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

[FinalEnigma]

Those are fair objections, FE.

They deserve a response from someone more qualified than I am to give one. Nevertheless, they were directed at me, so I'll give it the 'ole college try.'

First, I think when we're talking about things like "how can I be sure..."; that is to say, certainty, we may have to exclude most, if not all, human endeavor from that qualification.

In other words, certainty may be something that is reserved for mathematical formulations. We can be certain that in terms of a right triangle, a(square) times b(square) = c(square); or that 22 divided by 7 yields 3.1428571....

But how can you be certain that you love someone? Or that they love you? How can you be certain that someone is telling you the truth? Or that you're not deceiving yourself? Or that your belief, or disbelief, in God is based on an objective analysis of the evidence, and not on personal feelings, preferences, and behaviors? Or simple peer pressure?

I, for one, don't think you can be. That's why (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) it's called faith. And it's by our faith (or lack of it) that we live.

Christians speak in terms of "knowing that you know that you know" in regard to their Salvation, which is based on the scriptures and doctrines that relate events that happened on Calvary 2,000 years ago.

A psychologist, of course, would perhaps suggest that such "knowledge" is an auto-suggestion based on an acquired need for such reassurance. That it exists solely in the mind, and is not based on objective reality.

Obviously, there are problems with ascertaining which is the case with any degree of certainty. A standard is called for, but in the case of Christian belief that standard would have to come from the same supernature that it claims exists, but which the psychologists doesn't. Of course, it is part of Christian belief that the supernature will be quite evident someday, perhaps soon, at "The End of the Age". But that, too, is an article of faith.

...
...

Christians believe that one of the ways that God works His will is through people. You mention a female who "saved" you. In that, you are fortunate -- blessed. I too have been blessed by the love a woman who has been instrumental in God's plan for me (a side note: I truly believe that God has a plan for our lives. And it is my personal belief that He is constantly adjusting His plan (His will) in order to accommodate our free will. I am certain that I've caused Him to adjust His plan for me countless times ).

You say that she "swears that she did nothing." May I ask if she prayed for you? Prayer is the most powerful force in the world. And another one of those things about which "how can we be certain?" I can tell you that I have seen miracles of healing involved with people that I (along with many others) have prayed for.

Were they supernatural (Divine) interventions, or coincidences? Or some sort of placebo effect? The doctors are dumbfounded.

I choose to believe they were the first. That is what my faith tells me. Others will have to make their own choices.

I thank you for the admission that it is faith. Not to say that faith is a negative - only that it doesn't lend much toward convincing someone. I simply see no reason to attribute aid to someone without having good reason to believe they gave it, and regarding the one who helped me, I've got more reason to believe that she helped me than to believe God had anything to do with anything - I've spoken to her.

and you asked if she prayed. the answer would be no.

What to do, then. We can only do what God has left us to do. He has honored us with the gift of choice. We can choose whether to believe in Him or not. we can choose whether this strange tale, this uncanny design of Heavens and Earth, and the supernatural plan that encompasses it, is real or not.

and here is the difficulty. I cannot choose something that I see no reason to choose. I could, if I wanted, attribute my climbing out of the aforementioned hole to god's help - even though I didn't ask for it(well, I did, but he didn't respond. Years later I met this other person who did help), but I see no reason to. I could assume that God has a plan for me and decided that I needed help to follow his plans, but why would I?

[Cathar1950]

What to do, then. We can only do what God has left us to do. He has honored us with the gift of choice. We can choose whether to believe in Him or not. we can choose whether this strange tale, this uncanny design of Heavens and Earth, and the supernatural plan that encompasses it, is real or not.

I find it hard to believe that it all amounts to all this so we can have a choice to believe in Him or not and the supernatural stories about Him.

It seems narcissistic and trite.

It makes the believer not only the center of the universe but the ultimate benefactor. As God is usually placed outside of the universe it makes what is believed and the story told as one that is irrelevant and unbelievable.

