Jesus Is NOT GOD (my rant)

[goraya15]

1. The Bible clearly says that God is One.

Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord. (Deutronemy, 6).

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me (Isaiah, chapter 45)

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the lord our God is one Lord.

From here we're going to have a bunch of people say that God and Jesus are one and the same, so there is no contradiction. In other words, they bring up the Trinity, or say that Jesus was God personified.

Well, God Almighty has called other prophets is son's before Jesus, and prophets before Jesus have also called God their Father. Does this mean that they are the literal son's of God? No! But here I find that most people will say that this language was used symbolically in their sense, but literally in the case of Jesus, even though there is no precedent.

I have found David my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him. With whom my hand shall be established, mine arm also shall strengthen him. And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him...He shall cry unto me, Though art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also, I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth. (psalms 89, 20-27)

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about, for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his Father, and I will establish the throne of his kindgdom over Israel forever. (Chronicles 22, 9-10)

To further support this, the bible also clears up any misunderstandings by saying that not only is Jesus not the son of God in the literal sense, He is the Son of Man.

The son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say... (Matthew 11)

The book of generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew 1, 1) (Is this to be taken in the literal sense of the word of well is you believe Jesus to be the son of man and god simultaneously?)

People also say that Jesus was god (god forbid) because he performed many miracles, classifying him as a deity and not a human being.

The bible also speaks of Elijah performing many miracles, such as in Kings 17, where he ate from a barrel for many days that would have otherwise should have gone empty. It further says that Elijah healed a sick boy, practically "raising the dead". Should this not constitute Elijah as God as well?

To further this, even regular people can show miracles according to the bible, miracles as great as even Jesus showed. Would this make them God as well?

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief, for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
(Matthew 17).

If this isn't even enough, according to the bible, even false prophets and show miracles. Noone would go around to deify false prophets, would they?

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Matthew, 24)

Now, if you take every word of the bible as literal, then you will have to admit that God not only had one son, but he had several sons, and that Jesus was both god, son of God and son of man altogether. Here is where the Trinity comes into play. Apparently, St. Paul, creator of the Trinity, couldn't reconcile all the different names of Jesus, and invented the trinity to account for them all. The trinity itself is one of the most confusing and paradoxical things about christianity, and takes a certain knack of double-think (1984, for those who didn't catch that) to be able to entertain the thought.

I do not wish to hurt anybody's feelings or offend anybody's beliefs, believe me, please. I just wish to help people back to the truth, and as the Quran says, there is nothing worse then Shirk, or associating someone with Allah.

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently, St. Paul, creator of the Trinity, couldn't reconcile all the different names of Jesus, and invented the trinity to account for them all.

Where on earth did you pick up this little gem? Paul no more created the concept of the Trinity than I did. There is not one shred of evidence that he even believed such a thing.

The trinity itself is one of the most confusing and paradoxical things about christianity, and takes a certain knack of double-think (1984, for those who didn't catch that) to be able to entertain the thought.

I agree, but you should know that not all Christians believe in the Trinity.

 

[xexon]

A leaf on the tree is not the tree, but it is still intimately connected to the whole.


x

 

[Tiberius]

A leaf on the tree is not the tree, but it is still intimately connected to the whole.


x

Ah, but the leaf is not the same as the tree and the tree is not the same as the leaf.

 

[love]

ONE can not be three. Can three be ONE?

 

[Mister Emu]

From here we're going to have a bunch of people say that God and Jesus are one and the same, so there is no contradiction. In other words, they bring up the Trinity

How'd you know!? Are you reading my mind!?

(Is this to be taken in the literal sense of the word of well is you believe Jesus to be the son of man and god simultaneously?)

We believe Jesus to be both man and Divine simultaneously...

People also say that Jesus was god (god forbid) because he performed many miracles, classifying him as a deity and not a human being.

I don't know of anyone who says Jesus was divine because of the miracles, there are many miracles performed throughout the Bible by regular men...

Now, if you take every word of the bible as literal, then you will have to admit that God not only had one son, but he had several sons, and that Jesus was both god, son of God and son of man altogether.

Ahh but only one begotten son... and the rest, yes.

Here is where the Trinity comes into play. Apparently, St. Paul, creator of the Trinity, couldn't reconcile all the different names of Jesus, and invented the trinity to account for them all.

