Top Ten Reasons Why Jesus is Not God

[Spartan]

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." - Jesus, Revelation 1:8

And that is God Almighty!

 

[Lyndon]

Jesus didn't say that.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you have a better grasp of all that than an All-Knowing God who created humans?

How could anyone know?

I do however know that I have a better grasp of those matters than Islaam, as defined by the Qur'an, does.

It is no big feat, either. I just noticed the parts that are ill informed, unrealistic or contradictory and applied a bit of reason and logic to them.

Anyone can do it if he has access to the text , has even basic awareness of the involved subjects, and has attained a modicum of honesty.

That is backwards; because God created humans, humans cannot create God.

Saying that does not really tell much, if anything. You may want to elaborate or comment to clarify what you mean.

After all, humans have created literally thousands of deities. Muslims and Bahais, of all people, should know that and realize that such a fact is unremarkable.

Whether, why and how Allah from the Qur'an would be any different is something that should be demonstrated. And it has - in the negative, as most ex-Muslims will readily tell you.

It is very interesting and remarkable how former Muslims, perhaps more than any other group, usually turn fed up with both theism and religion entirely. No wonder, either, given what they have been taught to acknowledge as if it were religion and what god-concept they have been told to treat as the one and only.

God is transcendent.
God is useful for inspiration for most people in the world.
God does not have roles, only humans have roles.
God does not cause side-effects in human history. Humans cause those.

So twisted, so naive.

 

[sooda]

48 minutes of the Muslim perspective?

To learn about God, no less?

Sorry, but if I felt the urge to learn about God, that is exactly where I would not go to.

Whether you believe what Muslims teach or not, their beliefs are logical.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your oxymoron is noted.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[sooda]

For one thing, he does not have a good grasp of either human nature nor of theology. Nor of religion, for that matter...

Perhaps ironically, it has particularly strong marks of being entirely human-made.

Of more interest to me personally, it is also quite divorced from the main constructive roles that a deity could have: it does not understand transcendence, and it is only barely useful for inspiration, and even then with the most destructive side-effects known in human history.

Seems to me that ALL religion seeks to tame and manage "human nature" out of necessity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Whether you believe what Muslims teach or not, their beliefs are logical.

Uh, no, they are not.

They do not even try, really.

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems to me that ALL religion seeks to tame and manage "human nature" out of necessity.

Ugh, no. What a thought.

Not that this has anything to do with what I said, mind you. Being of human origin is hardly a flaw in religion, although many people try to convince themselves otherwise.

 

[sooda]

Uh, no, they are not.

They do not even try, really.

Sure they are. They don't blame Eve.. they hold Adam an
Eve equally accountable and that they were forgiven so there is no original sin. Every person is responsible to God for his own sins. God doesn't eat nor is he fed so they don't believe innocent blood ameliorates sin.

 

[sooda]

Ugh, no. What a thought.

Not that this has anything to do with what I said, mind you. Being of human origin is hardly a flaw in religion, although many people try to convince themselves otherwise.

Really? Then why the long list of women that man cannot sleep with?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Who is God married to in heaven so he could have a son in heaven??

Wrong use of the word Son. Son may be seen as a type of.
There is a large genre of prophesy in the Old Testamant that is a king is blameless keeping the law then God will be a Father to such a king. This points to Jesus who is sinless and in the line of King David and therefore fitting to be 'the Son of God' on more than one level

A fulfillment of the promises to David. A means of revealing God.
And why not? God became like a burning Bush to speak to Moses, why not become a man to speak to the world? Man being made in the image of God although a tarnished image, the Son of God could redeem that.

Top 10 reasons Jesus is God!

 

[Trailblazer]

How could anyone know?
I do however know that I have a better grasp of those matters than Islaam, as defined by the Qur'an, does.

It is no big feat, either. I just noticed the parts that are ill informed, unrealistic or contradictory and applied a bit of reason and logic to them.

Anyone can do it if he has access to the text , has even basic awareness of the involved subjects, and has attained a modicum of honesty.

No big feat to know MORE than the Qur'an, which is the Word of God?
There is not much more I can say.

Saying that does not really tell much, if anything. You may want to elaborate or comment to clarify what you mean.

After all, humans have created literally thousands of deities. Muslims and Bahais, of all people, should know that and realize that such a fact is unremarkable.

Whether, why and how Allah from the Qur'an would be any different is something that should be demonstrated. And it has - in the negative, as most ex-Muslims will readily tell you.

