Can you be a good Christian and believe that Christ was no more divine than any other person?

Yes and no.....depends on your personal definition of being a Christian. I am Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. One of which is that he is the "way". Another that he is the son of God.

Now I happen to believe that makes him a half-breed if you will. Divine? Well maybe just intelligent enough to be able to manipulate the basic physics we didn't understand at the time.

For instance....The miracle of the fishes. All those people and not enough to eat. Did Jesus make fishes and loaves appear out of nothingness?

OR did he merely talk everyone into sharing what they had? Some had more than they actually needed and some had less.....so when the baskets begun to get passed more folks were putting in than taking out...thus everyone was fed and a surplus at the end.

So which is the miracle? Something from nothing? or getting thousands of humans to set aside greed for a few hours?

I say they are both Miracles one is just more likely than the other.

GBYA

Aahz

Christians should believe in the dual nature of Jesus Christ. Jesus was a mortal. Yet at the same time, Jesus was fully God. Belief in this is foundational to the Christian message.

I'd say a distinction can be made between Christianity as a philosophy and Christianity as a theology. Obviously to practice the Christian faith, one must believe in the divinity of Christ. To lead a Christian life, one need not believe that an historical Jesus even lived. Sadly, it seems to me that we have far too many who practice the faith without leading the life. I would not consider them "good Christians" no matter how personal they think their relationship with their diety is.

Seems to me you have two kinds of Christians--the established church followers and the independents.

The established churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) all have in their creeds the basic foundation of a risen Christ. The body actually rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Without this belief, the notion of redemption falls apart and so does the rest of the faith.

Independent Christians figure out their own beliefs, as has been expressed so far. I personally think this is a healthier place to come from, spiritually thinking, because it keeps the mind open to other knowledge (most notably scientific). It also avoids trying to prove a myth through archeological digs. Oh ye of little faith, eh?

Anyway, my own belief is that Jesus was a mortal Jew who's real name was Joshua (various spellings of this), that he challenged Roman authority (thus the crucification rather than stoning), and that myths grew up around this heroic figure in Jewish history--leading to a new religion that has spawned some very worthy spiritual leaders, saints, thinkers/doers--and has brought comfort to many millions over many generations.

Christianity was also instrumental in converting actual human sacrifice to symbolic human sacrifice (bread/wine ritual). It united many pagan tribes under one spiritual banner (for good or bad), and although it fought furiously against moving out of the dark ages, has shown itself to still be a viable religion in modern times.

But, as with any religion, one must be wary of the charismatic flim-flam artists.

I do believe there is a spiritual force that responds to calls to Jesus, and that this force originates from God. I don't need any myth to support what I feel. Joshua the Jew was mortal, as we all are. But what happens after mortality? Are we all children (sons and daughters) of God or what? Is it true that we can do this--and much more--or what?

Well, this leads me into a rant, and it is way to early in the morning for that

Jesus is still with us as we speak. So in the eternal sense, No, I don't believe Jesus IS mortal.

At the time he walked the earth, I believe he was mortal so that he could walk with us and be like us. And more importantly, die for us on the cross. Without having some mortality, could the resurrection have any meaning to us??

Hercules,

Yeah, I agree. But don't we all have immortal souls?

The conventional religions get all wrapped around the axle because of the emphasis on *the body* rising into heaven, not just the soul. I've always been puzzled at this emphasis on material in a spiritual religion. You know, like the Rapture--where people's bodies go up? I just don't get it and probably never will.

A.M., I'm asking this as a question, not as a debate. Is it the The body and soul that rises or just the soul???

I am Methodist and am under the understanding it is our immortal souls that rises not the body (Maybe I need more Church'in ).

The difference with Jesus was that both the body and the soul ascended to heaven. Thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Messiah.

Well, one obvious (albeit rationalist/humanist) answer to this one is "No". I think you assume too much.

