The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

[mobkem]

This article contains the following seven arguments which prove that the Bible denies the divinity of Jesus:


1) None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God

2) Evidence From the Acts of the Apostles

3) Jesus is Not All-Powerful, and Not All-Knowing

4) The Greatest Commandment in the Bible

5) Paul Believed That Jesus is not God

6) Evidence from the Gospel of John

7) God and Jesus Are Two Separate Beings



You can follow from here:
http://bit.ly/76KYFb

[Volbrigade]

Many people claim the 'harmony' of the accounts, but, when examined, they do so by ignoring those sections that are contradictions. As for the 'testimony of witnesses', I keep on hearing about it, but no one has brought forth the direct testimony of any eye witness. The gospels merely refer to them, yet none of those 'witnesses' wrote things down.

As for hardships,.. those were hard times,.. and many people had hard lives. That claim, basically, is meaningless. People die and live (and lived) hard lives for many reasons. Trying to say that these are special is ignoring every other story about hard lives and sacrifices for things.

Allow me to clarify. It is not the hardships themselves that were unique. As fishermen, tax collectors, and others of no renown in the 1st century, we can fairly surmise that all of the Apostles would've lived relatively harsh lives -- especially by modern Western standards.

What is unique about the sufferings and hardships that they chose to take on above and beyond their mundane ones -- persecution, imprisonment, torture, execution -- is that they were the result of a transformative experience that they dedicated their lives to imparting to others.

And the success of their efforts is self-evident. It is global. Is that success conclusive, empirical evidence that the claim they staked their lives on -- the Divinity of Jesus Christ -- is true? Perhaps not; but it is one of the primary factors out of innumerable others that when taken together support the reasons to have faith in that claim.

And "faith" in that claim really speaks to the heart of the matter. I think a pertinent question from a skeptical standpoint would be "why the need for faith? If God wants to save us, why doesn't He just save us? Why the cat and mouse game?"

But to answer that question you would have to know the mind of God. You may as well ask "why light?" "Why gravity?" "Why Creation?"

What we do know is that in the account that is special and unique in its claim to be exclusive of all others in terms of being The Truth, that "faith" takes a place of primacy at the outset. Abraham had "faith in God", and it was accorded to him as righteousness. All that follows is an account of faith and faithlessness.

And for a fact, even from a secular standpoint, the need for faith in everyday matters is quite evident. What task, what undertaking, what plan can be accomplished without the individual and corporate faith that it can be? It may be said that one cannot get out of bed in the morning without the faith to do so (is suicidal depression a loss of this faith?).

The demand for empirical -- material? -- evidence in regard to the Divinity of Jesus is therefore a demand to bypass the necessity of faith. Not that there isn't evidence. There is in abundance. But it is not of a nature to make it "intellectually compulsive." That is by design.

One day the evidence will be intellectually compulsive. It will be immediate, and it will be overwhelming. Then it will be too late for faith. "When the author takes the stage, the play is over." That, too, is an article of faith.

_________________________________________


bernee:

There is no god.

That's what Nietzsche said. Things did not work out too well for him.

I presume you have the proof to back up that claim?

And an explanation for how things came into being apart from God?

[Volbrigade]

Thank you for the welcome, Cathar. I had been looking for a slightly more civil forum than the rather "rough and tumble" lightly moderated one I had been participating in for a year or so, and this one is already showing signs of being extremely interesting.

It's a rather large forum, and I have only a select amount of time to peruse and post, so I'm confident there will be redundancy with other topics from time to time in what I post. After all, "there is nothing new under the sun." But at least what I post will never have been posted by me before -- at least, not in the same way, at the same time.

The point I am trying to make is that you are wrongheaded and mistaken.

That is an interesting opinion. One which, however, I do not happen to share.

I would think the Roman Empire did more to transform Christianity then the other way around. Unless you want to discuses the negative influences?

I would submit that the Roman Empire did nothing to transform Christianity. In support of this I point to the earliest examples in Greek of the Canonical texts, which are used in the latest NT translations, and which are virtually identical with their subsequent transcriptions and translations, and bear no doctrinal differences or changes since the mid 1st century.

But I don't mean to be elliptical. Your point's taken: once Christianity was introduced into the politics and culture of Rome, everything changed. Which transformed which more might be an interesting debate -- but one which I will respectfully decline as being tangential to the topic. Which is transformed more: the glass of water, or the drop of dye which is dripped into it?

The Christianity of Pentecost can be, and is, practiced in a virtually unchanged form anywhere a group of believers choose to gather together -- e.g., you or your neighbors house this evening, if you choose.

