Can you be a Christian if you don't believe in Jesus? - Page 6

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

"Maybe it's One God but in different forms?  Not sure if that is outside of the creeds. I don't have a problem with one God, three distinct Persons, but I see that God had to become another form while maintaining His same essence.  OT God wasn't inside the believers, and Jesus as a man could not physically get inside the believers, but once He became a life giving Spirit...shoooop, inside He went. "

Shami, this is very much outside the Creeds.  I have never heard this idea that Christ changed form.  Is that what your church teaches?  Usually the teaching is that after Christ ascended he sent the Holy Spirit to dwell with the Christians, while he remained, bodily, with God.  People do have the Word in them - though that has always been the case, even in the OT, and outside of Christian or Jewish societies.  I couldn't find any references to any group that believes or believed what you describe, so I'm quite curious where this teaching comes from.

I haven't heard the word form used, which is why I was asking because I don't know if it is proper to use.  I was thinking that after Christ resurrected and ascended He sat down at the right hand of God.  Then in 1 Cor 15:45 it says the last Adam became a life giving Spirit.  It says Now the Lord is the Spirit.  He became a life giving Spirit to be another Comforter.  To be transfigured is to be in another form, but same essence???  When we are transfigured we will have a spiritual body, no longer the physical body as we know it yet still a bodily form.  How that looks and feels I don't know, but I am assuming I will be the same Shami but with a transfigured body, thus another form, but same essence????  Again, I wholeheartedly believe that the three of the Godhead existed for eternity past and to eternity future, not that one form came and the other stopped existing.  I know that we cannot say they were ever separate because they are one in essence.

This was my line of thinking, but I have no idea if this goes against what the Bible teaches or the creeds.

I am not sure what you mean by, "People do have the Word in them - though that has always been the case, even in the OT, and outside of Christian or Jewish societies"    I have never seen evidence of that in the Bible.  I am not as familiar with the OT as NT.  I don't think the OT talks about God dwelling IN man but maybe WITH man. 
 

ETA:  Did a word search on form and found these verses:

Mark 16:12

12 And after these things, He ^aappeared in a different form to ^btwo of them as they were walking on their way into the countryside.

Luke 3:22

22 And the ^1aHoly Spirit descended in bodily form as a dove upon Him. And a voice came out of heaven: You are My Son, the ^bBeloved; in You I have found My delight.

John 5:37

37 And the ^aFather who sent Me, He has ¹testified concerning Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor have you seen His form,

And the past tense 'formed':

Galatians 4:19

19 My ^1achildren, with whom I ^2btravail again in birth until ^3cChrist is ⁴formed ^din you,

1 Timothy 2:13

13 For ¹Adam was ²formed first, then Eve;

Man, I am really hating this new format - I can't edit posts the way I want at all!

Usually when we talk about Christ after the Resurrection, we talk about him existing in a slightly different, or changed way, than he was before.  He was transformed.  (Though it is interesting to think about this in relation to think about this in relation to the Transfiguration - he seemed transformed then too.)  It's important though that he was still physical - but it is like his physicality is more complete, more realized, and more perfect than it was before.  (It's interesting though that it still contains the wounds!)  We see for example that Christ eats, but he also seems to walk through doors, and his close friends, walking with him, fail to recognize him at first.  It is really quite weird.

Paul talks a lot about what this means, but he is often confusing to us because of the language he uses.  He likes to contrast the Flesh and the Spirit, and people tend to take this in a dualist sense, or to think it means Christ didn't have a real body after the Resurrection.  I think though that reading Paul carefully, we can see that is not what he means, but he seems to pretty continually use the language in this way, saying spiritual to mean the transformed physical world.

When I speak about Christ being always in us, I think the clearest example is the beginning of John's Gospel, but there are plenty of other examples.  Anything that is made by God exists because it in some sense has the Word in it - it "borrows" its existence from and owes its Being to God.  You can also think of this in another way.  Although the Crucifixion and Resurrection are, from our POV, accomplished in a particular time and in a particular place, from God's perspective that is not the case.  This is the Love by which all of creation, and us in particular, are bound to God, whether we know it, or accept it, or not.  Even a guy living on a desert island, an ancient Babylonian, or a modern atheist are bound to God in this way.  God has taken our human nature - which we ALL share -  and united it to himself, and transformed it into something Godlike.  That is how we are ransomed from death.  And through us, creation is also united.  But it is easy for us to think of this as something that happens to us, or that happened to humanity at one point.  In fact it has already happened, and was true when time began.  Our salvation is complete.  We just have to live that out.