I applaud the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth and believe that his soul should have ascended, but I do not a have faith that allows me to sincerely worship Jesus as divine. But I believe his path and his philosophies will help lead a person of any religious convictions to salvation.

I believe AM was referring to the Rapture, not ordinary death. After John dropped acid, he wrote the book of Revelation, and described the Rapture as the faithful being taken bodily.

Interesting topic, and one of the main points of contention about works like The Last Temptation of Christ by Kazantzakis, the Greek Liberation theologian.

In answer to the thread's question, yes. Or no. It all depends on your definition of Christian, something people have been killing each other about for hundreds of years! If being Christian is based on acts, then one can be ethically a perfect Christian without ever having read or heard of the Bible. If being Christian is based purely on doctrine, then no, one must accept the resurrection as it is the fundamental doctrine which brings Christianity apart from Judaism.

I myself believe that if Jesus Christ did live, that is, if he was historically real, he was a mortal. But further, I think his mortality and/or his historical identity are entirely unimportant. The story of Jesus, the struggle from material to spiritual, the ascendence to sacrifice, it's a great story, and wonderfully instructive. I see Jesus as a figure to emulate. I think he was teaching us that his path must be our path.

Forget about god/s, and life after death, and all that nonsense. It is by our acts which we change ourselves and the world around us. I could go to church every week, and pray every day, but when I treat a waitress like crap, or when I yell at other drivers on the road, I am betraying everything about Christ's message. Crystallize that, stick it in your crack pipe, and smoke it!

No.

Else.. You are not a Christian, you become a secular humanist or perhaps <gasp> a Pagan... Which from what I heard somewhere was ANYBODY who was not a De-Facto-Exactly-as-a-Christian-should-be Christian... Which nowadays would be all other Christians other than whatever type of Christian is observing the other Christians.

As you pointed out, Jesus' body and soul had to rise in order for him to be the Messiah.

I'm not sure about Methodist creed on this particular point, but Roman Catholic stresses this as its basic theology. At least it did so when I got my "churchin"--things may have changed. I've not been paying attention to theological, um, "transformation."

i think that this is funny, i mean when it comes to this, how about this do you think the prophet muhamed was a mortal. what about that wondering yogi that made chan budism. what about the guy that made scientology.

nileriver,

Actually, I think it is a bit sad that a lot of folks don't understand the theological underpinnings of their own religions, yet take it upon themselves to convert others.

Are any of the prophets/teachers/leaders immortal?

Well, if you understand this theology, yes! Everyone is immortal, in soul. We all have immortal souls.

If the thing is that Jesus' *physical body* is immortal, then I have to wonder: Where the heck in heaven is there room for a physical body?

That leads to concepts of a mothership and other strange mental gymnastics. It's all just too silly for me.

The God I worship is not silly. Great sense of humor, though

Yes you would have to develop one to deal with people like jerry farwell and usama bil laden in respect to the world.

I find that a human at large can be possesed if you will by something like religion to the point wheir they are for all terms blind to humaitys plights.

So when i pop a queastion like are all of those people immortal to their respective gods or text books you can find that alot of people general are not tolerant or aware of other religions. That was my point in context with this thread.

And on a personal level, i think that alot of those people existed but were that, people. With large ideas and vision.

all matter comes from energy, that energy is god. that energy is you and me, it is what is commonly refered to as a soul(your soul is not seperate from the collective energy, but it is. it can be real confusing)

so yes, the conciousness that was "jesus" is immortal as we all are. jesus said: "all I have done, you can do too, AND MORE!"

energy can NEVER be destroyed, all matter is, is energy vibrating at a very, very, slow rate. you and I and jesus are that energy, and that energy is god.

The fact atoms and molecules that were once part of you remain, does not make you immortal.

I think you missed what I was trying to say. your body is not immortal, but your spirit/soul/chi/lifesource is. it is the energy that flows through all matter. your soul is but an appendage of spirit (also known as God)

you can incarnate where ever, or whenever you so choose. (all things that have happened, are happening and will happen, exsist all at once. think of time like a book, not a line.)