Sure we can thank God for the gift of choice much like we can thank those that feed us and gave us our culture and language but choices are responses. There are more then one possible response and we have evolved to us complex responses to complex situations based upon our experiences and shared knowledge while you make the choice or response dependent upon beliefs in a story and a predetermined correct choice.
Your post amounts to an empty sermon honoring your choice or response above all others.

[bernee51]

I read through your narrative regarding your conversion experience - thank you for sharing it.

I do have a question, one that I have asked of many a christian and have yet to receive a heart felt response from their own experience.

You used the word 'spiritual'. What exactly, in your own words, do you mean or understand by the term?

First, bernee, a disclaimer. I assume you refer to my use of the phrase "spiritual calisthenics." The term "spiritual" may not be entirely appropriate in its usage there. I tried to come up with a word that more precisely shaded what I was trying to convey, gave up, and settled for "spiritual" as being "close enough for gov't work", since I was obviously (I hope) trying to hit a lighter note -- as evidenced by the emoticon.

That aside, I'll try to address your point.

When I saw your use of "spiritual calisthenics� I immediately thought of another – a favourite of mine – “hermeneutic gymnastics�.

The key to your request is "a heart felt response from their own experience." It's clear that a general response regarding the nature of "spirit" and "spiritual" -- which can obviously only be talked about in metaphorical terms, since they are "super" natural phenomena -- is not what you're looking for.

I don’t regard them as ‘supernatural’ – my understanding of spirit is purely natural – anything that is an aspect of the natural world – and I hold that ‘spirit’ does – can only be natural. Spirit encompases the structure and, more importantly, the processes of existence – at every level.

I assume, given your post count, that you're familiar with the classic "Flatland" analogy, and have probably discussed it. Maybe you've been introduced to Lewis' description of the concept of "Joy"; that longing for a quality that no experience can satisfy, but which the purest ones intensify the longing for. Perhaps you recall the climax in the very good film "The Others", which does a nifty job of illustrating the way in which a subordinate -- you might say "impoverished" -- reality could exist with only the vaguest notions of a higher reality -- and then only at those points at which the higher reality intersected it, like a three dimensional figure intersecting a plane (refer back to Flatland).

Flatland I am familiar with so to with the concept of ‘joy’. Maslow described ‘peak experiences’ – which I refer to as ‘peek experiences’ as they are, or can be, a glimpse of ‘the infinite’.

And I open myself to the charge of being evasive, or "copping out," by stating the plain fact that to put into language the essence of spiritual experience is probably not possible. It is the provenance of poetry, the greatest of which can only suggest it.

My opinion...spiritual describes the person experience of the sacred.

But it occurs to me -- what if I were to tell you that I fell into a deep hole, and the hand of God reached down and pulled me out of it? Because that's exactly what happened -- to me, and to countless others. Only it didn't happen instantaneously (in my case), but over time.

The ‘dark night of the soul’ is familiar ground.

Still, as you point out, what is time? Nothing (almost) from the standpoint of God's "eternal now."

Time is not nothing – it is a concept. And like all concepts is an aspect of the noosphere. Just as the atoms and molecules of which we are made are elements of the physiosphere and the biomechanical systems that support life are elements of the biosphere.

(by the way, I left out an essential element earlier when talking about the triune nature of space, time, and man. And that is their unity while being distinctly three parts. Height, width, and depth are distinct elements that comprise an inseparable unity. Likewise past, present, future; body, soul (psyche), spirit: and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three distinct aspects of an inseparable and eternal unity).

Which all, in turn, relate back to the knower, the known and the act of knowing, the nature of being.

So, if God wants to bypass time and change water to wine in an instant -- something He does over time continually; or if God wants to take His time to pull me out of a hole, so that I can look back over a period of years and see that I have been transformed; that I am on a green, grassy slope in comparison to the hole that I was in: that "I once was blind, but now I see" -- then my only response is one of gratitude.

Gratitude is a wonderful thing – those things for which we are not grateful control us. You attribute your ‘joy’ at being on the grassy slope to god...I see that joy as the fundamental nature of our being, as our birthright. What separates us from it is maya – illusion, the ignorance of the true nature of our being.

No doubt you are aware of the logical mutual exclusivity of the terms omniscient and omnipotent.

