• 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!

Top Ten Reasons Why Jesus is Not God

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
its not true, you have a very small view of God if you think Jesus can be God, God is God of the whole universe, not just earth. Jesus may well have been Gods primary ambassador to earth, but earth is just one puny planet in God's whole universe, unless as I said you think God is some grey haired old man sitting on a throne in heaven
 

sooda

Veteran Member
actually he did
Before Abraham was I AM (a title of God)

Are you so certain that you know exactly what was meant? I AM could be the higher spirit of man... That something that makes us different from animals... conscientiousness??? Does that word work?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
actually he did
Before Abraham was I AM (a title of God)
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was saying that He existed before Abraham was born, and that is true because the soul of Jesus existed in the spiritual world before Abraham was born, since Jesus had pre-existence.
But that does not mean that Jesus was God.

You might want to read this article: The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was saying that He existed before Abraham was born, and that is true because the soul of Jesus existed in the spiritual world before Abraham was born, since Jesus had pre-existence.
But that does not mean that Jesus was God.

You might want to read this article: The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ

The enemies of Jesus knew exactly what he meant and picked up rocks to stone him.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Are you so certain that you know exactly what was meant? I AM could be the higher spirit of man... That something that makes us different from animals... conscientiousness??? Does that word work?

His enemies knew what he meant and picked up rocks to stone him
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The enemies of Jesus knew exactly what he meant and picked up rocks to stone him.
The Jewish enemies of Jesus thought Jesus was saying He was God and that is why they stoned Him. But Jesus was not saying He was God, so they misunderstood Jesus. That is explained in the following article:

Did the Jews Accuse Jesus of Claiming to Be “God” or “a God”?

May 28, 2014 by Kermit Zarley 2 Comments

The Gospel of John relates one incident in which the Jews accused Jesus of “making himself equal to God” and another incident in which they said to him, “you, though only a human being, are making yourself God” (Jn 5.18; 10.33). (All scripture quotations are from the NRSV.) Since Christians have been taught that Jesus is God, they have been taught that these Jews were correct in making these accusations. But in each instance, Jesus’ immediate response represents a denial of those allegations (Jn 5.19-46; 10.34-38). In the second incident, did they charge Jesus with making himself “God,” as has been traditionally translated, or “a god”? In the Greek text of Jn 10.33, the word for “God,” theos, does not have the article, thus making it “a god.” But English Bibles don’t translate it that way. Versions with “God’s Son” include the NIV, NRSV, NEB, and versions with “the Son of God” include KJV, NASB, ESV.

The first incident, in Jn 5.1-9, was precipitated by Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath. Then we read, “the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working’” (vv. 16-17). Thus, Jesus here calls God his Father, as he so often did, and he implicitly identifies his work as the Father’s work. Then we read, “For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (v. 18).

The author of this gospel does not mean that this was his own assessment, as most Christians have thought; rather, he means it was an incorrect assessment of the unbelieving Jews. This is proved by the two reasons given for their making such an accusation: Jesus healing on the sabbath and him calling God his Father. First, Jews had wrongly interpreted their Torah in saying that healing ought not be done on the sabbath, whereas Jesus implies in this exchange that God heals on the sabbath and that he does so through Jesus! Second, Jesus certainly didn’t make himself equal with God by calling God his Father, since he taught his disciples to do that too. So, Christians have been calling God their Father ever since, and they don’t think by doing so that they are making themselves equal with God.

Furthermore, claiming equality with God is not the same as claiming to be God. In claiming to be equal to someone, you necessarily distinguish yourself from that person. Jesus constantly distinguished himself from the “one” God of Judaism, whom he called “Father.”

In the second incident, in which the Jews accused Jesus of “making yourself God” (Jn 10.33), the Greek text has theos without the article. Ordinarily, this would be translated “a god” rather than “God.” But because most translators believe Jesus is God, they have translated it “God” rather than “a god.”

What precipitated this accusation by the Jews, in Jn 10.33? They asked Jesus to tell them plainly if he was the Messiah (Jn 10.24). He replied that he had already done so. He added that his miracles, which he had done in his Father’s name, testify to who he is (v. 25). He further added that his Father had given him his disciples, to whom he gives eternal life, and no one can snatch them out of both his hand and the Father’s hand (vv. 28-29). He concluded, “The Father and I are one” (v. 30). Some church fathers asserted that Jesus’ word “one” (Greek hen) was a claim to be of the same essence as that of the Father. On the contrary, Jesus meant he and the Father were unified in their relationship and work.