I may be wrong. we will know when we cross-over (YOU never die, your shell/vehicle (AKA body) does though)

unabomber,

I get your drift and tend to agree. This leads to the history of Christianity, where a lot of earlier dogmas were incorporated. This also happened with the Jewish religion.

For folks who are on a spiritual discovery path, I have nothing but the deepest respect. It can become a rough way to go. For those who flail at others with scripture (from any source), I have nothing but contempt. For Christians striving to live a good life--deep respect. Same for any other religion, BTW.

One thing I've pondered--when we pass to the other side, is it necessary to have a clear vision of what that will be like? Perhaps this is the real purpose of religion--to help guide souls away from easily made mistakes on the other side. This might explain why non-Christians will not attain a Christian heaven.

But is that necessarily a bad thing? In the Christian theology I grew up with, yeah. You end up in purgatory forever (unless loved ones pray real hard for you). Since my youth, I've reconsidered--but that's just me again. I was a lousy pupil in catechism class--way too many questions and challenges.

One of Lydia's kids is an independent Christian. She accepts Jesus as her primary focus and her personal savior. Eh, okay, just don't try to convert me! I have no such restrictions on my spirit guides. However, she thinks it is silly to believe Jesus' physical body went up to heaven. Of course it was his spirit! I agree with her and tell her that I'm not restricted from praying to Jesus or accepting his help if offered. She nods with the wisdom of a 25-year-old.

I thought that jesus changed his vibrational freqeuncy to ascend to "heaven" (I.E. he turned his body into energy)

AM, about crossing over to the other side: I have never personally had one, but a lot of people have NDE's (near death experience) a good majority of them report feeling an over welming sense of love on the other side, and there is usually someone you knew waiting for you there.

go here for more info on near death experiences

Having read ideas about the difference between Christianity as a philosophy and theology, I would like to agree, but tend to question this. I think it possible for people to follow the teachings and examples set forth by the character of Jesus without believing in his divinity. Where I tend to differ is in calling these people Christian as Jesus did go on to say things like, "no one comes to the father but through me." Even though you may follow other rules and teachings set forth (golden rule, love your neighbor, whatever), if you reject the teachings that imply divinity, you become more of what friends and I term "Cafeteria Christian."

I think to be a full blown Christian (whether you're good at it or not, as Wertz pointed out) you do have to accept the divinity of Jesus. Personally, I prefer the "Cafeteria Christians" since they leave room open to acept the ideas from other faiths and philosophies, because if you do accept the teachings of Jesus to the letter of his word, you really don't have any avenues left open to give serious consideration to other faiths and philosophies. After all, if you proclaim that only one path is the true and righteous path, all the others must be inherently wrong.

I feel obligated to point out that everything the bible says jesus said could be absolutely wrong. nothing he said was written down until at least 200 years (likely 300) after his crucifixtion. also, did you know that for 2-300 years after his death people were performing miracles all over (such as healing, making wine from water etc...)

I'm aware of that and more, Unabomber... I was just replying to the topic under the assumption that we have on record what Jesus (were such a fellow to have been) said. Since the entire idea of Christianity is predicated upon the bible, I thought it necessary to at least infer that it were somewhat factual... though I too have my own questions about it.

It's a topic for another thread, though...

Guess I'm a "Cafeteria Christian" in that I believe some things adapted from other spiritual traditions, such as Zen and Taoism. But I'm also theologically Christian in that I believe in the truth of the central Christian doctrines, as summarized by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. I can be both because Zen and Taoism are not really religions and don't involve the worship of any competing gods, which obviously would be incompatible. Instead they simply provide insights (or more accurately, point people to coming to those insights themselves) about the nature of Man and the Universe. I don't feel those Eastern insights are incompatible with Christianity at all. Quite the contrary, they seem to me complementary, providing something that was missing though perhaps not useful to all. I do think you need to believe in the theological truth of core Christian doctrine to be a "real" Christian, but of course, anybody can learn valuable lessons from Christianity without actually being one.