Paul did not create the Trinity... no one, and nothing did

The trinity itself is one of the most confusing and paradoxical things about christianity, and takes a certain knack of double-think (1984, for those who didn't catch that) to be able to entertain the thought.

I disagree.

Oh... by the way the Bible specifically states that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[goraya15]

Where on earth did you pick up this little gem? Paul no more created the concept of the Trinity than I did. There is not one shred of evidence that he even believed such a thing.

This is from http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_7.html

Early Christians appear to have been fundamentally divided over both the nature of Jesus and whether to adhere to the Mosaic Law or not. In the second phase of Christian development, St. Paul acquired the most pivotal character in giving Christianity a new philosophy and ideology. There were fundamental differences of opinion between Paul and James the Righteous. While James looked after the Jerusalem Church, Paul was preaching in the West, particularly to the gentiles. The Western Church evolved along Pauline doctrinal lines, whereas the Church in Jerusalem developed along monotheistic teachings. One offshoot of James’ ministry were the Ebionites, a sect whose name derives from the Hebrew ebionim meaning ‘the meek’ or ‘the poor’. They were the Jewish Christians, for whom Jesus took on the mantle of Messiah and not that of the ‘Son of God’. They followed the Mosaic law with great zeal, and had their own Gospel known in various contexts as the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, ‘Gospel of the Ebionites’ or the ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’. Here is a description of the Ebionites drawn from various sources.
In his book The History of the Church written in the 4th century AD in Ceasaraea, Eusebius mentions the Ebionites in Book 3, Vespasian to Trajan. He mocks their views, saying that their name comes from their poor and mean opinion of Jesus. The Ebionites regarded Jesus as mortal and esteemed him as righteous through the growth of his character. As Jews, they observed the Sabbath; every detail of the Law, and did not accept the Pauline idea of salvation through faith alone. He also talks of another group of Ebionites who accepted the virgin birth and the Holy Spirit, but refused to accept Jesus’ pre-existence as ‘God the Word and Wisdom’. They followed a ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ which could possibly have been St. Matthew’s Gospel. They observed the Sabbath and the Jewish system, but celebrated the resurrection.1
In his book describing the background of the Ebionites, R Eisenman in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered writes that James (the ‘Zaddik’ or ‘Zadok’, meaning Righteous) was the leader of the Jerusalem Church in the middle of the first century (40–60 AD approx.) The branch which was retrospectively called Jewish Christianity in Palestine. The Ebionites developed from this branch.2
The Community who followed James were known as ‘the Poor’, (Galatians 2:10, James 2:3–5) a designation mentioned both in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In many ways, Eisenman feels that the Ebionites were similar to the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They honoured James the Righteous, and believed Jesus to be their mortal Messiah, while Paul had become an Apostate for the Law. They observed the Law and the Sabbath with great zeal.
They held James in the highest regard, while Paul was considered ‘The Enemy’, (Matt 13:25–40).
According to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in The Messianic Legacy, the source of the original teachings of the Ebionites, Gnostics, Manicheans, Sabians, Mandeans, Nestorians and Elkasites has been described as the Nazarene philosophy. They refer to Nazarene thought as:
‘An orientation towards Jesus and his teachings which derives ultimately from the original Nazarene position, as articulated by Jesus himself, then propagated by James, Jude or Judas Thomas and their immediate entourage.’ Their beliefs were:

1. strict adherence to the Mosaic Law
2. recognition of Jesus as Messiah
3. belief in the normal human birth of Jesus
4. hostility towards Pauline views