[Bluegoat]

Oh PS - form would often be used in the same way the word essence would be used in philosophical language.

[Shami]

Mine in Blue

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 
*snip*

Man, I am really hating this new format - I can't edit posts the way I want at all!

Usually when we talk about Christ after the Resurrection, we talk about him existing in a slightly different, or changed way, than he was before.  He was transformed.  (Though it is interesting to think about this in relation to think about this in relation to the Transfiguration - he seemed transformed then too.)  It's important though that he was still physical - but it is like his physicality is more complete, more realized, and more perfect than it was before.  (It's interesting though that it still contains the wounds!)  We see for example that Christ eats, but he also seems to walk through doors, and his close friends, walking with him, fail to recognize him at first.  It is really quite weird.

Yes it is weird and fascinating.  I heard someone talk about this in a message once.  He said that since the disciples were so used to Jesus being with them as a man, that they may have needed a period of "training" in order to get used to His invisible presence.  It's a possiblility, but who really knows??  He only appeared and disappeared for a time and then He stopped.   Or at least there isn't any more record of Him doing that to my knowledge.  And I always wondered why the wounds would still be there if He was fully resurrected, wouldn't that be gone?  There must be a purpose for that to be in the Bible.  Maybe it was just to help Thomas and us believe.  I think because of our sin nature we are doubters and we need a lot of help believing!

Paul talks a lot about what this means, but he is often confusing to us because of the language he uses.  He likes to contrast the Flesh and the Spirit, and people tend to take this in a dualist sense, or to think it means Christ didn't have a real body after the Resurrection.  I think though that reading Paul carefully, we can see that is not what he means, but he seems to pretty continually use the language in this way, saying spiritual to mean the transformed physical world.

I think Paul talks about the flesh and the Spirit because it's such a battle in our daily life.  We need to constantly turn to the Spirit to overcome our flesh.  For us to be transformed by the Holy Spirit we need many transactions with the Lord keeping our eyes on Him and minding just the spirit rather than all the earthly entanglements.   But I do believe that we and Jesus have three parts:   spirit, soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23).

When I speak about Christ being always in us, I think the clearest example is the beginning of John's Gospel, but there are plenty of other examples.  Anything that is made by God exists because it in some sense has the Word in it - it "borrows" its existence from and owes its Being to God.

I see where you are coming from now.  All things are out from Him and through Him and unto Him.  All things came into being through Him and otherwise they wouldn't exist.  All things coinhere in Him. 

  You can also think of this in another way.  Although the Crucifixion and Resurrection are, from our POV, accomplished in a particular time and in a particular place, from God's perspective that is not the case. 

True.  From God's perspective everything has been accomplished including the defeat of the enemy.  He chose us before the foundation of the world. What an enjoyable fact to ponder!

This is the Love by which all of creation, and us in particular, are bound to God, whether we know it, or accept it, or not.  Even a guy living on a desert island, an ancient Babylonian, or a modern atheist are bound to God in this way.  God has taken our human nature - which we ALL share -  and united it to himself, and transformed it into something Godlike. 

This is why even atheists ponder God.  Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put eternity in man's heart.  Man longs for the Eternal even if he doesn't know it. 

That is how we are ransomed from death. 

I may have lost you on this point or maybe we disagree.  All men were created in God's image and came out from Him, but I do believe that in order to be saved from perdition each individual has to have a turn in heart toward God and eventually accept/receive the Lord Jesus in order to be saved.   We work out our salvation in our daily life by turning to Him, opening to His speaking and following Him.

And through us, creation is also united.  But it is easy for us to think of this as something that happens to us, or that happened to humanity at one point.  In fact it has already happened, and was true when time began.  Our salvation is complete.  We just have to live that out.

I do believe that once we have believed/accepted the Lord Jesus and have His life in us, He will complete what He has begun in us.

I think the difference I am making is this:  We do have God like virtues of love, life, light, righteousness, patience because we were made in His image.   But these virtues fall short (just have a toddler and you'll find out you have temper and your own patience runs out).  Once we receive Christ we have His virtues added to us and when ours runs out He supplies us with the eternal source of patience.  No more time...toddlers patience just ran out big time!  Hope that last thought came out right.

[EdnaMarie]

"2)how you interpret "he who has seen me has seen the father.""

Mother Theresa used to say that she saw God and Christ in the eyes of the poor *all the time* and they weren't all Christian poor, either.

