Christ son of God or prophet?

Question

I dont want to start a religious war here lol I just have a question that I am curious about. As cited most famously in the Da Vinci code, but moreever so a true event, the conference held by Constatine in 325 A.D. was done to prove whether or not christ was the son of god. At the conference, they voted only by a slight margion in favor of him being the son of God and all of the gospels claiming he was only a prophet were burned even though a fair majority of Christians belived he was only a prophet. In my religion, Islam, we hold Jesus in VERY high respect but only consider him to be a prophet. I was just wondering, are there any Christians out there that exist today that belive Jesus to only be a prophet and not the son of god, either sticking with or following the ideas of the Christians before the conference with Constatine or are they simply unheard of nowadays. Any of you Christians who only believe jesus is only a prophet and not the son of God?? Elaborate please thanks! =)

To chocka69... you are half right and I am half right there was it was called the council of nicea but there were no votes
The commonly-accepted view by most historians is that Constantine did convene the Council to help clarify some diverging views about Jesus (such as whether or not he was "made" or "begotten"), but that there were no "votes" at the Council -- it was more of a discussion, to produce a written "Creed of Nicaea", which was then signed by all but two of the hundreds of participants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Answer 1

If Christ was a true prophet of God, then his teachings must have been true. He taught that he was the Son of God.

The council of Nicea was not only to vote on whether Christ was the Son of God, it included much discussion about many of the church teachings. Dan Brown completely made up the numbers in the vote. THERE WERE ONLY TWO church officials who voted that Jesus was not God's only son, and there were not a multitude of other gospels. There were maybe 20 or 25 other gospels, and they were written 150+ years after Christ's death. The gospels in the Bible were written by people who walked with Jesus or personally knew the original disciples. Which is more reliable? Books written by people who lived with Jesus for years, or books written by people 150+ years after him?

Answer 2

To start, please do not think i am yelling or trying to offend you or your religion in my answer.I am a christian (no particular branch, i just follow the bible).
___________________________________________________

I find this debate almost silly. There are plenty of religions that believe Jesus was a great prophet. To them I have a few questions.

1) Back in Jesus's day, anyone claiming to be the son of God would be tried for heresy and executed (hence Jesus's execution). Why would a "great prophet" that knew this fact try to convince everyone he was the son of God when he knew he would die for it?

2) If someone claimed there were the son of God today, would you not think they were crazy? How can a "great prophet" be someone who was crazy?

3) Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
___________________________________________________

As for the Da Vinci Code, most of the "facts" included are not facts at all.

1) The Council of Nicaea did not vote on whether Jesus was the Son of God. Thus, a non-vote event cannot have been "relatively close." All the delegates at Nicaea already embraced Jesus as divine, as Christians had been doing for far longer than there's been a United States. The discussions at Nicaea were not about whether Jesus was God's Son, but about how he was God's Son.

2)The "Priory of Sion" is not a real group. Brown begins his book with a statement, under the title "Fact," that there are documents supporting the existence of the Priory in the Bibliotheque Nationale. These documents have long been understood to be forgeries, placed in the archives by an anti-Semitic supporter of the Vichy government named Pierre Plantard.

3) to read more, check out my source articles and this http://www.livescience.com/history/050524_davinci_code.html
____________________________________________________

If you have any questions feel free to contact me,
Dan

Answer 3

First of all the da Vinci code is false, you need to study history,,, the true conference was not to decide if Jesus was the Son of god, there was no vote, never done,, no record ever of any voting being domne by Constatine,,,
second,, the accounts of Jesus life where deemed not acceptable because of the time frame they were wrote in,, centuries after Jesus life, now How can you give an arrcute account of someones life and not be there to experience it,, The books that where chosen for the bible are from men who walked and talked with Jesus.. I would suggest instead of believing everything Hollywood feeds you, to do some research and find out the truth,, that movie was so fake its not even funny

Answer 4

The Da Vinci Code did not make those facts up, as much as Christians would like to think it did. They just can't accept the truth. It is true that this issue was debated upon and it is true that early Christians did not believe that Jesus was the son of God because Jesus never said he was the son of God. Only those documents that made it appear that he was divine were kept. Why could they not keep the entire Bible? If all of these books were inspired by God, why did some of them have to be destroyed? How can one believe in a religion whose holy texts are not entirely complete?

Answer 5

The Council of Nicea, which may have been called by Canstatine, but it was the bishops that established the doctrine, defined Christ as fully God and fully Man. This was not a new tradition, it went back all the way to the Apostles. However, heresies at the time led to the need to clarify things.

Earlier the heresy had run the oppisite direction with people falsely believing that Christ was not man at all and led to the Apostles Creed which deals with mortality of Christ whereas the Nicean Creed focuses on his Divine nature.

Also, a non-Divine Christ would have been a blasphemor, because He assumed powers to reserved to God like the forgiveness of sins.

Answer 6

We, Muslims are not the only ones who believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is mortal and not a god so that means we deny the trinity.

The Jews also reject the trinity, in addition to the very first groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians never know about trinity doctrine at all. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet of God and against the trinity.

Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the majority of today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (peace be upon him) as one in three, as what been report by the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops."

Moreover, the 'Socinianism', the 17th-century Christian also rejects such traditional doctrines as the Trinity and original sin, the founder is Socinus, and his Latinized name of Lelio Francesco Maria Sozzini (1525-1562), the Italian Protestant theologian.

Johannes Greber (1874) a former of Catholic priest in his book 'The Communication with the Spirit World of God' in page 371 was written, "As you see, the doctrine of a triune Godhead is not only contrary to common sense, but is entirely unsupported by the Scriptures". So another priest who was deny the trinity.

A theologians, Edouard Schillebeeckx of the Netherlands in 1979 was writings some article that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. This caused concern to the Vatican.

Answer 7

Jesus Christ was both: the Son of god and a prophet. He was the son being the express image, full representation, and example to us to show how easy it is to live the life that God has expected us to live since the beginning. For if you come into the subjection and obedience of the Lord, then you would be acknowledged as his son also. Listen
1 John 3:1
1) Behold, What manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

See I am a son of God through my understanding that he has given me, through the obedience of following his instructions, and not being ashamed to stand on his word of truth; not backing down to any religion that is not of God. BUT I'M NOT GOD

And Jesus also was a prophet fullfilling what his purpose of what God intended for him and fortelling that which was and is to come in the end days.
St. Matthew 5:17
17) Think not that I am to come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So if I am to be called a son of God then I must continue to teach what Jesus told his apostles in the same manner they taught. I must continue to battle all that oppose the truth even if means till the death. Amen

So Jesus was both the son, and a prophet. But God he was not.
I pray for you.

Answer 8

Son of God to some. Prophet to Islam. I say he was a good person no matter what you believe.

Answer 9

I will quote a song for you and this is how I truly feel, It say "you ask me who do I ,say that you are and I, say that you are the Christ, Son of the living God" And I will bless his name forever!

Answer 10

WE HAVE ONE GOD ONLY ITS JUST PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES FOR HIM..AND JESUS ITS ONLY A PROPHET ''MESSENGER FROM GOD''I HOPE CHRISTIANS CAN GET THAT.....................