[Goat]

Many people claim the 'harmony' of the accounts, but, when examined, they do so by ignoring those sections that are contradictions. As for the 'testimony of witnesses', I keep on hearing about it, but no one has brought forth the direct testimony of any eye witness. The gospels merely refer to them, yet none of those 'witnesses' wrote things down.

As for hardships,.. those were hard times,.. and many people had hard lives. That claim, basically, is meaningless. People die and live (and lived) hard lives for many reasons. Trying to say that these are special is ignoring every other story about hard lives and sacrifices for things.

Allow me to clarify. It is not the hardships themselves that were unique. As fishermen, tax collectors, and others of no renown in the 1st century, we can fairly surmise that all of the Apostles would've lived relatively harsh lives -- especially by modern Western standards.

What is unique about the sufferings and hardships that they chose to take on above and beyond their mundane ones -- persecution, imprisonment, torture, execution -- is that they were the result of a transformative experience that they dedicated their lives to imparting to others.

Did they? Or did they not have a choice in the matter. What evidence do you have from outside of Church tradition that what you say has any basis in reality. Did they take on those hardships because of a 'religious calling', or was it a political on to kick Rome out of Juddah? Assuming they actually existed, could they be the ancient equivalent of the shoe bomber?

[Volbrigade]

Did they? Or did they not have a choice in the matter. What evidence do you have from outside of Church tradition that what you say has any basis in reality. Did they take on those hardships because of a 'religious calling', or was it a political on to kick Rome out of Juddah? Assuming they actually existed, could they be the ancient equivalent of the shoe bomber?

I suspect my leg is being pulled a bit; nevertheless --

It's certainly possible to project our personal biases, or anything else we like, onto historical figures. Marcus Aurelius was the ancient equivalent of Ronald Reagan. Nero of Barack Obama (hey, waitaminnit...). George Washington is equivalent to Bin Laden.

Whether or not individuals gravitated to the early Church for political reasons certainly makes for some interesting speculation. It's impossible to account for the wildfire like spread of the faith -- especially among the gentiles -- on that basis, however.

Jews looking for militant action against Rome would've found scant support from the teachings and doctrines of Christianity. Paul directed Christians to obey the governing authorities. Jesus directed his followers to "render unto Caesar."

Indeed, I submit that "Christian Militancy" may be considered an oxymoron; so-called examples of which indicating lapses from the faith.

Rather, I attribute the rapid spread of Christianity to the profound sincerity of it's early converts -- including the Apostles, whose fervency of faith is likewise attributable to what they saw, felt, and experienced first-hand -- and to the fact that people in the ancient world had acute awareness of the bad news of man's depraved condition, and therefore possessed a keen hunger for the Good News of salvation from it.

[Goat]

Did they? Or did they not have a choice in the matter. What evidence do you have from outside of Church tradition that what you say has any basis in reality. Did they take on those hardships because of a 'religious calling', or was it a political on to kick Rome out of Juddah? Assuming they actually existed, could they be the ancient equivalent of the shoe bomber?

I suspect my leg is being pulled a bit; nevertheless --

Actually, no.. I am not. I am just pointing out that there is zero evidence of your claims outside of a very biased Church tradition from a couple of hundred years later.

It's certainly possible to project our personal biases, or anything else we like, onto historical figures. Marcus Aurelius was the ancient equivalent of Ronald Reagan. Nero of Barack Obama (hey, waitaminnit...). George Washington is equivalent to Bin Laden.

I would say that Nero was more like Bush Jr, and Obama more equivalent of Claudius, but .. similar.

Whether or not individuals gravitated to the early Church for political reasons certainly makes for some interesting speculation. It's impossible to account for the wildfire like spread of the faith -- especially among the gentiles -- on that basis, however.

Was it a wild fire? The evidence does not support that claim. The numbers of Christians seemed to be fairly small until the adoption of Christianity as the 'official' religion by the Roman Empire did it 'take hold' beyond a limited number of people.

Jews looking for militant action against Rome would've found scant support from the teachings and doctrines of Christianity. Paul directed Christians to obey the governing authorities. Jesus directed his followers to "render unto Caesar."

Indeed, I submit that "Christian Militancy" may be considered an oxymoron; so-called examples of which indicating lapses from the faith.

Indeed they would not. On the other hand, those are the writings that would have found favor with the Council of Nicea, who helped choose what is the cannon. Those writings that did not promote their POLITICAL ideas were repressed, and often destroyed.

Rather, I attribute the rapid spread of Christianity to the profound sincerity of it's early converts -- including the Apostles, whose fervency of faith is likewise attributable to what they saw, felt, and experienced first-hand -- and to the fact that people in the ancient world had acute awareness of the bad news of man's depraved condition, and therefore possessed a keen hunger for the Good News of salvation from it.