I think there's a lot of wiggle room in the New Testament as far as Jesus' divinity goes, though Christianity per se doesn't make sense as a separate religion if Jesus is not God.

There are many Muslims who have read the whole New Testament and it doesn't crack their faith a tiny bit.

Based on what you are saying here about space-time, this is nothing different than what the ancient Church understood.  In fact that was even so during the Enlightenment when a lot of scientist were pretty unreceptive to that POV.

Post-Augustine, but the creeds were pre-Augustine.  The ancient church, IMO, tends to take a rather linear view of time and this is evidenced in the way they discuss specific paradoxes within scripture, and which also reflects the Hellenic framework within which they were hammering out their philosophy... I mean... if one assumes it was hammered out by individuals.  :)

[confusionincan]

This made me laugh - I TOTALLY get what you mean by this. It is so confusing to me. My dh was raised Roman-Catholic and he tries to explain it to me but the bottom line for me, is exactly what you said.

Originally Posted by Learning_Mum 

I guess one of the problems I've always had is that he's the 'son of God' but he's not God but he is God. Does that make sense?

I had considered Christianity myself, because I thought it would be easier, and at least my kids would be raised with something, but dh wasn't up for it. (He is no longer a fan of Roman-Catholicism)

I completely understand where you are coming from :)
 

[PlayaMama]

Originally Posted by Shami 

This is the Love by which all of creation, and us in particular, are bound to God, whether we know it, or accept it, or not.  Even a guy living on a desert island, an ancient Babylonian, or a modern atheist are bound to God in this way.  God has taken our human nature - which we ALL share -  and united it to himself, and transformed it into something Godlike.

This is why even atheists ponder God.  Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put eternity in man's heart.  Man longs for the Eternal even if he doesn't know it. 

um, i know this isn't relevant to the christian w/o jesus thread, but seeing as you are a christian, it's very presumptuous and offensive to assume that an atheist is bound to your definition of god.

i can assure you, we don't all ponder god.

[Shami]

But you are here on a forum which ponders god

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by PlayaMama 

um, i know this isn't relevant to the christian w/o jesus thread, but seeing as you are a christian, it's very presumptuous and offensive to assume that an atheist is bound to your definition of god.

i can assure you, we don't all ponder god.

It is the kind of assumption which is unavoidable when you make any definitive statement about God. An atheist takes the position that God does not exist even for the believer. This is not imposing atheism on another person, just taking a premise to its only logical conclusion. In the same way, a theist takes the position that any action of God on humankind or relation with humankind also applies to those who do not believe in God, just as gravity affects people who have never heard of gravity in exactly the same way as it affects physicists. 

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by mamabadger 

Originally Posted by PlayaMama 

um, i know this isn't relevant to the christian w/o jesus thread, but seeing as you are a christian, it's very presumptuous and offensive to assume that an atheist is bound to your definition of god.

i can assure you, we don't all ponder god.

It is the kind of assumption which is unavoidable when you make any definitive statement about God. An atheist takes the position that God does not exist even for the believer. This is not imposing atheism on another person, just taking a premise to its only logical conclusion. In the same way, a theist takes the position that any action of God on humankind or relation with humankind also applies to those who do not believe in God, just as gravity affects people who have never heard of gravity in exactly the same way as it affects physicists. 

Heck, it's inevitable when you make any kind of statement about the nature of reality.
 

[Shami]

What I meant by even atheists ponder God is that even atheists had to ponder God at least one time in order to determine that God does not exist.

[PlayaMama]

it would have been correct to say "even an atheist has pondered god at least once" not "ponders" as in, "continually pondering". i can honestly say that the existence of a god has never been something that resonates with me and is not something that i've pondered more than perhaps, a minute or two while trying to understand what someone is trying to communicate when discussing these sorts of matters.

the reason i am in this forum that discusses god and related issues, is because i feel that they are often dominated by folks belonging to organized religions and i like to be able to offer a view counter to the majority that is expressed here. which is why i'm in this thread rather than the more scholarly ones regarding certain aspects of a certain religion. i'm interested in people that are questioning their spirituality and i often feel badly when those people are bombarded with organized religion.

in a way, the views expressed here are so far from what i think, it's almost like looking at a television show or a performance art piece, it has little bearing on reality for me. but it is interesting for me in that way conservative talk shows are interesting to me, i need to be reminded that there are people that think this way in our world, lest i become complacent.

and with that, i'm certain that we're straying off-topic and no longer addressing the op's question. i was merely trying to correct a view that i felt mischaracterized atheists as unsure of the fact that there is no god. since i've been asked questions regarding my presence here, i felt the need to clarify why i was here.