There is a collection of Arabic manuscripts kept in a library in Istanbul which contains quotes from a 5th or 6th Century text ascribed to the ‘al-nasara’, written in Syriac and found in a monastery in Khuzistan in south-west Iran near the Iraq border. It reflects the views of the Nazarene hierarchy escaping from Jerusalem after the destruction in 66 AD. It refers to Jesus as a human being and stresses the Judaic Law. Paul’s followers ‘abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards the religious doctrines of the Romans.’4
Of all the various doctrines which evolved during the formative stages of Christianity, only those who believed in the Nazarene philosophy can justifiably be given preference. These early Christians were taught the meaning of Christianity by Jesus himself.
The Role of St. Paul
Evidently St. Paul and his school do not belong there. In fact, from the time of St. Paul onwards, as Christianity spread to alien lands and pagan faiths within the Roman Empire, it began to be powerfully influenced and bent by the cultures and mythologies prevalent in those lands and went further away from its nascent purity. St. Paul did his bit in influencing the deterioration of the Christian thought by introducing his own brand of mysticism. He was neither of Jewish stock nor did he have any direct contact with Jesus, except through his claimed vision. He was already, it seems, under the powerful influence of the alien cultures.
Apparently there were two options available to St. Paul, either to fight the strenuous battles against a world of superstitions, myths and legends prevalent in the lands of the Roman Empire from times immemorial or to give in to them and let Christianity change to suit their requirements and ambitions. This gave them the message that Christianity was not essentially different from their legends and myths. He found the adoption of the second option far more profitable and convenient and let Christianity change to suit the ambitions and philosophies popular in the gentile world.
This strategy worked well in as much as it gained a great number of converts to the new faith which otherwise would not have been easily available. But at what cost. Unfortunately, it ended up only in an unholy competition between noble Christian values and pagan myths. What St. Paul changed was only the names of the pagan gods and replaced them with Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost. It was not him in fact who invented the myth of Trinity and introduced it to the pagan world in the name of Christianity, on the contrary he borrowed the myth of the Trinity from pagan mythology and bonded it to Christianity. From then on it was the same old paganism but with new names and new faces.
Pauline Christianity, therefore, did not succeed in changing the doctrines, myths and superstitions of the pagan world but only ended in changing Christianity in accordance with them. If the mountain did not respond to his call, he decided to go to the mountain.

1. Eusebius, The History of the Church pages 90–91, (Penguin 1989)
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, R. Eisenman and M. Wise, pg 186, (Element Books, 1992)
3. Ibid. pg 233–34
4. The Messianic Legacy. M. Baigent, R. Leigh, H. Lincoln, pg 135–138 (Corgi Books)

 

[love]

Can a carnal flesh be God?
Even though God entered the egg of The Chosen Virgin Mary, He was still born of the flesh that must die. Our bodies were not made for His Kingdom. Through His life and death He prepared a way for us. This was not a job that God would delegate to any man. Such is His love.

 

[goraya15]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Using this quote is just going to make the conversation go in circles. I'm going to say, yes, the quote is true, but where do you go about making the "Word" mean Jesus, if you are so inclined to take the Bible in it's literal terms in every other sense? The "Word" here means exactly that; the word of god. I take it that this verse means that there is no discrepancy between the word of God (his revelation, his knowledge) and God (his actions, think nature and stuff). Hmm...seems a lot like something that Islam claims

And about Jesus being the only begotten son...What do you mean by begotten? Cause it's sounding an awful lot like your saying that Jesus is the literal son of God, which takes us way back to my first post in this topic. If you say Jesus is the literal son, you also must say that Soloman and others are also his literal sons, thus being Part-god themselves.

 

[Mister Emu]

but where do you go about making the "Word" mean Jesus,

Further in John it says so.

What do you mean by begotten?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son...

That is what I mean by begotten...

 

[Booko]

1. The Bible clearly says that God is One.

Um....ok.

I do not wish to hurt anybody's feelings or offend anybody's beliefs, believe me, please. I just wish to help people back to the truth, and as the Quran says, there is nothing worse then Shirk, or associating someone with Allah.

Oh, I should think genocide would rank right up there.

 

[goraya15]

Can a carnal flesh be God?
Even though God entered the egg of The Chosen Virgin Mary, He was still born of the flesh that must die. Our bodies were not made for His Kingdom. Through His life and death He prepared a way for us. This was not a job that God would delegate to any man. Such is His love.

...I don't get what your trying to say . Are you saying that God Himself would lower himself to the level of a human, and be born to a women, soil himself as a child and needed to be waited on hand and foot as a child so he wouldn't die as he couldn't fend for himself? I find that extremely hard to believe. Especially since God had been sending messengers and prophets before Jesus for God knows how many years to spread his teaching to earlier peoples. What was the need to suddenly "come down" himself and impersonate a human prophet? Were prophets of old not doing their job properly before Jesus?

 

[goraya15]

Oh, I should think genocide would rank right up there.

