• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Do Some Doubt The Deity of Christ?

Faust

Active Member
Iris89 said:
Why Do Some Doubt The Deity of Christ?
Hi Iris,
You continue to ignore me but I'm not going to give up.
I'll refrase my post and ask you a question.
Why do some insist on the deity of Jesus when the very first chapter, the first page, the first book of the New Testament plainly states that Jesus is the son of Joseph, not God, a man?
Could it be that you don't have an answer?
My post is a direct response to your question, using the bible as source material.
I seem to be the only poster that you are ignoring. Why?
Faust.
P.S. This would also mean that the virgin birth is errant based on inspired scripture.
Faust.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
Because the history of Jesus is unevidenced, the deity of Jesus is certainly unevidenced, and the New Testament is rather bad story telling.
At first sight that statement seems acceptable; however, what 'evidence' do you require to have proof of something?
If I went out to a third world nation and told the natives of of that nation that the world was flat, and that the sky was merely the inside of a dome, I am certain that a large proportion would belive me.
How distrustful must you be in order not to be 'fooled'?:)
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
The bible is not the source we're looking for here. Of course there are eyewitness accounts in the Bible...can you say 'agenda'?
There were people running round at the time this all happened writing stuff down all over the place...you could probably find a clay tablet somewhere with a restaurant menu on it, and yet outside of a book containing what would today pass for tabloid worthy news (Man Raises The Dead!'Lazarus says,'I thought I was a goner for sure.' see pg 3 for details) there is no documentation supporting a person who raised the dead, healed the blind and meandered out of his own grave after his death.
One biased source does not proof make.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
I haven't been watching this thread very closely, and I have yet to respond to it, so forgive me If I repeat something. But Faust's last post has compelled me to contribute, so here goes.

You have to distinguish between the spiritual realm and the physical. The relationship between Jesus' deity and his humanity is a delicate, and sometimes difficult, issue. It can be difficult to grasp the concept of being both ALL man and ALL God. He had the body, the flesh, of a man, knowing every temptation and feeling every pain that we today know, but fully resisting sin, performing miracles, etc. with the full power of God. It can be a hard thing to grasp. Born physically of man, yet still God himself.

Also, not directed toward Faust necessarily, but I have an additional question for the topic at hand. Isaiah 7:14 states that a virgin will give birth to a sun and his name will be Immanuel which literally translates as "God is with us." What do you think of this?
 

Faust

Active Member
Linus said:
Also, not directed toward Faust necessarily, but I have an additional question for the topic at hand. Isaiah 7:14 states that a virgin will give birth to a sun and his name will be Immanuel which literally translates as "God is with us." What do you think of this?
Hi Linus,
In the Hebrew translation (almah) reads" young woman".Almah is translated into parthenos in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
In order to keep the post on track, I'll mention that Luke 3:23-38 also gives the geneology of Jesus (with a few variations). Luke however goes so far as to trace Jesus's lineage all the way back to Adam and thus God as he identifies Adam as the son of God.
The problem is that Luke also identifies Joseph as the father of Jesus.
I used the book "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels as my source for this information.
Faust.
 

anders

Well-Known Member
True, Faust. Modren translations write "The young woman is pregnant", like in the Swedish "Bibel 2000". Also, the boy was named Yeshua, not Immanu El, so the Isaiah verse doesn't fit him.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
I still don't think you are getting my point. Mary was a virgin who gave birth to a child concieved by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). Isaiah here is prophesying the virgin birth of Jesus. And Isaiah says that his name (figureatively speaking, of course... we all know His real name was Jesus) will be "God is with us". What does that say? What does it imply about Jesus' nature?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Linus said:
Isaiah 7:14 states that a virgin will give birth to a sun and his name will be Immanuel which literally translates as "God is with us." What do you think of this?
I've always loved that particular prophesy. It shows how some Christians will grab a single verse and ignore the following content
Isaish 7 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria."

18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [f] -the king of Assyria-to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats.
You are saying that
  • Jesus, at one time did not know right from wrong
  • That the king of Assyria was present while Jesus learned of right and wrong
  • Jesus eats curds and honey after he acquires a morality
  • Flies and bees arrived
  • Hair will be cut off
  • Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Now please show me the accomplished prophesy,with all the details, in the New Testament.
 