Yeah, I'm with you "cafeteria Christians"—I'm all about the going to heaven, but I don't really go in for the being good and loving others b.s. I mean, if it works for me, who's to say there's a right way or wrong way to do it? If I'm good to nature, for example, does it really matter that I beat my wife? My faith, as I interpret it, lets me worship any way I want to, which is really nice, because then I can't be judged by anybody. Radical Islam works the same way.

Sure, I wouldn't share your views at sunday school though, the sheep get restless

Jesus brought a hell of a lot more to the table than a parlor trick resurrection. In my experience, most christians get tied up in the parlor tricks and forget all about the real miracle that Jesus brought to the jews (One that they STILL haven't figured out). Attended a church service recently? How much of the sermon was talking about how to get into heaven versus how much was devoted to how to love your neighbor? I have personally attended Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, various 4-square gospel and various independant churchs over the last 15 years, and the majority of the sermons out there were very much focused on sin and how it is going to screw you out of paradise. The jews had the "You are going to burn in hell unless you sacrifice 10 goats right now!" sermon down pat when Jesus showed up, people didn't follow him because he came up with the same old crap again.

Bodily resurrection from the dead, a parlor trick? Man, you're tough to impress.

I hope that wasn't in reply to me, Cyclone, since I neither said nor implied anything of the kind. Quite the opposite, I speciifically said you do have to believe in the core Christian doctrines to be a real Christian. However, those core Christian doctrines are the ones shared by all more or less orthodox Christians, not those of any particular denomination. (i.e., you have to believe Methodist doctrine to be a Methodist, but not to be a Christian.)

Izzy-

Nah, I was just mouthing off. Nothing personal. My personal opinion (and I believe it to be true)—and taking into account that there are differences between the various branches of Christianity—is that you have to believe Christ is the son of God to be a Christian. I got into an argument with a sister-in-law on a similar issue--she thought one could be a good Catholic and never go to church. I said no, you can be a good person without going to Church, but not a good Catholic. So in the same way, one can believe Jesus was just a swell guy and could still be a fine person, but truly being a Christian requires that one accept the divinity of Christ. Just because a person doesn't believe Jesus was divine, he is not necessarily worse or better than the person who does.

Okie. All that I can agree with.

I guess what you mean by "cafeterua Christian" doesn't apply to me. I guess I'm just an eclectic Christian.

This whole thing is really about semantics, isn't it? It all depends on how you define "Christian." If one defines it as "being Christlike" or "following the teachings of Christ," one does not need to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a "good" Christian. And depending what particular sub-cult one adheres to, the definition changes wildly. Ask someone in Operation Rescue or the Christian Coalition or the Promise Keepers, and they'll often go so far as to say that other church denominations are really not Christians at all. Ask the Quakers, the Church of the Brethren, or the Mennonites, you'll get a much more inclusive answer. Catholics like Thomas Merton embraced Zen. Zen teachers like D.T. Suzuki thought Christ was an example of someone who attained the status of a Buddha.

Ultimately this is a question with no answer. In order for it to be really debatable, it would need to be narrowed down: can one be a good Catholic and not believe in the transubstantiation? Can one be a good Baptist and still visit Disneyland?

That said, in my own opinion...

Believing that Jesus was literally and actually born again and drawn up into a literal heaven by a real god who created the universe might be a useful concept for those unwilling or afraid to take responsibility themselves for the cause and effect of human suffering. A life based on morals will eventually involve abrogating ethics, whereas a life based on ethics will naturally be moral. Shucking the comfort of the concept of divinity may bring on a mistral of doubt, but it's worth it!