[PlayaMama]

Originally Posted by mamabadger 

Originally Posted by PlayaMama 

um, i know this isn't relevant to the christian w/o jesus thread, but seeing as you are a christian, it's very presumptuous and offensive to assume that an atheist is bound to your definition of god.

i can assure you, we don't all ponder god.

It is the kind of assumption which is unavoidable when you make any definitive statement about God. An atheist takes the position that God does not exist even for the believer. This is not imposing atheism on another person, just taking a premise to its only logical conclusion. In the same way, a theist takes the position that any action of God on humankind or relation with humankind also applies to those who do not believe in God, just as gravity affects people who have never heard of gravity in exactly the same way as it affects physicists. 

sorry for not being clearer about this. it was the mischaracterization of the _actions_ of a group of which the poster was suggesting.

while she can certainly suggest that her god does whatever it is she thinks it does in regards to atheists (putting a longing for eternity inside someone for example), the definitive characterization of the actions of that group of people is what i found offensive.

i am an atheist and i do not ponder god. therefore, her statement that atheists ponder god is incorrect. this is in regards to her first statement rather than the corrected version that an atheist has pondered the concept of god at least once.

[goodygumdrops]

Originally Posted by Artichokie 

I think that religion aside, you can totally be culturally Christian.  I agree with previous posters that technically to be Christian you must believe Jesus is God's son, but I also have observed that there are A LOT of people who were raised culturally Christian.  Their entire childhood is routed in values, traditions, and routines that are most identified a being Christian in origin but they do not subscribe to the underlying belief system. 

I completely agree with this.  I know MANY Jewish people that don't attend religious ceremony but still identify completely with their jewish cultural heritage.  So, I say that it can likely be the same for Christianity. 

[Shami]

Originally Posted by goodygumdrops 

Originally Posted by Artichokie 

I think that religion aside, you can totally be culturally Christian.  I agree with previous posters that technically to be Christian you must believe Jesus is God's son, but I also have observed that there are A LOT of people who were raised culturally Christian.  Their entire childhood is routed in values, traditions, and routines that are most identified a being Christian in origin but they do not subscribe to the underlying belief system. 

I completely agree with this.  I know MANY Jewish people that don't attend religious ceremony but still identify completely with their jewish cultural heritage.  So, I say that it can likely be the same for Christianity. 

From what I have heard, this is called being a nominal Christian.  Here is an interesting little tidbit of history I found in a footnote of my study Bible.

1 Peter 4:16

16 But if as a ^1aChristian, let him not be ^bashamed, but let him ^2cglorify God in this name.

---

16¹ Gk. Christianos, a word formed from Latin. The ending ianos, denoting an adherent of someone, was applied to slaves belonging to the great families in the Roman Empire. One who worshipped the emperor, the Caesar, or Kaisar, was called Kaisarianos, which means an adherent of Kaisar, a person who belongs to Kaisar. When people believed in Christ and became His followers, some in the Empire came to consider Christ a rival of their Kaisar. Then, at Antioch (Acts 11:26) they began to call the followers of Christ Christianoi (Christians), adherents of Christ, as a nickname, a term of reproach. Hence, this verse says, "As a Christian, let him not be ashamed"; that is, if any believer suffers at the hands of the persecutors who contemptuously call him a Christian, he should not feel ashamed but should glorify God in this name.

Today the term Christian should bear a positive meaning, that is, a man of Christ, one who is one with Christ, not only belonging to Him but also having His life and nature in an organic union with Him, and who is living by Him, even living Him, in his daily life. If we suffer for being such a person, we should not feel ashamed but should be bold to magnify Christ in our confession by our holy and excellent manner of life to glorify (express) God in this name.

Edited by Shami - 11/29/10 at 7:25am

[Shami]

Originally Posted by PlayaMama 

it would have been correct to say "even an atheist has pondered god at least once" not "ponders" as in, "continually pondering". i can honestly say that the existence of a god has never been something that resonates with me and is not something that i've pondered more than perhaps, a minute or two while trying to understand what someone is trying to communicate when discussing these sorts of matters.

the reason i am in this forum that discusses god and related issues, is because i feel that they are often dominated by folks belonging to organized religions and i like to be able to offer a view counter to the majority that is expressed here. which is why i'm in this thread rather than the more scholarly ones regarding certain aspects of a certain religion. i'm interested in people that are questioning their spirituality and i often feel badly when those people are bombarded with organized religion.

in a way, the views expressed here are so far from what i think, it's almost like looking at a television show or a performance art piece, it has little bearing on reality for me. but it is interesting for me in that way conservative talk shows are interesting to me, i need to be reminded that there are people that think this way in our world, lest i become complacent.

and with that, i'm certain that we're straying off-topic and no longer addressing the op's question. i was merely trying to correct a view that i felt mischaracterized atheists as unsure of the fact that there is no god. since i've been asked questions regarding my presence here, i felt the need to clarify why i was here.

