Proof Jesus Wasn't God

[FerventGodSeeker]

Then that is a mistake with the translation. You claim that the Holly Ghost inspired the bible authors to write. Dont you see the irony? The Quran, was a verbal revelation. The Bible according to christians was an inspiration. John has a dream of Jesus, so he writes it down. Etc. Huge mistake.

The Bible wasn't written in English. I don't know why this seems so chronically difficult for Muslims to figure out. A mistake in a translation does not equate to a mistake in the original writings.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

And who told you that Jesus is the God of the OT? Jesus did? Did Jesus say I am the God of OT? Jesus never said to be God never mind being the God of the OT!

Christ did, in fact, claim to be the I AM of the Old Testament.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Moon women Im dizzy from what uve said ur going everywhere. But no, if Jesus isnt the son of God which he isnt, that doesnt mean he was a lunatic God forbid or a liar. He never claimed to be. But to sum it up for you:

"No man hath seen God at any time (John 1: 18)
" (God) whom no man hath seen, nor can see .,."I TIMOTHY 6:16

John clarifies that He is indicating the Father there later on in his Gospel, as I already pointed out and you gave no response to. Once again, if no man has seen the Father, but people have clearly seen God, who did they see? This is no contradiction as Muslims are so quick to conclude, but merely requires a bit of critical thinking.

Job 25:4-6 (New King James Version)


4 How then can man be righteous before God?
Or how can he be pure who is born of a woman?
5 If even the moon does not shine,
And the stars are not pure in His sight, 6 How much less man, who is a maggot,
And a son of man, who is a worm?”

This is indicative of a general principle about universal sin. It does not invalidate the deity of Christ in any way. You're not seriously claiming that, according to this verse, no human can EVER be pure or righteous, are you? Do you really, honestly think that's what this is is saying that that is the historical interpretation of this passage?

You see YOU have made Jesus into a God. He never claimed to be. And than you say well if he wasnt God than he was a liar. Noo, it just means that you have been decieved by your scholars, starting with Paul the man who contradicts Jesus himself thousands of time.

And yet you just quoted him to attempt to demonstrate your "contradiction" about God never being seen...if he's such a liar, stop quoting him.

Jesus informed the child that his sins are forgiven. If I tell someone there debt is cancelled that doesnt mean I cancelled it. And Muslims do not belive that the Bible we have today is the exact same word of God bestowed upon Jesus. We believe the Bible is corrupt, simple proof is its contradictions and absurdities and erotic stories.

The context of the passage makes it clear that He wasn't simply announcing the forgiveness without bestowing it. When the people question how He could forgive sins, He responded, "What is easier, to forgive sins or to heal a lame man?" (paraphrased) and then proceeded to heal the man before Him. If He healed the man, which is clear, then there is no reason to assume that He didn't also forgive the same man's sins, and only God can forgive sins.

Thomas wasnt talking to Jesus. Thomas being the doubtfull that he was, was shocked when he saw Jesus so cried out in shock oh my God! Not adressing Jesus but adressing God. As we would say today, OMG!

Thomas did not merely say, "Oh my God!" (Jews in that time would never use the term God in that way as we do in modern English-speaking societies today). The text says quite plainly that Thomas answered Jesus as said TO HIM: "My Lord and My God!" (John 20:28) The text plainly testifies to the fact that Thomas was speaking to Jesus. Jesus was and is Thomas' Lord and God.

The book of Rev was no more then a dream John had. It speaks of creatures with eyes on the inside and eyes on the outside. Sometimes when you have a little too much to eat this happens.

And the Quran was no more than a book of stories and teachings from Muhammad after claiming to receive a vision from an angel. Millions of people have claimied to have had visions. See how easy it is to paint with such big, broad strokes?

Was this written by Jesus? No, by Paul. Paul the problem. He tells u in his book to believe whatever Paul tells you to believe, think whatever he tells you to think, and do whatever he tells you to do.4:9 WHo is he?! He was one of the most people who HATED JESUS the he claimed to have herd Jesus's voice so he converted to Christianity AS HE CLAIMS.