It is very interesting and remarkable how former Muslims, perhaps more than any other group, usually turn fed up with both theism and religion entirely. No wonder, either, given what they have been taught to acknowledge as if it were religion and what god-concept they have been told to treat as the one and only.

What I meant is that humans cannot LITERALLY create a God or gods...
All they can do is imagine them, but that does not make them REAL.

Muslims do not believe that their religion is the "one and only" although they do believe that their conception of God, the little they are able to know about God, is accurate, as described in the Qur'an. Moreover, they believe that there is only One True God. That is similar to the Baha'i beliefs.
So twisted, so naive.

No, so logical, to anyone who knows about the One True God and how He operates.

 

[Firemorphic]

I do however know that I have a better grasp of those matters than Islaam, as defined by the Qur'an, does.

But you clearly don't, as made gapingly obvious by your misrepresentation of the concept of Allah as a "guy", which categorically is antonym to Tawhid (as stated).
Either you're intentionally dishonest or just naive.

However replies like this certainly don't help your credibility towards Islam: Top Ten Reasons Why Jesus is Not God

 

[Pete in Panama]

...Baha'is do not believe in the Divinity of Christ....

Maybe, but at the same time most Baha'is would want to be understood as saying that they do in fact believe in the divinity of Christ (from page 67 of this book here):

Bahá’u’lláh Supports Jesus’ Claim to Be God
Bahá’u’lláh refers to Christ as ...Lord of the visible and the invisible... (Gl, p 56) and...the Lord of all being... (ESW, p 100).

....Jesus was not God. Jesus never claimed to be God....

Sure he did (from page 64 of this book here)::

I. Jesus was 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)​

--and he also said he was not God:

A. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who Is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared him. (John 1: 18)
B. I am going to the Father, for My Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
C. I can of Mine own self do nothing...not My own will, but the will of the Father which
has sent Me. (John 5:30)
D. I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. (John 8:28)
E. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,
but the Father only. (Matt 24:36) (If Jesus was God, Incarnate, He would know all God knows.)
F. And when He had sent them away, He departed into a mountain to pray. (Mk 6:46) (Does Jesus pray to Himself?)
G. My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? (Mk 15:34)​

​

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong and ur and idiot. I'm saying you're a smart guy, you're right, and even a smart guy can't say everything in just one post.

 

[Trailblazer]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Tsk tsk...
First of all, it would be correct to say that Jesus is deity incarnated in a human body. He is not "man" in the complete species sense of the intended meaning of that scripture.

Jesus was deity manifested in a human body, but He was not deity incarnated in a human body.

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…..

The New Testament, similarly, contains statements where Jesus describes Himself as God, and others where He makes a distinction between Himself and God. For example, 'I and the Father are One (John 10:30); and 'the Father is in me, and I am in the Father (John 1038); but on the other hand, 'the Father is greater than I (John 14:28); and 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). These statements do not contradict, but are complementary if one assumes they assert an epistemological oneness with God, but an ontological separateness from the Unknowable Essence.

The Christian concept of the Trinity arose out of the need to explain statements such as these. The earliest Christians tended to be "binitarian," that is, they stressed the Father and the Son. The third person of the Trinity was added because of the experience of the Spirit in Christian worship and in order to explain many doxologies and expressions used in worship that included the Holy Spirit…”
Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings​

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”

As that video noted, one can use the scriptures to MEAN anything they want them to mean, but they have to be taken in their full context and in context with all the other scriptures in the Bible.

However, you are correct, if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences.

Jesus was the Son of man, so "one like a son of man" who is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne was the second coming of Christ who would come and fulfill the Daniel 7:13. It would not be the same Jesus, it would be another man who had some differences.

“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related. At this time, however, David crieth aloud and saith: ‘O my loving Lord! Do Thou number me with such as have stood steadfast in Thy Cause, O Thou through Whom the faces have been illumined, and the footsteps have slipped!’” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 89-90
​

Please note that none of the verses below are in the first person; they are all Jesus saying the Son of man will appear or you shall see him... None of them say “you will see ME coming.” Rather they refer to the Son of man in the third person.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
​

Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. The term “clouds” means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men, things that cloud one’s mind and judgment. These clouds are “veils” to recognition of the return of Christ, just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun.

These verses clearly explain why Baha'u'llah was not recognized by Christians; their judgment was clouded because they were waiting for the same Jesus to return, since they misapprehended so many Bible verses. Moreover, they wanted what they wanted, which was the same Jesus they knew, but Jesus never promised to return; not once in the NT did Jesus ever say He would return. The return of Jesus in the same body was became a Church doctrine because Christians misconstrued their scriptures.