Actually, I'm not. Would you care to provide a brief explanation?

Briefly...omniscient as I understand it is knowledge all that has happened, all that is happening and all that can happen - an omniscient being then is powerless to change any of it.

However in order to do so christianity must evolve beyond the guilt ridden misanthropy of Paul.

We must be talking about two different 'Pauls'. I see very little of those qualities in P. McCartney, and none at all in P. of Tarsus.

One interpretation of the symptoms Paul describes – the falling down, the visions, the ataxia, the self hatred, the hatred of the flesh his opinion – the ‘thorn in his side’ – is one an histrionic personality disorder.

What to do, then. We can only do what God has left us to do. He has honored us with the gift of choice. We can choose whether to believe in Him or not. we can choose whether this strange tale, this uncanny design of Heavens and Earth, and the supernatural plan that encompasses it, is real or not.

I do not see it as a choice as choice implies a decision between two equally valid (or potentially so) positions.

As I see no need or reason for, nor evidence for a position to the contrary, I can only come to the conclusion that ‘this strange tale’ and the god who supposedly inspired it are, like all similar stories, part of the rich tapestry of myth that makes up human society. There is no choice as there is, for me, no alternative.

[Volbrigade]

...and here is the difficulty. I cannot choose something that I see no reason to choose. I could, if I wanted, attribute my climbing out of the aforementioned hole to god's help - even though I didn't ask for it(well, I did, but he didn't respond. Years later I met this other person who did help)...

Can you be certain that God didn't hear you, and supply the person who helped you?

I could assume that God has a plan for me and decided that I needed help to follow his plans, but why would I?

There's no reason at all -- other than if it's true. But that just brings us back to where we were -- and is the reason this site exists, to debate the relative merits of assenting to the Christian propositions, vs. non-assent.

There are countless reasons to assent to the Truth of Christianity. Starting with the fact of existence, and the fact that the existence we inhabit is ordered, indicating design; and continuing with the frustrating and inexplicable fact that one species, so far as we know, in all of existence is at odds with that existence, and is alone in its capacity to destroy itself and everything else it comes into contact with.

Christianity provides a plausible explanation for this state of affairs, and a way out of it. I don't expect to convince you of that; but I do hope you'll at least maintain an open mind to the possibility of it being true.

______________________

I find it hard to believe that it all amounts to all this so we can have a choice to believe in Him or not and the supernatural stories about Him.

It seems narcissistic and trite.

It makes the believer not only the center of the universe but the ultimate benefactor. As God is usually placed outside of the universe it makes what is believed and the story told as one that is irrelevant and unbelievable.

I don't quite agree with you that the choice of faith renders "the believer not only the center of the universe but the ultimate benefactor." But I don't think you're far off in your assessment.

I think that the choice that God allows us, which so far as we know is unique among all the created objects in the universe, makes the individual an item of great importance. And therefore so is the choice that he/she makes. It has been said that the Heavenly court, and God Himself, waits with bated breath (so to speak) over that choice in each individual's life -- the one thing that we know of which God has allowed to be beyond His control. He can woo, but He will not force. We are the "pearl of great price." We are the treasure in the field, which the man (God) sells everything He has in order to buy that field.

It cost God nothing to create the universe -- it cost Him his very life to redeem man -- to redeem Cathar, and bernee, and FE, and VB individually. And we are further told that there is great joy and jubilation in Heaven over the Saved Soul.

The idea that you should be "the center of the universe" in God's eyes seems to bother you. And that's understandable. I take it that you prefer the next most plausible alternative: that you are a temporary pattern of atoms, interacting with other temporary patterns of atoms.

But just remember, if that is the case, then your sermon is every bit as hollow as mine. And every concept that you entertain to give your brief existence a framework of meaning amounts to no less an illusion (if it's constructed ignorant of the facts) or a delusion (if it's constructed with awareness of them) than the Christian God that would be non-existent under those circumstances. Because the universe doesn't care.

I, for one, could live -- or not -- with that.

