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

[Heterodoxus]

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"?

[Volbrigade]

There are inherent difficulties involved with any language used by finite creatures to describe the Ultimate, Eternal Reality -- i.e., God. His infiniteness will not fit inside our language constructs.

These difficulties are compounded in consideration of the Triune nature of the Divinity. Metaphor, symbol, and analogy are helpful in these regards in terms of definition and conceptualization. But they cannot be definitive.

For instance, when God entered his Creation in the form of a man, Jesus Christ, he took many titles that suggest different aspects of His incarnation. The Lamb of God, The Suffering Servant, The Good Shepherd, The Vinedresser, The Lion of Judah, are some that come to mind.

As it is God's plan and Christ's Gospel that Jesus should be fully God and fully Man -- an incomprehensible paradox -- so that Jesus could bear the sins of the world, redeem those who believe upon Him, and be the first fruits of the new creation; it is therefore plain that he should bear many titles that do not refer to His divinity: among them "son" (in a human sense), "brother," "carpenter," "boy," "young man," "rabbi," and so forth.

So while it is possible to find Scriptural references -- even self-references -- to his humanity during the brief period when He willingly "emptied himself of His glory" to become a young Jew in Roman-occupied Palestine;

It is essential to bear foremost in mind those passages that emphasize His Divine nature and co-existence with the Eternal God of Heaven.

I submit these two:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Whatever is begotten is the same as that which begets it. E.g., fish beget fish; horses beget horses; man begets man.

What is "begotten" (not "created") by God is God.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)

This is a clear assertion by Jesus to be the God of Scripture, and cannot be interpreted any other way.

The Bible's sole purpose is to declare the Divinity of Jesus. Everything else in it -- the moral statutes, the history, the sublime poetry -- are mere happy by-products of this ultimate purpose.

[bernee51]

"Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)

This is a clear assertion by Jesus to be the God of Scripture, and cannot be interpreted any other way.

Of course it can be interpreted in another way - as can John 10:30.

You are clearly not familiar with advaita vedanta.

The Bible's sole purpose is to declare the Divinity of Jesus.

Its purpose is up for interpretation - the divinity of Jesus is merely a a subset of the divinity of existence.

Everything else in it -- the moral statutes, the history, the sublime poetry -- are mere happy by-products of this ultimate purpose.

As I have often remarked - the bible is essentialy no differnt than any of the many other 'sacred scriptures'.

[Volbrigade]

"You are clearly not familiar with advaita vedanta."

That is true. I'm not. Does it make a claim to be "The Way, The Truth, and the Life?"

This, to me, is the singularity involved with Christianity -- what makes it "different" from all other Faiths, with the exception of Islam, which it predates, and of which one of the two must be in error, since they disagree (I include Judaism in with Christianity, as Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism; and God's message, mercy, and salvation extended to all people).

Perhaps you can tell me (and since I'm obviously new here, I want to be sure that I'm within the rules of the board. Are questions allowed in the "discussion" forum?):

Are there consequences involved with disbelief in/non-adherence to the advaita vedanta? Are there other paths besides it that lead to enlightenment? Fulfillment? Salvation?

"As I have often remarked - the bible is essentialy no differnt than any of the many other 'sacred scriptures'."

That is partially true. It is no different in that it presents an account of the existence of things, the nature and purpose of man, a code of conduct for righteous living; it consists of ink characters systematically arranged on paper, organized and codified into a standardized textual document, etc.

It does, however, differ in its insistence that it is the Truth; that where other sacred texts and beliefs disagree with it they are in error; and especially and specifically in its central figure of Jesus Christ, a man who walked the streets of 1st Century Palestine and who claimed to be the incarnation of the Living God -- a claim that within the context Judaism has a definite denotation that to all who heard it then, and hear it now, is very plain; and for which he was tried by the Jewish authorities and executed by the Romans.

There is no other incidence of a "religious leader" who is simultaneously historical, and who claimed to be God -- not Buddha, not Mohammed, not Zoroaster -- and who further claimed that salvation and union with God was incumbent upon faith in Him -- not adherence to his teaching, belief system, etc.

[/quote]

[bernee51]

"You are clearly not familiar with advaita vedanta."

That is true. I'm not. Does it make a claim to be "The Way, The Truth, and the Life?"

Not in those words.

The fact that the bible makes the claim does not confirm its validity - it is merely a claim.

This, to me, is the singularity involved with Christianity -- what makes it "different" from all other Faiths, with the exception of Islam, which it predates, and of which one of the two must be in error, since they disagree (I include Judaism in with Christianity, as Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism; and God's message, mercy, and salvation extended to all people).

A false dichotomy if I ever saw one.

Perhaps you can tell me (and since I'm obviously new here, I want to be sure that I'm within the rules of the board. Are questions allowed in the "discussion" forum?):

Forgive my rudeness - welcome to the forum - I hope you find it enlightening.

AFAIK questions can be asked pretty well anywhere - the difference re. the discussion forum is that no debate topic is required as it is in the debate areas.