Okay, I stand corrected, Playamama.  My original thought, which I originally stated poorly, was this:  "What I meant by even atheists ponder God is that even atheists had to ponder God at least one time in order to determine that God does not exist."  However,  I also believe that some atheists continue to consider things of God when they come up in life.   For about 10 years, I had come to the conclusion that there was no God, but still through out the years I would occasionally wonder if I was mistaken.  I am not saying that you do that, but some do. 

I have often wondered why atheists are here on Christian leaning threads, and not because your not welcome, but because when I was atheist it almost hurt my ears (read: nails on a chalkboard) to hear anything about Jesus.  And I'd like to say that I hate religion and it is never my intention to bombard people with religion.  So, I would say you are misrepresenting some Christian's intentions here.   I do hope that people will get filled with Christ.

As you said, we are way off topic.

[MrsJewelsRae]

I would strongly suggest picking up a Bible and start reading in the book of John.  Genesis, Psalms and Isaiah are also great to read alongside.  Pray and ask God to show you what He would have you believe about His Son Jesus.  The Bible defines a Christian as someone who follows Christ, not only that, but who has been born again and made Him the Lord of their life....

[PlayaMama]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Okay, I stand corrected, Playamama.  My original thought, which I originally stated poorly, was this:  "What I meant by even atheists ponder God is that even atheists had to ponder God at least one time in order to determine that God does not exist."  However,  I also believe that some atheists continue to consider things of God when they come up in life.   For about 10 years, I had come to the conclusion that there was no God, but still through out the years I would occasionally wonder if I was mistaken.  I am not saying that you do that, but some do. 

I have often wondered why atheists are here on Christian leaning threads, and not because your not welcome, but because when I was atheist it almost hurt my ears (read: nails on a chalkboard) to hear anything about Jesus.  And I'd like to say that I hate religion and it is never my intention to bombard people with religion.  So, I would say you are misrepresenting some Christian's intentions here.   I do hope that people will get filled with Christ.

As you said, we are way off topic.

i'm sure that some atheists do continue to entertain the idea of god throughout their experience in the world.

it's interesting to think that hearing about jesus would be painful. it does not bother me at all! it's kind of like i said in my post, it is so far from my understanding of the world, that it's almost anthropological to me. i find it interesting in the same way that i find different cultures interesting.  it would be like finding a buddhist's discussion of karma painful. it's just not relevant to my life. which isn't to say that it might not be painful to others! i'm sure there are people of all religions and persuasions that find each other's views hurtful.

and i'm sorry if i misread your intentions! often i think that a plethora of biblical quotes feels like bombardment to me because there is an assumption that the information being transmitted is in some way meaningful for the other party. if the person reading the quotes has a limited association with the information (as it seemed the op did) then the meaning that you are seeing is not necessarily the same for others.

however, i do realize that it feels like evidence to support your views and thus is an important part of your communication. i often encounter people that feel that my views mean that i just haven't been exposed to their teachings and i am sorry if i directed these sorts of feelings towards you, that was not my intention. i can agree with you that was a mischaracterization of some christians. i find that christians usually want other people to be christians too, and so they tend to give them information in an attempt to help them along this path. not all though, not all!

darn, maybe i should start another thread since we're really off topic now!

[buckg]

A Christian Is a disciple of Jesus.  Jesus said if you believe in me you'll do what I say to do.

If you don't believe you won't do what I say."

Why would you say you believe if you don't read and do what Jesus says?

[SweetSilver]

Has anyone here read "The Jesus Seminar"?

Sorry if I've skimmed a fair amount of this thread.  Someone asked a long, long ways back What does it matter?  I'm someone who, like another pp, has found freedom in casting aside "Christian" to free myself from this conundrum.  

I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God or the Messiah (not Jewish anyway so that point is moot!)  I do believe however that Jesus was a realized being, though he was not alone in history.  I celebrate his birth at Christmas, but along with Yule celebrations.  I celebrate his resurrection at Easter, though along with other relevant celebrations.  Whether this story was historical or not is not important to me.  It is not important to me that his wasn't the first story of resurrection of a God figure.  It just doesn't matter.  His life and story, as written in the New Testament, are worthy of contemplation and emulation.