The Jews had heard the Johannine Jesus repeatedly calling God “the/my Father.” And he even discussed this with them in John 8.38-47. So, they should not be confused in thinking that Jesus believes he is God, whom he calls “the/my Father,” since he repeatedly distinguishes himself from God. So, it is more likely that the Jews accused Jesus of making himself out to be “a god” rather than “God.”

This translation, “a god,” fits much better with the scripture Jesus cited in his response. For we read, “Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”?’” (Jn 10.34). Jesus herein quotes from Ps 82.6 in which the psalmist calls the rulers or judges of Israel “gods” (Heb. elohim). The psalmist surely doesn’t intend to identify these men precisely as gods, but that they are like gods since they represent Yahweh, their God, in judging his people Israel. Jesus then explains, “If those to whom the word of God came were called gods—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (vv. 35-36). Jesus implies that it would be even more appropriate to call him “a god” in the sense the psalmist does of those rulers since he, Jesus, being sanctified and sent, has even more right to this title than they did. But Jesus then adds that he identifies himself as “God’s Son” rather than “a god.” Since he replied by quoting scripture about Israel’s rulers being called “gods,” it seems more likely that these Jews had accused Jesus of making himself out to be “a god” rather than Israel’s “God.”

Jesus is called “(the) Son (of God)” 27x in the Gospel of John, usually by Jesus himself. Every time, except twice, the word for “Son” in the Greek text, huios, has the article. The two that don’t are Jn 10.36 and 19.7, which latter is spoken by Jesus enemies. At first glance this seems odd that on this one occasion, reported in Jn 10.22-42, Jesus would call himself “son” without the article (anarthrous). However, by quoting Ps 82.6 in his reply, Jesus omitted the next portion which states, “and all of you sons of the Most High,” in which the article is also absent. Therein, the psalmist identifies Israel’s judges as both “gods” and “sons” of God.” So, when Jesus next says that he claims to be “God’s Son,” the article is absent in the Greek text, thus “a son of God.” Jesus is comparing himself to those judges. We might also ask when it was that he previously identified himself as God’s Son. Jesus repeatedly did so implicitly by calling God “my Father.” But the classic text in which he expressly did so is Mt 11.27/Lk 10.22. Therein, he identifies himself as “the Son,” thus huios in the Greek text with the article. It is not that Jesus wishes to refrain from identifying himself as “the Son of God,” but that in Jn 10.36 he compares himself to the judges mentioned in Ps 82 and thereby accommodates himself to that text by saying “a son of God.”

Furthermore, Matthew reports concerning the crucified Jesus, “the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself…. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, “I am God’s Son”’” (Mt 27.41-43). Again, huios in the Greek text is without the article. Those enemies likely would not have mocked him by saying that he trusts in God if those Jews mentioned in Jn 10.33 had believed he made himself out to be God.

To sum, Jesus’ interlocutors in Jn 10.33 more likely accused him of making himself out to be a god rather than the God of Israel. And Jesus likely responded by calling himself “a son of God” in parallel to Ps 82 from which he quoted. Nevertheless, Jesus is “the Son of God” par excellence, and a huge majority of the huios texts applied to Jesus in the Greek New Testament so identify him.

(To see a titled list of over fifty, two-three page posts (easily accessible) about the Bible not saying Jesus is God, click here.)

Did the Jews Accuse Jesus of Claiming to Be “God” or “a God”?
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
its not true, you have a very small view of God if you think Jesus can be God, God is God of the whole universe, not just earth. Jesus may well have been Gods primary ambassador to earth, but earth is just one puny planet in God's whole universe, unless as I said you think God is some grey haired old man sitting on a throne in heaven

Jesus even has the title "God with us"
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The Jewish enemies of Jesus thought Jesus was saying He was God and that is why they stoned Him. But Jesus was not saying He was God, so they misunderstood Jesus. That is explained in the following article:

Did the Jews Accuse Jesus of Claiming to Be “God” or “a God”?