If you need clarification you will find the moderators very helpful.

Are there consequences involved with disbelief in/non-adherence to the advaita vedanta?

Not that I am aware of - other than a continuation of the illusion of a separate self. This of course, can lead to other consequences.

Are there other paths besides it that lead to enlightenment? Fulfillment? Salvation?

Thre a re many paths up the mountain.

"As I have often remarked - the bible is essentialy no differnt than any of the many other 'sacred scriptures'."

That is partially true. It is no different in that it presents an account of the existence of things, the nature and purpose of man, a code of conduct for righteous living; it consists of ink characters systematically arranged on paper, organized and codified into a standardized textual document, etc.

OK so far.

It does, however, differ in its insistence that it is the Truth; ...

And this is where you slip up.

...that where other sacred texts and beliefs disagree with it they are in error; and especially and specifically in its central figure of Jesus Christ, a man who walked the streets of 1st Century Palestine and who claimed to be the incarnation of the Living God -- a claim that within the context Judaism has a definite denotation that to all who heard it then, and hear it now, is very plain; and for which he was tried by the Jewish authorities and executed by the Romans.

There is no reason to see the resurrection of Jesus as anything other than myth - nor is there any evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material.

There is no other incidence of a "religious leader" who is simultaneously historical, and who claimed to be God -- not Buddha, not Mohammed, not Zoroaster -- and who further claimed that salvation and union with God was incumbent upon faith in Him -- not adherence to his teaching, belief system, etc.

Did he claim it - or was it claimed for him by those who wrote the myth fron the oral traditions?

[Volbrigade]

Thanks much for the welcome, bernee. I trust my visits will be enlightening.

You can be of assistance with that. Perhaps you can point out how my statement re Christianity and Islam -- (This, to me, is the singularity involved with Christianity -- what makes it "different" from all other Faiths, with the exception of Islam, which it predates, and of which one of the two must be in error, since they disagree.) -- represents a "false dichotomy."

Surely since Christianity makes the claim that Jesus Christ is the Living God incarnate, and Islam makes the counter claim that He is not, then one of the two must be in error? (however much they may agree in regard to Him being a worthy teacher, example, prophet, etc. -- in regard to which they could both be in error, of course)

There is no reason to see the resurrection of Jesus as anything other than myth - nor is there any evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material.

But that begs the question, does it not? There would be "no reason to see the resurrection as anything other than myth" -- unless it was other than myth. Unless it was the truth. And if it is the truth, as it purports to be -- then of course there is every reason to believe it, and to believe in the Resurrected Christ.

Did he claim it - or was it claimed for him by those who wrote the myth fron the oral traditions?

That is indeed the question, no? "What do you make of this man, Jesus Christ?" You indicate that there is "no evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material." But that is simply not so. There is a mountain of evidence, beginning with the testimony of witnesses to the event, who lived lives of incredible hardship as as result of what they bore witness to, and many of whom died as martyrs to their testimony. But not before these simple and ordinary men (Paul being the exception on that count) established a belief that would transform the Roman Empire, and through it (first) the Western World, and is even now working to transform the world at large, one life a a time, by manner of which countless individuals have professed an encounter, and relationship with, the Risen Christ.

[Goat]

Thanks much for the welcome, bernee. I trust my visits will be enlightening.

You can be of assistance with that. Perhaps you can point out how my statement re Christianity and Islam -- (This, to me, is the singularity involved with Christianity -- what makes it "different" from all other Faiths, with the exception of Islam, which it predates, and of which one of the two must be in error, since they disagree.) -- represents a "false dichotomy."

Surely since Christianity makes the claim that Jesus Christ is the Living God incarnate, and Islam makes the counter claim that He is not, then one of the two must be in error? (however much they may agree in regard to Him being a worthy teacher, example, prophet, etc. -- in regard to which they could both be in error, of course)

There is no reason to see the resurrection of Jesus as anything other than myth - nor is there any evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material.

But that begs the question, does it not? There would be "no reason to see the resurrection as anything other than myth" -- unless it was other than myth. Unless it was the truth. And if it is the truth, as it purports to be -- then of course there is every reason to believe it, and to believe in the Resurrected Christ.

Just because a claim has been made, doesn't mean that claim is true. This claim is similar to other religious claims that are not considered reality by modern Christians. As such, since the claims are similar, for example, that Augustus is the Son of God, who came to bring Salvation into the world, and saved the world from it's sins, then, we can ask to look at what the other evidence is. It SOUNDS like a religious narrative. What tangible and objective evidence do we have that it is something more? I have not seen any evidence that it is more than a narrative. Claims that are given easily and without tangible evidence can be dismissed easily and without tangible evidence.

Did he claim it - or was it claimed for him by those who wrote the myth fron the oral traditions?