And I attribute the 'rapid spread' of Christianity to the political needs of the 4th century Roman Empire.

[Cathar1950]

The point I am trying to make is that you are wrongheaded and mistaken.

That is an interesting opinion. One which, however, I do not happen to share.

We know what your opinion is and it is wrong, if it is really your opinion.

You are wrong about the so-called “I AM� and you are wrong about begotten.
What is "begotten" (not "created") by God is God.�

Abraham offered up his only begotten .and there are a number of “only begotten� mention, usually as child sacrifices as the “only begotten�, “Beloved� and “first born� were sacrificed for fertility. Those of you that might believe the Bible in its original form was inerrant might want to understand that IN THE ORIGIANAL STORY Abraham sacrificed his son and as we read El or Yahweh makes a promise of children. It is a foundational myth. Later it becomes a strange tale of faithfulness.
I even suspect “Beloved� was the MLK sacrifices offered in the founding of the monarchy which is why it is called the dynasty of David or Beloved.
Now that is my opinion. The OT passages are better read with this in mind when they write of looking at Israel as the only begotten son and not the promise of a Christian deliverer. Sometimes the sacrificed “only begotten� to the ancestors (elohim), sometimes to the Shaddi gods.
But I highly doubt Jesus would have said such a thing and it is obviously a more developed Christology and you can almost understand why the unknown author’s community had been kicked out of the Synagogues.

I would think the Roman Empire did more to transform Christianity then the other way around. Unless you want to discuses the negative influences?

I would submit that the Roman Empire did nothing to transform Christianity. In support of this I point to the earliest examples in Greek of the Canonical texts, which are used in the latest NT translations, and which are virtually identical with their subsequent transcriptions and translations, and bear no doctrinal differences or changes since the mid 1st century.

But I don't mean to be elliptical. Your point's taken: once Christianity was introduced into the politics and culture of Rome, everything changed. Which transformed which more might be an interesting debate -- but one which I will respectfully decline as being tangential to the topic. Which is transformed more: the glass of water, or the drop of dye which is dripped into it?

The Christianity of Pentecost can be, and is, practiced in a virtually unchanged form anywhere a group of believers choose to gather together -- e.g., you or your neighbors house this evening, if you choose.[/quote]

You might benefit reading some of Tony Stark’s writings on the growth of Christianity before it became the religion of Constantine. Loess then 1000 died in the first 300 years while the growth is natural. You also might benefit from reading more on the development of the writings.

[bernee51]

bernee:

There is no god.

That's what Nietzsche said. Things did not work out too well for him.

I think that may have been as a result of the syphilis – not his apparent non-belief in your god.

I presume you have the proof to back up that claim?

Proof of non-existence – hmm.

Is there proof that Zeus does not exist? What about Odin? Do you allow the existence of these two.

There is abundant evidence of the existence of the god of Abraham as a concept – none as an extant being.

And an explanation for how things came into being apart from God?

Which ‘things’.

The universe? Is there any reason to dismiss the possibility that the universe in some shape or form has always and will always exist.

Life as we know it? The Jesuit priest and renowned palaeontologist Teilhard de Chandon described a natural process of ‘complexification’ which could only result in the emergence of life – and ultimately a ‘turning in’ which allowed the development of consciousness.

The god concept is not an explanation it is a gap filler. The only honest answer, at the current stage of knowledge, is ‘I don’t know’.

[Cathar1950]

bernee:

There is no god.

That's what Nietzsche said. Things did not work out too well for him.

I think that may have been as a result of the syphilis – not his apparent non-belief in your god.

I presume you have the proof to back up that claim?

Proof of non-existence – hmm.

Is there proof that Zeus does not exist? What about Odin? Do you allow the existence of these two.

There is abundant evidence of the existence of the god of Abraham as a concept – none as an extant being.

And an explanation for how things came into being apart from God?

Which ‘things’.

The universe? Is there any reason to dismiss the possibility that the universe in some shape or form has always and will always exist.

Life as we know it? The Jesuit priest and renowned palaeontologist Teilhard de Chandon described a natural process of ‘complexification’ which could only result in the emergence of life – and ultimately a ‘turning in’ which allowed the development of consciousness.

The god concept is not an explanation it is a gap filler. The only honest answer, at the current stage of knowledge, is ‘I don’t know’.

The "God" concept has changed(so much for an unchanging god) since Abraham and according to the myths Yahweh was known as El, his father.
I agree and unless it can be shown how God created the universe God is still not an explanation.