Hmm...definitely a big no-no, but that is a sin against mankind first, God second. Shirk is a sin against God himself, which is why it is ranked number one. As the Kalimah says (the first hing required to be a muslim in the eyes of the Prophet Muhammad SAW) "There is no God but Allah (First thing to not do is shirk) and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (everything else)"

 

[love]

...I don't get what your trying to say . Are you saying that God Himself would lower himself to the level of a human, and be born to a women, soil himself as a child and needed to be waited on hand and foot as a child so he wouldn't die as he couldn't fend for himself? I find that extremely hard to believe. Especially since God had been sending messengers and prophets before Jesus for God knows how many years to spread his teaching to earlier peoples. What was the need to suddenly "come down" himself and impersonate a human prophet? Were prophets of old not doing their job properly before Jesus?

Don't forget He bleed too.The "prophets of old" did their job just fine.

 

[lunamoth]

...I don't get what your trying to say . Are you saying that God Himself would lower himself to the level of a human, and be born to a women, soil himself as a child and needed to be waited on hand and foot as a child so he wouldn't die as he couldn't fend for himself? I find that extremely hard to believe. Especially since God had been sending messengers and prophets before Jesus for God knows how many years to spread his teaching to earlier peoples. What was the need to suddenly "come down" himself and impersonate a human prophet? Were prophets of old not doing their job properly before Jesus?

Actually, this is the expression of the Love of God in Jesus. That God is not the God 'out there,' far removed from human life and death, but the God 'right here,' God with us, touching us and sharing in our suffering.

Hard to believe, sure.

But what an amazing Grace.

 

[Katzpur]

What St. Paul changed was only the names of the pagan gods and replaced them with Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost. It was not him in fact who invented the myth of Trinity and introduced it to the pagan world in the name of Christianity, on the contrary he borrowed the myth of the Trinity from pagan mythology and bonded it to Christianity. From then on it was the same old paganism but with new names and new faces.

Okay, I see what you're getting at, but there is far more to the doctrine of the Trinity than a belief in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Granted, pagan influences definitely infiltrated the early Christian Church, but you're going to have a heck of a hard time convincing me that Paul was to blame.

 

[lunamoth]

Okay, I see what you're getting at, but there is far more to the doctrine of the Trinity than a belief in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Granted, pagan influences definitely infiltrated the early Christian Church, but you're going to have a heck of a hard time convincing me that Paul was to blame.

I think that the essence of the Trinity was there in the beginning Katz, part of the earliest worship. The first use of the term "Trinity" is attributed to Tertullian (who, ironically, was later deemed a heretic).

 

[love]

Hmm...definitely a big no-no, but that is a sin against mankind first, God second. Shirk is a sin against God himself, which is why it is ranked number one. As the Kalimah says (the first hing required to be a muslim in the eyes of the Prophet Muhammad SAW) "There is no God but Allah (First thing to not do is shirk) and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (everything else)"

You know? That just doesn't make sense to me. God doesn't need anyone to tell Him He is God. How can anyone think He is sitting around waiting on His scheduled puppet show and doesn't have time to see the carnage that is committed in His name.

 

[goraya15]

Okay, I see what you're getting at, but there is far more to the doctrine of the Trinity than a belief in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Granted, pagan influences definitely infiltrated the early Christian Church, but you're going to have a heck of a hard time convincing me that Paul was to blame.

Sorry if I sounded accusatory. Maybe I came off a bit harsh. St. Paul was a great advocate of Christianity, and spread the religion to many, many people. In my eyes, he was a great preacher. I am not saying that Paul was some kind of person who sold out his religion. Perhaps he was only trying to make the religion easier to understand for pagans who understood nothing else except polytheism. My only fault with him is that he did not complete his message to these people after they understood the basic gist of it, allowing the trinity to evolve into what it is today.

 

[goraya15]

You know? That just doesn't make sense to me. God doesn't need anyone to tell Him He is God. How can anyone think He is sitting around waiting on His scheduled puppet show and doesn't have time to see the carnage that is committed in His name.

Granted, genocide is not pretty, and is condemned by all religions that I know of. But know that in Islam, Shirk is the "seed" from which all other vices grow out of. It cannot happen that a people who truly believe that God is One, and as such is the Lord of the World and ascribe to Him everything else that is a sign of his unity, would ever condone genocide. Thus, genocide can be seen as an offshoot of shirk, albeit one that is more subtle then someone who outrightly pronounces that he believes in a being who is comparable to God Almighty. Hope this clears it up.