That is indeed the question, no? "What do you make of this man, Jesus Christ?" You indicate that there is "no evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material." But that is simply not so. There is a mountain of evidence, beginning with the testimony of witnesses to the event, who lived lives of incredible hardship as as result of what they bore witness to, and many of whom died as martyrs to their testimony. But not before these simple and ordinary men (Paul being the exception on that count) established a belief that would transform the Roman Empire, and through it (first) the Western World, and is even now working to transform the world at large, one life a a time, by manner of which countless individuals have professed an encounter, and relationship with, the Risen Christ.

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.

[bernee51]

Thanks much for the welcome, bernee. I trust my visits will be enlightening.

You can be of assistance with that. Perhaps you can point out how my statement re Christianity and Islam -- (This, to me, is the singularity involved with Christianity -- what makes it "different" from all other Faiths, with the exception of Islam, which it predates, and of which one of the two must be in error, since they disagree.) -- represents a "false dichotomy."

They could both be in error.

Surely since Christianity makes the claim that Jesus Christ is the Living God incarnate, and Islam makes the counter claim that He is not, then one of the two must be in error? (however much they may agree in regard to Him being a worthy teacher, example, prophet, etc. -- in regard to which they could both be in error, of course)

There is no god.

There is no reason to see the resurrection of Jesus as anything other than myth - nor is there any evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material.

But that begs the question, does it not? There would be "no reason to see the resurrection as anything other than myth" -- unless it was other than myth. Unless it was the truth. And if it is the truth, as it purports to be -- then of course there is every reason to believe it, and to believe in the Resurrected Christ.

The 'no reason' is based on 40+ years of study. meditation and self-inquiry. There is no 'unless'. The god concept has evolved as society has evolved. The god/man artifact predates christianity.

As there is no evidence outside the claims made in the promotional material of the christian religion - and abundant evidence from archeology, sociology, psychology and philosophy of teh origins of religious belief and the god concept, 'unless' need not be considered.

Did he claim it - or was it claimed for him by those who wrote the myth fron the oral traditions?

That is indeed the question, no? "What do you make of this man, Jesus Christ?" You indicate that there is "no evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material." But that is simply not so. There is a mountain of evidence, beginning with the testimony of witnesses to the event, who lived lives of incredible hardship as as result of what they bore witness to, and many of whom died as martyrs to their testimony.

Which eye witnesses?

Dying for a belief does not make that belief true.

But not before these simple and ordinary men (Paul being the exception on that count) established a belief that would transform the Roman Empire, and through it (first) the Western World,...

Are you familiar with the early history of christianity. What percentage of the RE were thought to be christian 300 years after Christ?

....and is even now working to transform the world at large, one life a a time, by manner of which countless individuals have professed an encounter, and relationship with, the Risen Christ.

The primary purpose of religion is to bring meaning and legitamacy to the lives of the beleivers in the face of the apparent sufferings of the world.

This does not mean it is based in fact - it merely means it is believed.

I have no doubt that the writers of the gospels wrote what they believed and believed what they wrote. Just as you do.

[Cathar1950]

Welcome to the forum Volbrigade.

I am not sure if this sis he right thread for you as it is not a preaching thread where you just witness your faith and ritualistically present your interpretations as facts.

Granted the OP is baiting the Bible Believing Christian playing their selective reading and interpretation where the purpose is their own claims.

All the questions raised are hardly new and argued even within Christian circles of scholarship and only entertain the naive and disturb the feathers of the believer.

I am guessing you are largely reading the Gospel of John into the details of the other gospels especially when reading into them a presumed interpretation. I am pretty sure even the unknown writer of the fourth gospel had the same idea of divinity you hold or identify Jesus with God in the manner you do.

submit these two:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Whatever is begotten is the same as that which begets it. E.g., fish beget fish; horses beget horses; man begets man.

What is "begotten" (not "created") by God is God.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)

This is a clear assertion by Jesus to be the God of Scripture, and cannot be interpreted any other way.

The Bible's sole purpose is to declare the Divinity of Jesus. Everything else in it -- the moral statutes, the history, the sublime poetry -- are mere happy by-products of this ultimate purpose.

I believe we have a thread devoted to the ‘�I AM�. I like the translation in the Hebrew where God will become what He will become, the great “I will be� or “I will become� so to speak.
But if anything in the other gospels even remotely resembles anything Jesus might have said then “The Gospel of John� doesn’t. Of course there was Abraham sacrificing his “only begotten Son: and a number “only begotten� mentioned in the Hebrew writings.
I was just reading how it was related to “beloved� and “first born� as it related to child (offspring) sacrifices to Yahweh.
The point I am trying to make is that you are wrongheaded and mistaken.

That is indeed the question, no? "What do you make of this man, Jesus Christ?" You indicate that there is "no evidence in support of the story other than religious promotonal material." But that is simply not so. There is a mountain of evidence, beginning with the testimony of witnesses to the event, who lived lives of incredible hardship as as result of what they bore witness to, and many of whom died as martyrs to their testimony. But not before these simple and ordinary men (Paul being the exception on that count) established a belief that would transform the Roman Empire, and through it (first) the Western World, and is even now working to transform the world at large, one life a a time, by manner of which countless individuals have professed an encounter, and relationship with, the Risen Christ.

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