Now, I don't know why believing in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God who died for our sins (all important beliefs for a Christian, though some progressive churches might disagree) is so much more important to the definition of "Christian" than giving up all possessions and walking this earth spreading the Good News.  The New Testament was pretty explicit about this, too.  Seems like that is just as important, personally, and another reason why I didn't feel comfortable carrying around the label of "Christian".  I am burdened by possessions now, though there was a time in my past where I was working to be free of possessions.  I was homeless for years by choice and tried working in trade for food, seeking my proper place in the cosmos.  I haven't stopped seeking, I've just stopped being so hard on myself.

Here is a story that has profound meaning to me, and hopefully someone will enlighten me as to where I read it.  No one asked for it, but here it is.

A monk, searching for the true nature of the Divine went to his master for enlightenment.  He was told to seek seclusion and pray.  He returned a year later and ecstatically told his master "My Heavenly Father and I are one!"  His master simply told him "No."

Disappointed, the monk returned to his place of seclusion.  After about a year of contemplation, he thought he knew the answer and returned to his master and said doubtfully, "Then the Heavenly Father and I are separate.  We are two."  "No," said his master.

Confused, he returned to contemplate some more.  He returned to his master, still confused, and said, "I don't understand.  Not one.  Not two.  How can this be?"

A smile formed on his masters face and he nodded and said, "Yes!  Not one.  Not two.  The Sun and its light.  The singer and his song.  A wave upon the ocean.  Not one.  Not two."

[e&tsmom]

Originally Posted by Shami 

I think a couple of things come into play when people pick and choose what they believe from the Bible. 

1) They view the Bible as possibly a great work of literature or some kind of a myth.  Or, they may think that the Bible was written only by man and not divinely inspired.  Or, the Bible was divinely inspired, but because it was written by man it likely has mistakes/contradictions.  Maybe some think of it as a historical reference only, but with possible mistakes. 

This was how I viewed the Bible before I came to believe in Jesus and asked Him to live inside of me, which leads to my next reason that people feel free to choose verses.

2) Honestly, if a person has not prayed or asked the Lord Jesus to come into them to be their Lord and savior...asked for forgiveness of sins...etc. then that person cannot possibly have an intimate relationship with Jesus.  To get to know Jesus in an intimate way, He has to live inside of you.  The Bible talks about Christ IN you...  You (general you) may be able to get some head knowledge about the person of Christ, but if you want Him to be real to you, you have to let Him in.  Without the Lord Jesus being the  real God to you and living in you, then you can easily pick and choose whatever verses you want. 

Then there is the group of Christians (this is how I believe) who believe that the Bible was written through men who were inspired by God and there are absolutely no mistakes or contradictions. In addition, the Bible, the entire Bible, has the final say on every matter.  Every verse matters and is True.  The Bible is actually God's word and I go to the Bible to get to know God, to get some spiritual food to sustain me, to see His purpose, and to hear his speaking.

I said all that because the OP read the doctrine on the Trinity provided by Tradd? and decided that it wasn't what she believed and therefore she wasn't a Christian.  The problem with that, OP, is that to understand the Bible or the Trinity doctrine you have to FIRST know Jesus and ask Him to live in you.  Once Jesus is inside of you, then Jesus will shine light on the Bible as you read it.  Then as Jesus shines light on the Word, He will give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in order for the Bible to begin to make any sense.  To receive revelation from the Bible it requires a rolling away of the veils.  We are all veiled when it comes to the Bible.  It's like we're an onion with many layers that have to be peeled away.  As we seek to know Jesus and pursue Him through reading the Bible, He enlightens us and peels away layer by layer.  The fact is we are all spiritually blind, and we need Jesus to apply the eye salve to heel our spiritual eyes.  Again, this requires us to have a real and an intimate relationship with Jesus. 

We can get a lot of help from Christian writings or doctrines, but it is the Lord Himself that enlightens us.  So, if you really want to be "christian" in the sense of having an intimate relationship with the Lord, pray and ask for it.  This should be your priority over understanding the doctrine on the Trinity.  If you need help, find Christians who have Christ inside of them already and ask them to help you pray. 

Now as I am typing this I realize that the way I see it is that there are two kinds of Christians: those with Christ living inside of them and those without Christ living inside of them.

I have not read the entire thread, but thank you for this post.  It was exactly what i needed to hear today.