Ah, so obviously anyone who converts to Christianity after being opposed to it can't be trusted.

 

[sojourner]

(In this country, anyway), the burden of proof lies upon the accuser. Prove that Jesus isn't God.

 

[logician]

"Prove that Jesus isn't God."

No god exists, therefore, the supposed Jesus cannot be god.

 

[may]

"Prove that Jesus isn't God."

No god exists, therefore, the supposed Jesus cannot be god.

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

You alone are the Most High over all the earth.psalm 83;18
(Isaiah 42:8) "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.

 

[sojourner]

"Prove that Jesus isn't God."

No god exists, therefore, the supposed Jesus cannot be god.

Once again, the burden of proof lies upon the accuser. Prove there is no God.

 

[FatMan]

There are a number of disappointments i have with this thread, but the chief one is that it was billed "Proof Jesus Wasn't God", and the thread starter has failed miserably in the attempt to prove this.

I feel like I've gone into Sam's Club to get a $1,000 big screen Plasma TV on ad and I go home with a Watchman.

 

[michel]

I can't speak for Muslims, obviously, but I believe that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins and still isn't God Himself. Clearly someone out there believes that God does indeed "delegate" such things, although I would say it's more like God sends a Messenger on a Mission From God, as it were.

I don't go along with the notion common in Muslim circles that the Bible has been subject to wholesale editing or distortion, but a Baha'i reading and a Muslim reading of the NT in regards to Jesus' statements about His nature and actions that indicate His nature are not so far off that I find Islam's (the user, not the religion!) basis for his understanding to be, impossible, totally unreasonable, or devoid of merit.

The textual evidence we have about Christ's nature *is* paradoxical at times, and that makes it difficult to resolve issues about His nature (as the history of the early Church makes obvious, yes?).

I'll just say that it's not exactly an issue that keeps me up nights, as my view of those few figures like Christ is that we can never fully understand their nature any more than my cats can understand what it is to be a human.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand as much as we can, in my view, but to hang on to a particular and very specific view to the point where we start abusing and killing each other is probably not what God had in mind either.

I believe that Jesus is God (or, if it helps, an aspect of him); God did say "I am the Alpha and the Omega"..........and that is what I believe; God is everything, and everyone.

At the end of time, we will be in heaven (which is to say that we will be 'joined' to God, as well - like Christ is now); the "Equal power" (IMO) of Christ and God is in the "And on the third day, he rose again, to sit at the right hand of God........", which means that he has equal power.

 

[may]

I believe that Jesus is God (or, if it helps, an aspect of him); God did say "I am the Alpha and the Omega"..........and that is what I believe; God is everything, and everyone.

At the end of time, we will be in heaven (which is to say that we will be 'joined' to God, as well - like Christ is now); the "Equal power" (IMO) of Christ and God is in the "And on the third day, he rose again, to sit at the right hand of God........", which means that he has equal power.

At the end of his Millennial Reign, he "hands over the kingdom to HIS God and Father," subjecting himself to the "One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."—1Co 15:21-28. i think Jesus is subject to his Father Jehovah

 

[may]

I believe that Jesus is God (or, if it helps, an aspect of him); God did say "I am the Alpha and the Omega"..........and that is what I believe; God is everything, and everyone.

At the end of time, we will be in heaven (which is to say that we will be 'joined' to God, as well - like Christ is now); the "Equal power" (IMO) of Christ and God is in the "And on the third day, he rose again, to sit at the right hand of God........", which means that he has equal power.