Wertz,
The way you worded this, I think it is oxymoronic:

To me, "practic(ing) the faith" and "leading the life" are the same thing. What you had mind though, are people who "talk the talk but don't walk the walk", and in this respect we agree. I don't know to what degree your understanding of "leading the life" and mine are similar.

Christianity is defined by the Bible, the New Testament particularly. While anyone is free to go stand in a church for an hour a week (or stand in a mosque or a Buddhist temple) and call themselves a Christian they really aren't unless their beliefs aren't based on the Bible. Given that Christianity is defined by the Bible, I don't understand why anyone who rejects part or all of it would wish to claim the name Christian, though many such do. If "Christian" can describe every religious idea, then ultimately it describes nothing. The word no longer has meaning.

unabomber posted:

Was this a serious statement? Portions of the Gospel John have been found and dated at ~130 AD (the John Rylands manuscript), about a hundred years after Jesus's crucifixion. The 2nd century Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, quotes from the Gospels frequently. Even ultra-liberal theologians date the Gospels well prior to 100 AD. Your statement, "nothing he said was written down until at least 200 years (likely 300) after his crucifixtion", has a severe anachronism problem.

quark posted:

You obviously have scant acquaintance with Christians, Christian beliefs, and Christian practice.

Interesting you should say that. Obvious, eh? Too bad it turns out...

In college, I majored in the Philosophy of Religion... I went to Sunday School and Church every week until I graduated high school (Mennonite)... I spent 1st through 5th grade attending a Christian boarding school in India. So... I wouldn't say scant, really.

I am a practicing zen buddhist, but I consider myself also a Christian. I am a Christian because in my daily life I attempt to live the core teachings of Jesus Christ: love your neighbor, return no one evil for evil, forgive again and again. Of course I fail more than I succeed, but hey! Turns out the concepts Jesus taught are quite compatible with the truths of zen, the concepts of no-self, and compassion. To me, "being a Christian" has nothing to do with what books you read, and everything to do with your actions.

Was Jesus a mortal? Of course. But that doesn't make his message less important.

Then you knew when you posted this

you knew that it was false. I see the TOS proscription against knowingly posting false information is inoperative again. Or perhaps "take responsibility themselves for the cause and effect of human suffering" has an unusual meaning in your usage.

The ego, the self, is the cause of suffering. It is my view that Christian doctrine abandons the sense of personal responsibility. Of course, there are many schools of theology, so I am speaking generally.

Because I am speaking my opinion, your nitpicking about the rules doesn't really apply. I could just as easily say that this

is violating the "rules." But what's the point? I can tell it is just an opinion, in this case, however, a wrong opinion.

The deity of Christ is essential to sound doctrine historically and currently in mainstream Christian theology. What is nessacary to be a Christian is to hear, believe and recieve the Gospel. You are born again by faith in Christ alone and there is ample Scripture to support this. There is nothing to suggest that anyone who doubts the incarnation (Jesus existing before his birth) or the diety of Christ cannot be saved.

I can assure anyone that insists on proclaiming that Jesus was not God the Son in human flesh will be branded a false teacher and shunned by mainstream Christians. This contradicts the clear teaching of the New Testement and is rightfully rejected as unbiblical. Of course concievable you could hold these views and still be good, and maybe even Christian, but you are contradicting the New Testement. Thats not good theology.

It has been said that most of what Christ is reported to have said in the bible was only written down 200-300 years after his crusifiction. Most of the epistles however were written by people (the apostles) who where alive at the same time as jesus and would not have been alive 200 years later. So they may only have been copied and compiled as scripture 200 years later but where not written by people guessing but by people who stood beside him as he said them.
And Anarchy Praxis Is absolutely right, how can you call yourself christian if you cannot say you are a subject of christs saving grace, saved not by your own works but by the love and free forgiveness of christ. you cannot have 'christianity' without a knowledge of christ and the only place to find an accurate definition for 'christian' is in the word of God.
Anyone trying to bring teachings of men together with christianity is wasting there time as if you wish to be a christian everything you need is found in the bible and nothing else comes even close to explaining the nature of man, the reasons for our existance and the divineness of God.