Faust

Active Member
Hi Linus,

I'm afraid you don't get what I'm saying. Matthew and Luke tried to make a connection to the prophesy in Isaiah by giving the lineage of Jesus but they named Joseph as his father, therefore Jesus according to the Bible was fathered by a man.
Secondly, apparently the authors of Matthew and Luke only had access to the Greek translation of Isaiah because the Hebrew translation of Isaiah says young woman, not virgin as translated in the later greek version.
Faust.
 

tearsofbezz8833

New Member
The bible is pretty easy to read and understand, maybe they just don't believe. I think that they don't believe in him because he has been gone for over 2000 yrs, and hasn't said a word sense, where is he now if he is a GOD!
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
I still don't think you are getting my point. Mary was a virgin who gave birth to a child concieved by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). Isaiah here is prophesying the virgin birth of Jesus. And Isaiah says that his name (figureatively speaking, of course... we all know His real name was Jesus) will be "God is with us". What does that say? What does it imply about Jesus' nature?
Of all the prophecies in the bible, I would say that these are the most easily forged.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Faust said:
I'm afraid you don't get what I'm saying. Matthew and Luke tried to make a connection to the prophesy in Isaiah by giving the lineage of Jesus but they named Joseph as his father, therefore Jesus according to the Bible was fathered by a man.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. And you are partially correct. Jesus' legal father was Joseph. But you are wrong in that Joseph was also the bioligical father of Jesus. Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20). This all happened, it says, before Joseph an mary had consumated their marriage.

You seem to be focusing on Jesus' humanity as proof of his not being God. Now, don't get me wrong. Jesus' humanity was a very important part of who he was. If He were not ALL man, then he would not have suffered as a man, and could not relate to us, nor us to Him. But there are sever indications that Jesus was God. Here they are:

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

This passage has no doubt been discussed here on this thread before, but I will say once again that this passage refers to Jesus being the Word and how Jesus was God, was with God, and (in the following verses) came to earth and was flesh.

2. John 10:33 - The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.

This verse shows that those around Jesus thought that He was proclaiming to be God. The jews themselves thought he was teaching it. And what's more interesting is the fact that Jesus doesn't deny it.

3. Mark 2:7 - "why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Here Jesus had just told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. The people watching this assume that since Jesus is claimning to forgive sins, then He must be claiming to be equal with God. Again, Jesus, does not deny it.

Faust said:
Secondly, apparently the authors of Matthew and Luke only had access to the Greek translation of Isaiah because the Hebrew translation of Isaiah says young woman, not virgin as translated in the later greek version.
Faust.
I am aware of this. The greek translations do not use the word virgin, but it is implied within the historical context. Thes writers lived in a different culture and time than we do, so the linguistic implications can be difficult to decipher. I think that Mary's virginity is implied through the use of the word maiden/young woman. Besides, according to Matthew 1:18 she was a virgin anyway.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
I believe the whole virgin Mary tale is based upon a mistranslation.


[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] In addition, the author of Matthew uses a mistranslation of an Old Testament prophecy to reinforce his belief in the virgin birth. He quotes from Isaiah, "therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). The original Hebrew text of Isaiah uses the word "almah" which refers to a young woman of marriageable age, not the word "bethulah" which means virgin. However, the author of Matthew was using the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. It inaccurately used the Greek word "parthenos" for "almah", thereby strongly implying virginity. The actual text of Isaiah, however, makes no reference to a virgin becoming pregnant other than by normal means. Some modern translations of the Bible, which are based on the original Hebrew text, replace the word "virgin" with the more accurate translation, "young woman".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

St Jerome (A monk responsible for some NT translation) himself admitted the mistake stating in his memoirs that it was however too late to own up to it.

[/font]
 

Hope

Princesinha
linwood said:
I believe the whole virgin Mary tale is based upon a mistranslation.[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
[/font]
Hmmm....interesting mistranslation indeed, but does not nullify the 18th, 19th, and 25th verses of the first chapter of Matthew, which clearly state Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Even remained so until after Jesus was born.
 

Hope

Princesinha
Was reading through this thread, and just find it amusing, as no one is getting anywhere with their arguments, because if you are determined enough to believe something ( or not believe something ), no amount of evidence or non-evidence is going to convince! :rolleyes:
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Hope makes a good point. The Matthew passage doesn't really use the word "virgin". It simply states that they had not "come together" which I think signifies the same thing. It even states that Joseph was going to put her away because of her supposed virginity and pregnancy.
 

Hope

Princesinha
Linus said:
Hope makes a good point. The Matthew passage doesn't really use the word "virgin". It simply states that they had not "come together" which I think signifies the same thing. It even states that Joseph was going to put her away because of her supposed virginity and pregnancy.
Yay for Linus! I am not the only one then that read those verses and got that out of them....;)
 
Top