you look it up in other translations out will find similar wording inferring that the Son is God, but it says more correctly....”
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB1995)
Now look at the way it was translated in the revised NASB 2020....
“No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB 2020)
Which is more correct when compared with the Greek text? They had it right the first time....”monogenes theos” (only begotten god) was in the original text. There is no "God the only Son".
The opening words to John 1:18 declare that "No one has seen God at any time"......how many people saw Jesus Christ?
So please don’t tell me that going back to original word meanings to dispel an ancient myth adopted by a corrupted church hundreds of years after Jesus ‘ death, is not the correct thing to do. We make no apology for that.
I challenge you to produce any discrepancy found in the NWT that is not accurate according to the original Greek texts. There was no trinity when the scriptures were written, but mistranslation can alter the meaning of scripture and we end up believing the lies as truth. We exposed the lies and corrected them. You can believe it.....or not.
I couldn’t agree more. I myself am a stickler for scripture but I also am a stickler for original word study. The way original language speakers understood words according to their religion is more important than how later corrupted churches interpreted them. It requires more than a cursory reading of "words". To read without understanding is futile.
That is not true either. We can use any translation we like. I use a range of translations here because I understand that people like yourself have been persuaded to believe that the NWT is not accurate. I will debate that with you any time if you would like to give me examples other than John 10:33, which I have already detailed, and which you have completely misunderstood.
Finding translation errors was the reason.
Let me give you one glaring example....
The KJV is a translation that many revere as authentic, but in today’s world is a dinosaur with its archaic English and odd phrasing, but the KJV was translated by trinitarians and its bias is obvious when you study it.
John 1:1 (a trinitarian’s favorite) is translated the same in most English Bibles because all believed in the indoctrinated trinity, and so the errors were not obvious. The absence of the definite article didn’t seem to matter, but in Greek, it was vital to identify the true God from the “theos” who was his son and which identified others as authorized by him, but who are not Jehovah.
If the Jews had retained the divine name (as their scripture had instructed) instead of eliminating it from their speech, we would not be having this conversation.
John 1:1 would have read....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah, and the Word was divine.”
Verse 14 would have been understood to mean the opposite of how it is read today....
“So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.”.....it has a completely different meaning.
“The Word” was not “ho theos” so not “THE God” but “theos” a divine one who was “with the God” “in the beginning”.....he was "an only begotten son". In order to be "begotten" one needs a 'begetter' who existed before him. Never do a father and son come into existence at the same time. It is God and his son who identify their relationship to humans. If it is not the same as we understand, then why identify themselves that way?
And since Jehovah had no “beginning” this too is important, because the Word did.
“These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God” (Revelation 3:14) Since the Revelation was given in a chain.....from God to Jesus to the angel, and then to John, (Revelation 1:1) this is God and his son both saying that Jesus is the “beginning of God’s creation”.
What else do we see when we read on? Verse 18 says in the KJV....
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” I guess you would not see a problem....most people don’t. But there is no “Son” in that verse. If you look it up in other translations out will find similar wording inferring that the Son is God, but it says more correctly....”
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB1995)
Now look at the way it was translated in the revised NASB 2020....
“No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB 2020)
Which is more correct when compared with the Greek text? They had it right the first time....”monogenes theos” (only begotten god) was in the original text. There is no "God the only Son".
The opening words to John 1:18 declare that "No one has seen God at any time"......how many people saw Jesus Christ?
So please don’t tell me that going back to original word meanings to dispel an ancient myth adopted by a corrupted church hundreds of years after Jesus ‘ death, is not the correct thing to do. We make no apology for that.
I challenge you to produce any discrepancy found in the NWT that is not accurate according to the original Greek texts. There was no trinity when the scriptures were written, but mistranslation can alter the meaning of scripture and we end up believing the lies as truth. We exposed the lies and corrected them. You can believe it.....or not.
Similar threads
