Christians claim that Jesus was God. Let us see if there is any justification for this strange claim. If Jesus really was God it is very strange that he never said so. There is not one place in the whole of the Bible where Jesus simply and unambigously says, 'I am God.' Christians will object to this and say that Jesus often called himself or was called the Son of God. However, the Bible clearly shows that any good person who had strong faith qualified to be called a Son of God. For example, Jesus called Adam a son of God (Lk. 3:38).

It will happen that in the very place where it was said of them, 'You are not my people' they will be called 'sons of the living God' (Rom. 9:26).

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven (Matt 5:44-45).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26).

You are God's; you are all sons of the Most High(Ps. 82:6).

Jesus is called God's 'only begotten son' but even this is not unique. In the Psalms God says to King David, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you' (Ps. 2:7). Further, Jesus distinctly said that when he called himself a son of God he did not mean he was God or related to God in a literal sense. When the Jewish priests criticized him for claiming to be equal with God, Jesus said:

Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods?' If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? (Jn. 10:34-36).

Christians will protest that in these quotes 'son of god' is not written in capitals but when Jesus makes his claims capitals are used thus, 'Son of God'. But capital letters to make a phrase outstanding or to give it emphasis is an innovation of modern English. In ancient Greek and Aramaic, the languages in which the New Testament was written, capital letters were never used and so the distinction between 'son of god' and 'Son of God' did not exist. Christians make an enormous fuss about Jesus' claims to be a son of God but as we can see, there is absolutely nothing unique in this claim. Christians could say that the term Son of God is used in the Bible in two different ways - as a title for a particularly holy person and for the actual son of God, Jesus, who was with God in heaven before coming to earth. But even in this second sense Jesus was not unique. The Bible tells us that God had numerous sons with him in heaven who later came to earth and lived with humans just as Jesus is supposed to have done.

When mankind began to increase and spread all over the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; so they took for themselves such women as they chose (Gen 6:1-3)

In the Bible Jesus is called the Son of Man more than eighty times. Yet the Bible also tells us that in the eyes of God the Son of Man is no thing more than a worm (Job, 25:6). How can Christians claim that the Son of Man is God when the Bible itself says that the Son of Man is nothing more than a lowly worm?

Christians will then insist that Jesus was called the Messiah and that this proves he was God. The Hebrew word mashiah of which the Greek translation is christos simply means 'anointed one', and refers to anyone sent by God to help the people of Israel. Even a non-Jew could be and sometimes was called a Messiah. The Bible even calls the pagan Persian King Cyrus a Messiah because he let the Jews return to their homeland (Is. 45:1). So just because Jesus was called the Messiah does not prove he was God. In fact, throughout the Bible Jesus goes out of his way to make it clear that he was not God. When someone called Jesus 'good teacher' he said:

Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Lk. 18:19).

Now if Jesus was God why would he deny that he was good? We are told that Jesus prayed but if he was God why would he need to pray to himself? And when Jesus prayed, he said to God, 'not my will but yours' (LK. 22:42). Quite clearly he was making a distinction between God's will and his own. Jesus said that no one has even seen God (Jn. 1:18), meaning that when people saw him they were not seeing God. Again Jesus said that he can do nothing without God.

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father do (Jn. 5:19).

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me (Jn. 5:30).

I can do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me (Jn :28).

If Jesus was God he could do anything he wanted to do and in these passages and dozens of others he is making it as clear as crystal that he is one thing and God another. Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I' (Jn. 14:28) emphasizing again that he was not as great as God and therefore different from him. He says:

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Lk. 12:10).

Now if Jesus and the Holy Spirit were the same, to blaspheme one would be the same as blaspheming the other. In the Bible we are told that no one born of a woman can be pure (Job, 25:4). Jesus was born of a woman, his mother Mary, so he likewise must have been impure and if he was impure how could he be God? We are told that Jesus was dead for three days before ascending into heaven. How can God possibly die? Who was looking after the universe while he was dead? Jesus said that at the end of the world he would be sitting at the right hand of God to judge the world (Lk. 22:69). If Jesus and God are the same, how would it be possible for them to sit besides each other? To do this they would have to be seperate and different. And anyway, David is described to be anything other than a Good human being (Ps. 110:1). We are told that Jesus stands between God and man.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

This passage clearly states that Jesus is not God for if he was, how could he stand between God and men? It also specifically calls Jesus a man (see also Acts, 17:30-31). In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt. 1:16, Lk 3:23) we are given the name of Jesus' father, his father's faith, and so on, back through many generations. If God was really Jesus' father, why does the Bible list all of Jesus' ancestors on his father's side? Christians are forever claiming that Jesus is God and at the same time that he is the son of God. But how is this possible? How can a father be his own son and himself all at the same time? And to make matters more confused, the Holy Spirit is brought in and we are asked to believe that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all different and yet all the same. The Jewish and particularly the Islamic concepts of God are much more logical than this in that they say that God is unambiguously unitary and one, has no gender and he does not have children.