May 28, 2014 by Kermit Zarley 2 Comments

The Gospel of John relates one incident in which the Jews accused Jesus of “making himself equal to God” and another incident in which they said to him, “you, though only a human being, are making yourself God” (Jn 5.18; 10.33). (All scripture quotations are from the NRSV.) Since Christians have been taught that Jesus is God, they have been taught that these Jews were correct in making these accusations. But in each instance, Jesus’ immediate response represents a denial of those allegations (Jn 5.19-46; 10.34-38). In the second incident, did they charge Jesus with making himself “God,” as has been traditionally translated, or “a god”? In the Greek text of Jn 10.33, the word for “God,” theos, does not have the article, thus making it “a god.” But English Bibles don’t translate it that way. Versions with “God’s Son” include the NIV, NRSV, NEB, and versions with “the Son of God” include KJV, NASB, ESV.

The first incident, in Jn 5.1-9, was precipitated by Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath. Then we read, “the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working’” (vv. 16-17). Thus, Jesus here calls God his Father, as he so often did, and he implicitly identifies his work as the Father’s work. Then we read, “For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (v. 18).

The author of this gospel does not mean that this was his own assessment, as most Christians have thought; rather, he means it was an incorrect assessment of the unbelieving Jews. This is proved by the two reasons given for their making such an accusation: Jesus healing on the sabbath and him calling God his Father. First, Jews had wrongly interpreted their Torah in saying that healing ought not be done on the sabbath, whereas Jesus implies in this exchange that God heals on the sabbath and that he does so through Jesus! Second, Jesus certainly didn’t make himself equal with God by calling God his Father, since he taught his disciples to do that too. So, Christians have been calling God their Father ever since, and they don’t think by doing so that they are making themselves equal with God.

Furthermore, claiming equality with God is not the same as claiming to be God. In claiming to be equal to someone, you necessarily distinguish yourself from that person. Jesus constantly distinguished himself from the “one” God of Judaism, whom he called “Father.”

In the second incident, in which the Jews accused Jesus of “making yourself God” (Jn 10.33), the Greek text has theos without the article. Ordinarily, this would be translated “a god” rather than “God.” But because most translators believe Jesus is God, they have translated it “God” rather than “a god.”

What precipitated this accusation by the Jews, in Jn 10.33? They asked Jesus to tell them plainly if he was the Messiah (Jn 10.24). He replied that he had already done so. He added that his miracles, which he had done in his Father’s name, testify to who he is (v. 25). He further added that his Father had given him his disciples, to whom he gives eternal life, and no one can snatch them out of both his hand and the Father’s hand (vv. 28-29). He concluded, “The Father and I are one” (v. 30). Some church fathers asserted that Jesus’ word “one” (Greek hen) was a claim to be of the same essence as that of the Father. On the contrary, Jesus meant he and the Father were unified in their relationship and work.

The Jews had heard the Johannine Jesus repeatedly calling God “the/my Father.” And he even discussed this with them in John 8.38-47. So, they should not be confused in thinking that Jesus believes he is God, whom he calls “the/my Father,” since he repeatedly distinguishes himself from God. So, it is more likely that the Jews accused Jesus of making himself out to be “a god” rather than “God.”

This translation, “a god,” fits much better with the scripture Jesus cited in his response. For we read, “Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”?’” (Jn 10.34). Jesus herein quotes from Ps 82.6 in which the psalmist calls the rulers or judges of Israel “gods” (Heb. elohim). The psalmist surely doesn’t intend to identify these men precisely as gods, but that they are like gods since they represent Yahweh, their God, in judging his people Israel. Jesus then explains, “If those to whom the word of God came were called gods—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (vv. 35-36). Jesus implies that it would be even more appropriate to call him “a god” in the sense the psalmist does of those rulers since he, Jesus, being sanctified and sent, has even more right to this title than they did. But Jesus then adds that he identifies himself as “God’s Son” rather than “a god.” Since he replied by quoting scripture about Israel’s rulers being called “gods,” it seems more likely that these Jews had accused Jesus of making himself out to be “a god” rather than Israel’s “God.”

Jesus is called “(the) Son (of God)” 27x in the Gospel of John, usually by Jesus himself. Every time, except twice, the word for “Son” in the Greek text, huios, has the article. The two that don’t are Jn 10.36 and 19.7, which latter is spoken by Jesus enemies. At first glance this seems odd that on this one occasion, reported in Jn 10.22-42, Jesus would call himself “son” without the article (anarthrous). However, by quoting Ps 82.6 in his reply, Jesus omitted the next portion which states, “and all of you sons of the Most High,” in which the article is also absent. Therein, the psalmist identifies Israel’s judges as both “gods” and “sons” of God.” So, when Jesus next says that he claims to be “God’s Son,” the article is absent in the Greek text, thus “a son of God.” Jesus is comparing himself to those judges. We might also ask when it was that he previously identified himself as God’s Son. Jesus repeatedly did so implicitly by calling God “my Father.” But the classic text in which he expressly did so is Mt 11.27/Lk 10.22. Therein, he identifies himself as “the Son,” thus huios in the Greek text with the article. It is not that Jesus wishes to refrain from identifying himself as “the Son of God,” but that in Jn 10.36 he compares himself to the judges mentioned in Ps 82 and thereby accommodates himself to that text by saying “a son of God.”