As a former atheist myself, I have a high regard for atheism. I find it the only viable alternative to Christianity. Christians and atheists can stand together in viewing all other religious beliefs as being simply not true. Of course, Christians can concede the partial validity of other religions, to the degree that they agree with Christianity -- and most all do, to some degree.

Atheists can only give to any supernatural belief the faint praise of being "an interesting stage in psychological evolution", or "mythologically gratifying" -- or somesuch.

As a Christian, I attribute supernatural belief to an awareness, shared by all human cultures, of the supernatural. Atheistic materialism is faith that supernature doesn't exist. I reached a point of profound doubt in that particular article of faith.

[bernee51]

Of course, Christians can concede the partial validity of other religions, to the degree that they agree with Christianity -- and most all do, to some degree.

Given that the majority of the major extant religions pre-date christianity I would suggest that you have it back to front.

Atheistic materialism is faith that supernature doesn't exist. I reached a point of profound doubt in that particular article of faith.

And this is an equivocation of the word 'faith' as it applies to christianity (cf. Hebrews 11.1) .

[Volbrigade]

I don’t regard them as ‘supernatural’ – my understanding of spirit is purely natural – anything that is an aspect of the natural world – and I hold that ‘spirit’ does – can only be natural. Spirit encompases the structure and, more importantly, the processes of existence – at every level.

Seems to me a contradiction in terms. Either "spirit" exists or it doesn't. But in the sense we're using it, I think it has to define something outside of nature -- otherwise, we're perhaps talking about "soul" or psyche.

Unless, it occurs to me, you're talking about a pantheistic (pantheistic-like?) "spirit" -- the sum total of everything. In which case we're on almost common ground; it's just that I believe that "nature" is a mere part of the sum total of everything -- a shadowy part, as well, in relation to the ineffably concrete reality of supernature.

If I am anywhere near being on the right track with regard to what you're saying, then where we would disagree is that in Christian theology, "everything" is not God; nor is God everything -- including supernature. He has created: there are things other than He. But He is in His creation, as a painter is in his painting; an author is in his story.

Briefly...omniscient as I understand it is knowledge all that has happened, all that is happening and all that can happen - an omniscient being then is powerless to change any of it.

Sorry -- that is a non-sequitur. An omnipotent being would have to be omniscient -- otherwise it couldn't be omnipotent. We are told that in Christ "all things are held together" -- that in the fullness of time, He will relinquish that hold, and the world will melt with fervent fire (and afterward a "new Heaven and a new Earth"). Interesting, in light of what would happen if every atom fissured simultaneously.

Why couldn't an omnipotent being create creatures capable of free will, if it delighted Him to do so? And then willingly allow them a sphere of control over events? And intervene directly in their affairs (i.e., miracles, answered prayer) if He saw a need to?

Given that the majority of the major extant religions pre-date christianity I would suggest that you have it back to front.

Or -- the other extant religious, like the ones that aren't, are imperfect interpretations of the Divine, and Christianity represents the fulfillment of man's relationship to God, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

[bernee51]

I don’t regard them as ‘supernatural’ – my understanding of spirit is purely natural – anything that is an aspect of the natural world – and I hold that ‘spirit’ does – can only be natural. Spirit encompases the structure and, more importantly, the processes of existence – at every level.

Seems to me a contradiction in terms. Either "spirit" exists or it doesn't.

How so? I agree spirit exists - I don't agree that it is supernatural.

[
But in the sense we're using it, I think it has to define something outside of nature -- otherwise, we're perhaps talking about "soul" or psyche.

No soul - is something different - it is soul that informs and is informed by spirit.

Soul is all thought, intellect, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams, aspirations, suffering, loves, joys, hates, sorrows, regrets, creativity, spite, knowledge, learning, understanding, empathy, sympathy, pity, greed, lust, desire, initiative, and instinct.

Unless, it occurs to me, you're talking about a pantheistic (pantheistic-like?) "spirit" -- the sum total of everything. In which case we're on almost common ground; it's just that I believe that "nature" is a mere part of the sum total of everything -- a shadowy part, as well, in relation to the ineffably concrete reality of supernature.