The claim of Christians that Jesus is God contradicts what the Bible says, it goes against common sense and it raises numerous logical and theological problems. Whereas if we see Jesus as he was, an outstanding teacher, reformer and prophet, none of these problems arise.

How did people come to believe Jesus is God then?

It seems inconceivable today that a mere human being could be regarded as a god but the situation was very different in the past. During the time of Jesus Israel was a land in political and social turmoil. Most people were ignorant and superstitious and wild rumours were readily listened to and beli3ved. There were numerous people passing themselves off as prophets, messiahs, wonder workers and saviors of the Jewish nation. Some of these, like Simon Magus, were apparently able to perform miracles nearly the same as those done by Jesus (Acts,8,9,ff). Others like Theudas and Judas and Galilean attracted large followings, again just as Jesus did (Acts,5,36; Acts,5,37). One of these characters even had a name almost identical to Jesus (Acts, 13,6). When Paul and his companions healed a man in Lystra a huge crowd gathered and began worshiping them as gods. Paul was horrified and tried to explain that he and his friends were only humans but 'even these words could hardly keep the crowd from offering sacrifices to them' (Acts, 14,18). Most Roman emperors were considered divine after they died and temples were built to worship them in. Clearly this was a time when any charismatic person could attract a huge following and even be proclaimed a god. It happened to others and it happened to Jesus too.

I think you'll find that you will get more people responding to your thread if you keep your major points short, and link to an article instead of copying and pasting and passing it off as your own.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

Christians claim that Jesus was God. Let us see if there is any justification for this strange claim.

It's only a strange claim if one picks and chooses only the parts of the bible that suits his needs.

Check out this link: http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html

It makes a pretty compelling argument.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

Christians claim that Jesus was God. Let us see if there is any justification for this strange claim. If Jesus really was God it is very strange that he never said so.



Hi Twitch,

First, let me say that i'm responding as i read your post, so if i respond to something earlier and you address it farther down in your post, atleast you know that i havent quite read that far.

I'll try to be as thorough with my response as i can, but i'm not going to spend ton's of time on it. If i'm not very clear (which i think happens often), just point it out and i'll try to communicate better.

Except for the above quote, i will be using the bolding tag to indicate your statements, so that if you or anyone else replies, the reply button will automatically include the whole conversation... to me it seems that it's less of a pain to delete than to include with tags.

There is not one place in the whole of the Bible where Jesus simply and unambigously says, 'I am God.'



Sure there is... and to first century Jewish leaders, what He said was very obvious, which is the (earthy) reason that they crucified Him. One such statement that Jesus said was,

"Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. "

To get the whole context of what is going on here, read the whole chapter 8 of John.

I'm guessing that later on in your post, you've address this.. maybe not, but since it is one of the most clear passages of Jesus's claim, if you havent address this, i would be very surprised.. i guess we'll see. Moving on...

Christians will object to this and say that Jesus often called himself or was called the Son of God. However, the Bible clearly shows that any good person who had strong faith qualified to be called a Son of God.

Interesting that you say, 'Son of God' instead of 'son of God'.

For example, Jesus called Adam a son of God (Lk. 3:38).

First, let me point out that here you did use 'son' instead of 'Son'.

Second, it looks like the Greek, in these Lucian geneologies, do not actually say 'son', they say, 'of'. (to be honest and just so you know, i do not know Greek... i'm working with the books and references i have.. which include several Bible translations.. i checked it out in a few of the versions and in most, the term 'the son' is italicized, which indicates that it was a thought-for-thought translation instead of a word-for-word translation. Some of the translations try to balance thought-for-thought with word-for-word... sometimes that balance is a source of clarity and sometimes it causes misunderstanding.) Anyway, as best i understand the verse you sited would be better rendered (in a word-for-word translation),

"Luk 3:38 of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God."

(the caps in this next statement is not meant as "yelling", it's just meant in place of bolding, due to my choice of not using the quote tags and my using bolding tags)

NOT TO BE PICKY, but also when you said, "For example, Jesus called Adam a son of God (Lk. 3:38)."

It was not Jesus saying this. Luke is the one giving us the geneology (inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course). As far as i remember, i dont think we are given where Luke gets this info from (whether it was directly "dictated" from the Holy Spirit or if he got it from Mary or Jesus or where ever).