Furthermore, Matthew reports concerning the crucified Jesus, “the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself…. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, “I am God’s Son”’” (Mt 27.41-43). Again, huios in the Greek text is without the article. Those enemies likely would not have mocked him by saying that he trusts in God if those Jews mentioned in Jn 10.33 had believed he made himself out to be God.

To sum, Jesus’ interlocutors in Jn 10.33 more likely accused him of making himself out to be a god rather than the God of Israel. And Jesus likely responded by calling himself “a son of God” in parallel to Ps 82 from which he quoted. Nevertheless, Jesus is “the Son of God” par excellence, and a huge majority of the huios texts applied to Jesus in the Greek New Testament so identify him.

(To see a titled list of over fifty, two-three page posts (easily accessible) about the Bible not saying Jesus is God, click here.)

Did the Jews Accuse Jesus of Claiming to Be “God” or “a God”?


and let me get this straight... you believe Jesus ... but not anyone Jesus trained or commissioned to teach????? ... Is that believing?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
you have a quote for that or did your religion just make it up??
He didn't just make it up...

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
Matthew 1:20-23
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
So let me get this straight, basically Jesus said he wasn't God, but you don't believe Jesus' own words, you believe what someone else thought about Jesus, and believe them more than you believe Jesus, typical Christian!!
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So let me get this straight, basically Jesus said he wasn't God, but you don't believe Jesus' own words, you believe what someone else thought about Jesus, and believe them more than you believe Jesus, typical Christian!!
It does not MATTER what Jesus said... I just got asked to leave a Christian forum, not because I posted ANYTHING about Baha'i, but because I posted what Jesus said we need to do to get to heaven.... They don't want to hear that, they want the free ride Paul told them they could have. :rolleyes:
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
...Jesus never claimed to be God....
A. He who has seen Me has seen the Father. (John 14:9)
B. I and My Father are one. (John 10:30)
C. I am He (the Father). (John 13:19)
D. I am in the Father and the Father in Me. (John 14:11)
E. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. (John 12:45)
Sorry, I did not see anything there...
Of course you didn't, and at the same time other folks did.

While we can agree that the nature of the Divine is not something we put up to a vote, we could also agree that when many people look at reality we end up w/ a better when we reconcile different observations. One man can say a coin is flat and another can say it's round. Rather than insisting that it's one or the other the better course is understanding why the coin can be both flat and round at the same time.

It's the difference between arguing whether God's on our side, and simply deciding to be on God's side.
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
...I just got asked to leave a Christian forum, not because I posted ANYTHING about Baha'i, but because I posted what Jesus said...
The local Jehovah's Witnesses seemed to have flagged my house as some kind of 'no-go' zone. They used to come over to my house & I'd welcome them in to study the Sacred Text together, but my agreeing w/ them was never enough. As it turned out the goal wasn't just our being right, but rather my being wrong.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Clearly, Jesus was more than a man. It is my belief that Jesus was made of the substance of God, but that does not mean that all of God became a man.

God is Spirit. The Spirit of God remains in His Own High Place in heaven and does not ever descend to earth. God manifested Himself as the man Jesus, who had a divine nature. Jesus represented God on earth and Jesus perfectly reflected all of God's attributes, so in that sense Jesus was God.


All the New Testament resurrections Jesus did were physical up till then. There were 3 such described. There were another 2 from Peter and Paul. All physical.

There were 2 Old Testament resurrections also physical but I will grant that the vision of dry bones in Ezekiel is a resurrection of another sort and possibly best understood not as you are describing but giving life to Israel

I do think one difference is Jesus would have a body that was made for eternity. The previous resurrected people would live their lives and die

However the threads context was a Muslim video concerning this topic and a Muslim would not believe in Jesus pre-existence in being the word that made the universe the 'let there be' of the Father and a Muslim would not believe the world was made FOR Jesus as the New Testament claims.
 
Top