The universe - everything - has structure and process and therefore spirit - and as with all spirit, the totality of the cosmos is always in a state of flux, always changing, always becoming

Can you demonstrate the 'concrete reality of supernature?

Briefly...omniscient as I understand it is knowledge all that has happened, all that is happening and all that can happen - an omniscient being then is powerless to change any of it.

Sorry -- that is a non-sequitur. An omnipotent being would have to be omniscient -- otherwise it couldn't be omnipotent. We are told that in Christ "all things are held together" -- that in the fullness of time, He will relinquish that hold, and the world will melt with fervent fire (and afterward a "new Heaven and a new Earth"). Interesting, in light of what would happen if every atom fissured simultaneously.

Why couldn't an omnipotent being create creatures capable of free will, if it delighted Him to do so? And then willingly allow them a sphere of control over events? And intervene directly in their affairs (i.e., miracles, answered prayer) if He saw a need to?

If he was omniscient it would know it was going to intervene, it would not perceive a need to , nor, for it, could a need arise? For need to exist somethign must be 'missing' - how can anything be 'missing' for an omnipotent perfect being.

Given that the majority of the major extant religions pre-date christianity I would suggest that you have it back to front.

Or -- the other extant religious, like the ones that aren't, are imperfect interpretations of the Divine, and Christianity represents the fulfillment of man's relationship to God, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Are you of the 'punctuated revelation' school?

On what basis can you claim that christianity is the fulfillment? My firend Yusuf tells me that the Koran represents that.

[Bob Israel]

Regarding the section of the article titled "Evidence From the Acts of the Apostles": the last paragraph in that section states:

The Quran confirms that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ), and that he was God’s servant ....

In the light of Matthew 16:13-16, 20, and of Mark 8:27-30, and when these Bible passages are compared to al-Qu'ran 3:45 and 19:30, please explain how the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible passages either indicate or confirm "that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ), and that he was God’s servant"?

The question for me is why does the koran have the words JESUS CHRIST in their Holy Books?

The reason I ask is if Islam is the true faith way do they have Jesus Christ which means Baal Zeus! Who changed Yahshua name and why?

Bob

[Volbrigade]

Can you demonstrate the 'concrete reality of supernature?

Of course not. It is like asking the shadow to demonstrate the concrete reality of the object producing it.

If he was omniscient it would know it was going to intervene, it would not perceive a need to , nor, for it, could a need arise? For need to exist somethign must be 'missing' - how can anything be 'missing' for an omnipotent perfect being.

If it was omnipotent, then it could create anything it chose (unless it was impossible -- that is to say, self-canceling; i.e., it couldn't create a lie and be "All-Good". But that's a sidetrack). And if it was omniscient, then it what it creates would be part of its perfect plan. Which defines the reality that we inhabit.

On what basis can you claim that christianity is the fulfillment? My firend Yusuf tells me that the Koran represents that.

With all due respect, I believe that your friend is mistaken. Since the Koran and the NT are not in agreement (ergo, the topic of this thread), then at least one has to be in error. As already discussed, they both could be, but one must be.

I suspect that Christianity vs. Islam has been discussed at length on this site, given the nature of the board. And I hesitate to open that can of worms. So I will limit myself to two quick points in regard to Christianity being the fulfillment of God's plan, rather than Islam.

1). Forgiveness. It is freely and totally offered in Christianity, unearned. There is no action or sacrifice that you can make to merit it -- unless "faith" is an action. The only sacrifice has been made -- by the God of Creation on our behalf.

2). Fruits. Look at the benefits that Christianity has brought where it has flourished -- e.g., the Western World. Look at the progress -- or lack of it -- that Islam has brought where it has flourished.

I will add a third point that occurs: Islam, being aware of the claims of Christianity, represents both a derivative of Judeo-Christianity, and a rejection of its claims. Christianity exists unmoved and unchanged by that rejection.

[Bob Israel]

I am not here to proclaim Pagan christianity, nor to confuse the minds of those who are reared by their reaper!

I am only asked a simple question,why is the words Jesus Christ in the Koran when its not Yahshua real name.

So,Why?

Bob