It will happen that in the very place where it was said of them, 'You are not my people' they will be called 'sons of the living God' (Rom. 9:26).

Let's look at the word that is rendered 'sons' first:

In Strong's ~~~

uihos

hwee-os'

Apparently a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son. ~~~

In Romans chapter 9, Paul is basically (atleast in terms of your thread on TOSTE) saying that that the Jews have thought that they, alone, would inherit the (new) earth, because they were (1) the choosen & (2) they thought they were a pure people, but Paul is saying that they are incorrect, and that the Genitles will also inherit it, as "adopted heirs". Verse 26 is basically repeating this. (as an aside to this response, but apropriate to the thread, look at verse 5).

May i make a suggestion? Ya gotta look at the context in which things are said (among other things). If you and I were standing face to face, and i said, "bloo", how would you know if i meant 'blew' or 'blue' or 'bleau' (sp?) ? You would understand it in context to what was said, either before or after... the same goes for understanding God's Word. Just because you see "son's of God", it doesnt mean that it is the same as "Son of God" or "of God" or whatever.

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven (Matt 5:44-45).

Although this is not my first thought on this passage, it is an indication of "free will"... it is a command that can either be obeyed or not; and that obiedience is determined by the action of the person(s) that it was directed to.

Ok, back to THIS thread..

Again, the word 'son's' or 'children' is Strong's number G5207.. uihos.

Let's look at a modern idea... in what way does a person become a 'child' of someone? Birth or adoption, right?

Looking back to your previous example (chapt 9 of Romans), could this verse apply to the concept of adoption?

Here is what John Gill wrote in his "Exposition of the Entire Bible" (catchy title, huh?) (pay particular attention to the part i bolded.. i've left the Greek words in, although totse will probably scramble and change the characters)

~~ Mat 5:45 - That ye may be the children of your father,.... Not that any became the children of God, by doing things in imitation of him: for as in nature no man becomes the son of another by imitating him, or by doing the things he does but either by birth, or by adoption; so in grace no man becomes a child of God by the works he does, as a follower of God, but by adopting grace; and which is discovered in regeneration. Christ's meaning is, that they might appear, and be known to be the children of God, by doing those things in which they resemble their heavenly Father; and which are agreeable to his nature and conduct; as the tree is known by its fruit, and the cause by its effect: for where adoption and regenerating grace take place, the fruit of good works is brought forth to the glory of God. Some copies, instead of υιοι, "children", read ομοιοι "like": and accordingly, the Persic version renders it thus, "that ye may be like your Father, which is heaven". Our Lord seems to have respect to the Jews, often having in their mouths this expression, אבינו בשמים, "our Father which is in heaven"; and to their frequent boasting that they were the children of God; and therefore he would have them make this manifest by their being like him, or acting in imitation of him;

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26).

You are God's; you are all sons of the Most High(Ps. 82:6).

This post is getting quite long. I havent looked into these, but if you'd like, i'd be happy to address them too.

Jesus is called God's 'only begotten son' but even this is not unique. In the Psalms God says to King David, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you' (Ps. 2:7).



The book of Psalms is mostly poetry, if i recall correctly, so I'm not sure (right now) how to take this one.

At first glance, i can see a couple of ways that Chapter 2 can be understood (as refering to David, or the Messiah, or the nation of Israel), and without looking at each of the definitions of each of the words in the chapter and also reading several commentaries on both the chapter and the verse, i'm going to have to say "i dont know" on this one.

But i will include the definition that Strong's has for the word rendered 'begotten'

Because i found it interesting, and i think you might, too.

H3205

yâlad

yaw-lad'

A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage: - bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).



Further, Jesus distinctly said that when he called himself a son of God he did not mean he was God or related to God in a literal sense. When the Jewish priests criticized him for claiming to be equal with God, Jesus said:

Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods?' If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? (Jn. 10:34-36).

I did expect to see this one... let me ask which version or translation you are using? Not sure, but it seems to me that this is from a JW's bible or maybe a JW's article.

And it seems like it omitted part of vs. 36, which neither concludes or denies your position of " Jesus distinctly said ...he did not mean he was God or related to God in a literal sense."

Here's the whole of verse 36 in all of the Bible translations that i have:

Joh 10:36

(ALT) [why of] whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do you* say, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am God's Son?'

(ASV) say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

(BBE) Do you say of him whom the Father made holy and sent into the world, Your words are evil; because I said, I am God's Son?

(Darby) do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?

(DRB) Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest; because I said: I am the Son of God?