Edited to remove email address - that's not wise and we don't want to be blamed for any SPAM you may receive. Also, I highly encourage people to debate in the public forums and NOT by PM or email. - Jaime

No. The divinity of Christ is the heart of Christianity. The word Christian means to be Christ-like. Jesus was the perfect example for an imperfect world. In order to truly be a Christian, you have to accept that you are a sinner, not worthy of God's grace, but because God loved us, He sacrificed Himself in an earthly body for mans sins, that He died and rose from the dead, accented into Heaven and will one day return. You have to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and the only true path to paradise. You should make an outward expression of an inward "rebirth" by being baptised.
Many people think that they are Christians...

What if God was one of Us?

You will find that the deity of Christ is ubiqutius to Christian theology. Anyone suggesting anything else is gernerally branded a false teacher. Before becomeing a Christian I was interested in evidence for the Christian faith. Some of the people Ive debated with on here might even tell you Im ate up with it, at any rate. I went out and bought Evidence that Demands a Veridict and the Messianic prophecy and Bibliographical testing bored me to tears. I learned about it because it was vital that the Gospel be more then a story, Jesus had to have been raised from the dead in order for the promise of the Gospel to have any meaning at all. Just when I thought the New Testement was credible I run head first into this deity of Christ doctrine. I'm just getting used to him walking down the street healing anyone who asks, telling the weather what to do, turning water to wine and preaching this absolute rightiousness or Hell doctrine. Then just when Im getting that under control, I have to deal with him walking into the High Priest's court room and saying (actually implying), not just that he is King (King and High Priest were considered Son of God, their authority second only to Him) but he says and by the way, in addition to all of that Im God. Now had he came in there and said he was a soup sandwhich no one would have cared because he obviously was not and its impossible anyway. The New Testement is claiming that he not only Savior but God and human flesh. It wouldnt be any big deal really except he proved it, or at least Christians have allways taught that. Now if you are having a hard time believing this, welcome to the club, Jesus favorite thing to say to the disciples was oh ye of little faith, so slow to believe. Even after the resurrection they couldnt accept these things whole heartedly, in fact, the resurrection came as a big suprise to them even though he told them about it repeatedly. All Christian Apologetics deal with this issue at length and it is considered essential to sound doctrine.

"IF GOD BECAME A MAN, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT HIM TO:

1. Have an utterly unique entrance into humanity.
2. Be without sin
3. Manifest His supernatural presence in the form of supernatural acts-that is, miricles.
4. Live more perfectly than any human who has ever lived.
5. Speak the greatest words ever spoken.
6. Have a lasting and universal influence.
7. Satisfy the spiritual hunger in humanity
8. Overcome humanity's most pervasive and feared enemy-death.


If God became man, then WHAT would He be like?
or
Did Jesus possess the attributes of God?

To answer these questions, it will be help­ful to answer another question:
Why would God become a man?

One reason would be to communicate with us more effectively. Imagine you are watching a farmer plow a field. You notice that an ant hill will be plowed under by the farmer on his next time around. Because you love ants, you run to the ant hill to warn its tiny inhabitants. First you shout to them the impending danger, but they continue their work. You then try many other forms of communication, but nothing seems to get through to the imperiled ants. You soon real­ize that the only way you can really reach them is by becoming one of them.
Throughout human history, God has used numerous means of communication to reach humankind with His message. He finally sent His Son into the world. The opening verses of Hebrews state, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son" (Heb. 1:1, 2). John writes in his Gospel, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.... No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him" (John 1:14, 18).
The prophets gave us God's words. But Jesus is the very Word of God in human form, revealing God to us in person, not just in verbal statements. He gave us God Him­self in a form we could touch, hear, and see. Jesus brought God to our level and lifted us up with Him in the process." (McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict)

quarkhead,

I have studied Buddism a little, if you wanted to start a thread comparing Buddism to Christianity Id be glad to post to it. Samsara, and the Christian concept of original sin are stragely simulare. Just a thought, if your interested.