The reason Jesus was speaking in the third person is because Jesus never planned to return to earth Himself. He clearly stated that His work was finished here and He was no more in the world.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.​

In addition, at the time Numbers 23:19 was written, God had not yet become man (Christ), so the statement does not necessarily preclude a future incarnation.

The nature of God is unchanging so God does not just suddenly wake up one day and decide to become a man. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason why God would want to become a man or need to become a man.

The Bible was misconstrued by Christians early on and then it became a Church doctrine that God became a man. The Church needed God to become a man for their own purposes because they believed that was necessary for salvation; but it was not necessary for God to become a man for salvation, as Jesus conferred salvation as a Manifestation of God, just as God intended Him to do.

That Jesus became God is the product of man-made Church doctrines, it is not in the Bible as Jesus never said He was God. Others said that about Him because they misunderstood the scriptures.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Jesus was deity manifested in a human body, but He was not deity incarnated in a human body...

imho that's an elegant way of putting it, and my bet is that most folks will either accept reality and agree or will disagree so as to chose conflict.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Jesus said that God was greater than He was:”

Jesus was God before he incarnated as a servant (Philippians 2). So Jesus was speaking of the Father in comparison to his temporary servant status. Thus, your example is of no avail.

Jesus was never God. That was all a man-made doctrine of the Church. Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be like God or One with God but that does not mean He was God in the flesh. The Bible says that God is Spirit so we know that God is not flesh.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Jesus is asking a rhetorical question. And the answer is that because Jesus is God, then he is good. In fact, Jesus was without sin, because he was incarnated by God, the Holy Spirit.

No, clearly Jesus is differentiating Himself from God in this verse by saying that the only one who is good is God. Otherwise, Jesus would have said: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but me, that is, God.”

But that would not make sense anyway, because the two sentences would be contradictory.

But that does not mean that Jesus was not good. In Mark 10:18 Jesus was speaking from the station of a Servant of God, so He was humbling Himself before God. Jesus had several stations, and throughout the NT He spoke from these stations: Jesus spoke as a Messenger of God, a Servant of God, and as a Manifestation of God in the flesh who spoke with the Voice of God.

Jesus was without sin, but it was not necessary for Jesus to be God to be sinless. It was also not necessary for Jesus to be God in order to confer salvation. God gave Jesus a mission and Jesus accomplished that mission, to bear witness to the truth about God and to confer salvation upon humanity.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.​

Jesus did not deny that He was a king but rather He answered indirectly, as was His way of communicating, but Jesus had already answered that question in the previous verse when He said:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

If the kingdom of Jesus was not of this world, then Jesus could not be the king of this world. Jesus said twice in that one verse that His kingdom was not of this world, yet Christians STILL want Jesus to return and be king of this world. But it is not going to happen, because Jesus never planned to return after He finished His work (John 17:4, John 17:11). In this case, Jesus was not indirect in His speech, He was very clear because it was important that people understand that He was not coming back.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe, but at the same time most Baha'is would want to be understood as saying that they do in fact believe in the divinity of Christ (from page 67 of this book here):Sure he did (from page 64 of this book here):

Sorry, I did not see anything there that says that Jesus was God.

--and he also said he was not God:

Sorry, but Jesus could not be BOTH God and not God, because those are logically contradictory.
Jesus was either God or not God.

The Baha'i belief is based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote, which is very clear and unequivocal. God cannot become flesh, God manifests Himself in a man who comes in the flesh.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49”

 

[Jim]

Clearly, Paul and the Church had an agenda, and they misrepresented who Jesus was.

I disagree. I don’t think that Paul misrepresented who Jesus was.

Baha'is do not believe in the Divinity of Christ.

I’m a Baha’i, and I believe in the divinity of Christ.

I also would like people to know that in my understanding of what Bahá’u’lláh says, it’s contrary to His purposes and prescriptions to debate with people about theology, and debating about theology is not part of any Baha’i training nor is it being promoted by any Baha’i institutions. Baha’is who debate about religion in Internet discussions are doing it entirely on their own initiative, and in my understanding, contrary to Baha’u’llah’s purposes and prescriptions. In particular, it appalls me to see a Baha’i positioning us on the side of one religion against another. She can say what she wants to say, and her views are Baha’i views as much as mine are, but I want people to know how another Baha’i, me, feels about what that Baha’i is saying and doing.

 

[Jim]

I just want people to know that debating about God and religion is not part of anything that is being promoted by Baha’i institutions, it is not part of any Baha’i training, and in my understanding as a follower of Bahá’u’lláh, it is contrary to His purposes and prescriptions.