(EMTV) do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

(ESV) do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

(GNT) ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασε καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον, υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰμι;

(HOT)

(ISV) how can you say to the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

(JPS)

(KJV) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

(KJV+Strong's numbers) Say3004 ye5210 of him, whom3739 the3588 Father3962 hath sanctified,37 and2532 sent649 into1519 the3588 world,2889 Thou blasphemest;987 because3754 I said,3004 I am1510 the Son5207 of God?2316

(KJVA) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

(LITV) do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God?

(LXX)

(MKJV) do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?

(Murdock) do ye say to him, whom the Father, hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said to you, I am the Son of God?

(NIV) what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

(Vulgate) quem Pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum vos dicitis quia blasphemas quia dixi Filius Dei sum

(Webster) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

(YLT) of him whom the Father did sanctify, and send to the world, do ye say--Thou speakest evil, because I said, Son of God I am?

And also, dont stop at verse 36... read the rest of the chapter (here it is in the KJV):

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Joh 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

Joh 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

Joh 10:41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.

Joh 10:42 And many believed on him there.

Christians will protest that in these quotes 'son of god' is not written in capitals but when Jesus makes his claims capitals are used thus, 'Son of God'. But capital letters to make a phrase outstanding or to give it emphasis is an innovation of modern English. In ancient Greek and Aramaic, the languages in which the New Testament was written, capital letters were never used and so the distinction between 'son of god' and 'Son of God' did not exist. Christians make an enormous fuss about Jesus' claims to be a son of God but as we can see, there is absolutely nothing unique in this claim. Christians could say that the term Son of God is used in the Bible in two different ways - as a title for a particularly holy person and for the actual son of God, Jesus, who was with God in heaven before coming to earth. But even in this second sense Jesus was not unique. The Bible tells us that God had numerous sons with him in heaven who later came to earth and lived with humans just as Jesus is supposed to have done.

So far, you (or who ever you copied this from) have shown avoidance of taking the whole context, not taking into account the original audience, and not looking at the motivation of the Jewish leaders (i.e. how they understood what Jesus had said or intended in His statements).

I do have to give you (or who ever you copied this from) credit for atleast looking at the OT for hints on understanding. However, your statement (or who ever you copied this from) But even in this second sense Jesus was not unique. The Bible tells us that God had numerous sons with him in heaven who later came to earth and lived with humans just as Jesus is supposed to have done.

Even some (if not all) of these in the OT have not been agreed upon, and have sometimes been rendered as angels, or sometimes as faithful persons.

So far i am not convince by your arguement... and not simply because of my Faith, but very much because so far the arguement is just not convincing.

If me, a "dumb truck driver" can point at that many flaws, just think how much they could be exposed by someone that has gone to school for Bible studies. My appologies if you have had formal training, but i'm doubtful that you are, for the very reasons that i've already pointed to.

When mankind began to increase and spread all over the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; so they took for themselves such women as they chose (Gen 6:1-3)

this is one that i was just talking about.

I'm not claiming i agree or disagree with John Gill, but here is what he says:

"Or "good" (k), not in a moral but natural sense; goodly to look upon, of a beautiful aspect; and they looked upon, and only regarded their external beauty, and lusted after them: those "sons of God" were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated; nor the sons of judges, magistrates, and great personages, nor they themselves, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra; but this could be no crime in them, to look upon and take in marriage such persons, though they were the daughters of the meaner sort; and supposing they..."

and his reference (k):

(k) טבת καλαι, Sept, "bonae" Cocceius



(although, i honestly do not know what that means, but maybe you are someone else on TOTSE does)

OK, i'm gonna call it quits for now. My brother and nephew just showed up for a visit.

I'll try to work on the rest later.

johnny

Just posting this as a marker to where i left off

****************************************



quote:

In the Bible Jesus is called the Son of Man more than eighty times. Yet the Bible also tells us that in the eyes of God the Son of Man is no thing more than a worm (Job, 25:6). How can Christians claim that the Son of Man is God when the Bible itself says that the Son of Man is nothing more than a lowly worm?

Christians will then insist that Jesus was called the Messiah and that this proves he was God. The Hebrew word mashiah of which the Greek translation is christos simply means 'anointed one', and refers to anyone sent by God to help the people of Israel. Even a non-Jew could be and sometimes was called a Messiah. The Bible even calls the pagan Persian King Cyrus a Messiah because he let the Jews return to their homeland (Is. 45:1). So just because Jesus was called the Messiah does not prove he was God. In fact, throughout the Bible Jesus goes out of his way to make it clear that he was not God. When someone called Jesus 'good teacher' he said:

Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Lk. 18:19).