I can't pass this one up. Where does "faith alone" appear in the Bible?
If this is a faith vs. works point that you are trying to make, I have to say that it is not an OR issue, but an AND issue. Faith alone is not enough, there must be works. I believe it is very clear in James, ch. 2.
There are very few (12, I think) scriptures in the NT (King James version) that suggest faith is required, and I don't remember the word "alone" being there. Seems I read somewhere that Martin Luther tried to insert it once.
I am pretty sure that those scriptures supporting faith and imply alone are all by Paul. There are hundreds by Jesus himself, or the original 12 desciples, and some even by Paul, that say we are judged by our deeds, and that works are required to show our belief. Action is what Jesus wants of us, not just words.
He was very clear about what he expects of us concerning how we are to care for each other.
If you are going to claim divinity of Jesus Christ, you need to heed his words first, then look to the others for guidance if needed.

I agree with Bill55az,

though salvation is secure through the shed blood of Christ, to be a Christian means to be "Christ like". Meaning living a life in accordance to the example Jesus gave. Love, charity, forgiveness, patience, selflessness, humility...

Bill55AZ,

You wrote "Where does "faith alone" appear in the Bible?
If this is a faith vs. works point that you are trying to make, I have to say that it is not an OR issue, but an AND issue. Faith alone is not enough, there must be works. I believe it is very clear in James, ch. 2."

There is a big difference between doing nothing for salvation and doing nothing with it.

"Against the subtle wits of some also, who "by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent" (Rom. 16:18), it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] "fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners" (1 Cor. 6:9f.; 1 Tim. l:9f.), and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ. (Council of Trent, Chapter 15, 6th session)

What is the cause of salvation? In the Gospel there is never any mention of works required for a person to be saved (justified). While the word 'alone' does not appear in the New Testement the principle is undeniable but thats not the issue is it. In Catholic as well as Protestant theology they both affirm that saving faith is never without works. Thats what a person is redeemed for. The problem is that God's rightiousness is absolute, there is no such thing as 99%, you are the rightiousness of God in Christ or lost. So a person is either rightious or not and its pretty obvious that sinnless perfection is not the immediate result of being 'saved'. The theology is actually a maze of semantics but Protestant theology holds, and I agree, that by faith a person is rightious before God 'positionally' by faith alone. The works that follow as a product of faith is God's workmanship not yours. When this is absent and instead there is instead sin and no natural affection for others, especially beliveres, that person can be considered carnal and may not have saving faith at all. You asked for Scripture to support this and I am all too happy to provide it:

"What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found accord­ing to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has some­thing of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.... (Rom. 4:1-5 nkjv).

The topic calls for an answer for the question of whether or not belief in Christ being God is necassary for salvation. I dont see anything in the Gospel that includes believing Christ is God in order to be justified, I just think that denying it might indicate a lack of understanding of what the New Testement wittness is.

James is saying that faith without works is dead and we are called to living faith. If you look at the way they are mistreating one another its obvious that they are not walking in faith. He is saying you are carnal and its possible that some of them never believed in the first place otherwise they would have understood that Christ takes the mistreatment of belivers very personally. There was a controversy once called the Lordship doctrine where it was being taught that you could recieve Christ as Savior and never follow him as Lord. This was condemned as false doctrine and allways has been, by Protestants and Catholics alike.

"We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. . . . Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification. ... Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. (J. Calvin,taken from Institute of the Christian Religion, )

I'm with AP on this one,

Works immediately follow faith. While it is true that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," by accepting his faults, repenting, and inviting Jesus into his life, a person should become eager to put his words into action. Else, those words were without conviction and not true signs of faith. I think that is the reason the Bible mentions actions on fewer occasions than faith is that actions are the implicate result of faith.