[Volbrigade]

Proof of non-existence – hmm.

Is there proof that Zeus does not exist? What about Odin? Do you allow the existence of these two.

There is abundant evidence of the existence of the god of Abraham as a concept – none as an extant being.

Ah, yes. The old 'you can't prove a negative.' Nor, it seems, can you prove the ultimate positive. For that matter, you can't prove the existence of what theoretically must compose 80% of the universe -- not to digress from the topic, however.

It seems we're at something of an impasse. An age-old one, at that.

It appears that we must either give, or withhold, our assent regarding a basic proposition: that God exists. Obviously, whether or not we assent to that proposition has nothing to do with the actual existence of God, whether positive or negative. But it has everything to do with the underlying assumptions that we will adopt to inform our hermeneutics, our exegesis, our ontology, our philosophy, our science -- our worldview.

Just as two scientists with differing underlying assumptions can look at the same geological evidence and produce two widely divergent explanations in regard to it, two textual critics can come to opposite conclusions regarding ancient texts, be they Scriptural or apocryphal.

For instance, a textual critic operating under the assumption that God doesn't exist views the ancient writings as essentially "dead" -- fossilized thoughts captured on paper of men's ideas about things that never actually existed -- e.g., the myth referred to by Cathar. He is then free to speculate and produce daring theories about how those myths developed, what they reveal about the culture that produced them, etc. -- the "cheap crop of the fall publishing list."

The believer, because he looks upon the Biblical writings as being "alive" -- the "Living Word" -- is able to take a wider view. He is able to view the formalization of the canon (that had long been widely accepted, with certain variations) at Nicaea as part of the infinite intricacy of God's will. He is able to embrace what the Scriptures say today as much or more as what they said at the time of their writing. He is astounded at their imperishable depth and meaning, both in general terms and in terms of his own and countless other lives.

And he is satisfied that the use of the term "begotten" denotes procreation, or "like begetting like" as it is used in the genealogies, so that when God gave His only begotten Son, that is the closest analogy and description in human language of what cannot otherwise be adequately expressed, the eternal co-existence of the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity: God (the father) and Jesus Christ (the begotten Son).

[Cathar1950]

Proof of non-existence – hmm.

Is there proof that Zeus does not exist? What about Odin? Do you allow the existence of these two.

There is abundant evidence of the existence of the god of Abraham as a concept – none as an extant being.

Ah, yes. The old 'you can't prove a negative.' Nor, it seems, can you prove the ultimate positive. For that matter, you can't prove the existence of what theoretically must compose 80% of the universe -- not to digress from the topic, however.

It seems we're at something of an impasse. An age-old one, at that.

It appears that we must either give, or withhold, our assent regarding a basic proposition: that God exists. Obviously, whether or not we assent to that proposition has nothing to do with the actual existence of God, whether positive or negative. But it has everything to do with the underlying assumptions that we will adopt to inform our hermeneutics, our exegesis, our ontology, our philosophy, our science -- our worldview.

Just as two scientists with differing underlying assumptions can look at the same geological evidence and produce two widely divergent explanations in regard to it, two textual critics can come to opposite conclusions regarding ancient texts, be they Scriptural or apocryphal.

For instance, a textual critic operating under the assumption that God doesn't exist views the ancient writings as essentially "dead" -- fossilized thoughts captured on paper of men's ideas about things that never actually existed -- e.g., the myth referred to by Cathar. He is then free to speculate and produce daring theories about how those myths developed, what they reveal about the culture that produced them, etc. -- the "cheap crop of the fall publishing list."

The believer, because he looks upon the Biblical writings as being "alive" -- the "Living Word" -- is able to take a wider view. He is able to view the formalization of the canon (that had long been widely accepted, with certain variations) at Nicaea as part of the infinite intricacy of God's will. He is able to embrace what the Scriptures say today as much or more as what they said at the time of their writing. He is astounded at their imperishable depth and meaning, both in general terms and in terms of his own and countless other lives.

And he is satisfied that the use of the term "begotten" denotes procreation, or "like begetting like" as it is used in the genealogies, so that when God gave His only begotten Son, that is the closest analogy and description in human language of what cannot otherwise be adequately expressed, the eternal co-existence of the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity: God (the father) and Jesus Christ (the begotten Son).

So according to the believer and their esoteric satisfaction it is meaningless.
So why claim "What is "begotten" (not "created") by God is God" when it is not only wrong when related to anything other then your inability to express what you don't and can't understand because it is a mystery? Your not just preaching you are tossing around believer buzz words as if they were somehow true when they can't even make sense to you...