At the end of his Millennial Reign, he "hands over the kingdom to HIS God and Father," subjecting himself to the "One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."—1Co 15:21-28. i think Jesus is subject to his Father Jehovah

 

[logician]

"Once again, the burden of proof lies upon the accuser. Prove there is no God"

No, the burden of proof is on the positive assertion, not the negative, if you have firm evidence that god exists, please lay it before us.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

At the end of his Millennial Reign, he "hands over the kingdom to HIS God and Father," subjecting himself to the "One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."—1Co 15:21-28. i think Jesus is subject to his Father Jehovah

You're right, He is subject to the Father for the time being, but only because He chose to subject Himself: "...but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:7-8

Just as God the Father is all in all, so is Christ. (Colossians 3:11)

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

"Once again, the burden of proof lies upon the accuser. Prove there is no God"

No, the burden of proof is on the positive assertion, not the negative, if you have firm evidence that god exists, please lay it before us.

If you have firm evidence that God does not exist, please lay it before us. If you are going to make the assertion that God does not exist, with no evidence to support your claim, then at best, you can realistically only say you don't know.

 

[logician]

In science, you prove the positive, not the negative. If one asserts that the moon is made of green cheese, then it is up to him/her to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. The same is true with god-believers, it's up to them to prove it, not up to me to disprove it.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

In science, you prove the positive, not the negative. If one asserts that the moon is made of green cheese, then it is up to him/her to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. The same is true with god-believers, it's up to them to prove it, not up to me to disprove it.

If you don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese, one would expect that you feel you have a better idea as to what the moon is made of, since you're so convinced it's not green cheese.
If I assert that God exists, I should have evidence to support that position. If you assert that God doesn't exist (not simply that He may not, or that you don't know if He does), then you should have evidence to support that position.

 

[logician]

There's plenty of evidence supporting non-existence of some god.

1. Unnecessary suffering of millions of people.
2. There would be no doubt by anyone if an omnipotent god wanted us to know it
existed - however, there is doubt by many.
3. No evidence of a creation event that needed a god - the multiverse is now considered by many to be infinite it time and space.
4. No physical manifestation of a god that exists in other than mythology.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

There's plenty of evidence supporting non-existence of some god.

Sure, SOME god, but not all gods...until you have evidence that universally rules out all gods, I'm not seeing how you have basis to support complete Atheism.

1. Unnecessary suffering of millions of people.

Suffering of one being does not disprove the existence of another.

2. There would be no doubt by anyone if an omnipotent god wanted us to know it
existed - however, there is doubt by many.

People doubt any number of things that are obvious all the time, often irrationally. Doubt in some does not prove that the thing they doubt is untrue. Unless you'd like us all to be robots who are forced to believe by God, you should be thankful.

3. No evidence of a creation event that needed a god - the multiverse is now considered by many to be infinite it time and space.

And its considered by many (if not most) to have had a beginning...I guess this isn't an open and shut case.

4. No physical manifestation of a god that exists in other than mythology

One man's mythology is another man's history.

 

[mr.guy]

There's plenty of evidence supporting non-existence of some god.

1. Unnecessary suffering of millions of people.
I don't see how that poo-poo's god. What if he likes suffering?

2. There would be no doubt by anyone if an omnipotent god wanted us to know it
existed - however, there is doubt by many.
It can be difficult to anticipate or sympathise with the insecurities of an omnipotent being; which is to say, he has none. However, some neurotic archtypes do like to fabricate strife. Or maybe this universe is just god's therapy until he gets over his shyness?

3. No evidence of a creation event that needed a god - the multiverse is now considered by many to be infinite it time and space.
Tricky. Mercifully, god can work mysteriously. Poof!

4. No physical manifestation of a god that exists in other than mythology.Poor guy, can't get noticed at the dances either, i'll bet. I don't blame him for flooding and burning the place; how desperate he must be for some attention.

 

[logician]

"What if he likes suffering?
"

Then it is not a god, it is a demon.

"Or maybe this universe is just god's therapy until he gets over his shyness?
"

Xianity seems to think god is not shy, so why doesn't everyone believe in the Xian god, if it is all-powerful? Is it too weak to convince the rest of us?

"Tricky. Mercifully, god can work mysteriously. Poof!"

The multiverse neither needs or wants a god.

"I don't blame him for flooding and burning the place"

Or more likely, these are natural phenomenon.