Now if Jesus was God why would he deny that he was good? We are told that Jesus prayed but if he was God why would he need to pray to himself? And when Jesus prayed, he said to God, 'not my will but yours' (LK. 22:42). Quite clearly he was making a distinction between God's will and his own. Jesus said that no one has even seen God (Jn. 1:18), meaning that when people saw him they were not seeing God. Again Jesus said that he can do nothing without God.

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father do (Jn. 5:19).

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me (Jn. 5:30).

I can do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me (Jn :28).

If Jesus was God he could do anything he wanted to do and in these passages and dozens of others he is making it as clear as crystal that he is one thing and God another. Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I' (Jn. 14:28) emphasizing again that he was not as great as God and therefore different from him. He says:

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Lk. 12:10).

Now if Jesus and the Holy Spirit were the same, to blaspheme one would be the same as blaspheming the other. In the Bible we are told that no one born of a woman can be pure (Job, 25:4). Jesus was born of a woman, his mother Mary, so he likewise must have been impure and if he was impure how could he be God? We are told that Jesus was dead for three days before ascending into heaven. How can God possibly die? Who was looking after the universe while he was dead? Jesus said that at the end of the world he would be sitting at the right hand of God to judge the world (Lk. 22:69). If Jesus and God are the same, how would it be possible for them to sit besides each other? To do this they would have to be seperate and different. And anyway, David is described to be anything other than a Good human being (Ps. 110:1). We are told that Jesus stands between God and man.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

This passage clearly states that Jesus is not God for if he was, how could he stand between God and men? It also specifically calls Jesus a man (see also Acts, 17:30-31). In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt. 1:16, Lk 3:23) we are given the name of Jesus' father, his father's faith, and so on, back through many generations. If God was really Jesus' father, why does the Bible list all of Jesus' ancestors on his father's side? Christians are forever claiming that Jesus is God and at the same time that he is the son of God. But how is this possible? How can a father be his own son and himself all at the same time? And to make matters more confused, the Holy Spirit is brought in and we are asked to believe that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all different and yet all the same. The Jewish and particularly the Islamic concepts of God are much more logical than this in that they say that God is unambiguously unitary and one, has no gender and he does not have children.

The claim of Christians that Jesus is God contradicts what the Bible says, it goes against common sense and it raises numerous logical and theological problems. Whereas if we see Jesus as he was, an outstanding teacher, reformer and prophet, none of these problems arise.

How did people come to believe Jesus is God then?

It seems inconceivable today that a mere human being could be regarded as a god but the situation was very different in the past. During the time of Jesus Israel was a land in political and social turmoil. Most people were ignorant and superstitious and wild rumours were readily listened to and beli3ved. There were numerous people passing themselves off as prophets, messiahs, wonder workers and saviors of the Jewish nation. Some of these, like Simon Magus, were apparently able to perform miracles nearly the same as those done by Jesus (Acts,8,9,ff). Others like Theudas and Judas and Galilean attracted large followings, again just as Jesus did (Acts,5,36; Acts,5,37). One of these characters even had a name almost identical to Jesus (Acts, 13,6). When Paul and his companions healed a man in Lystra a huge crowd gathered and began worshiping them as gods. Paul was horrified and tried to explain that he and his friends were only humans but 'even these words could hardly keep the crowd from offering sacrifices to them' (Acts, 14,18). Most Roman emperors were considered divine after they died and temples were built to worship them in. Clearly this was a time when any charismatic person could attract a huge following and even be proclaimed a god. It happened to others and it happened to Jesus too.[/B]

Well, back at it..

In the Bible Jesus is called the Son of Man more than eighty times. Yet the Bible also tells us that in the eyes of God the Son of Man is no thing more than a worm (Job, 25:6). How can Christians claim that the Son of Man is God when the Bible itself says that the Son of Man is nothing more than a lowly worm?

Here is the KJV w/ Strong's numbers, of that verse:

Job 25:6 How much less637, 3588 man,582 that is a worm?7415 and the son1121 of man,120 which is a worm?8438

Notice that there are two different numbers for the two instances of the word rendered 'man' (582 for the 1st 'man' and 120 for the 2nd)? If you have access to a Strong's, you can look up these numbers, and see what the Hebrew (or Greek, but in this case, Hebrew) words.. it also gives the various definition (well, you've seen some of Strong's in the last post... mine is incorporated with the Bibles i downloaded, but i think the actual book form is kinda similar)...



H582 is 'ĕnôsh

(en-oshe')

From H605; properly a mortal (and thus differeing from the more dignified H120); hence a man in general (singly or collectively). It is often unexpressed in the English Version, especially when used in apposition with another word: - another, X thirsty, certain, chap [-man], divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the Engl. version, especially when used in apposition with another word. Compare H376.

'âdâm

aw-dawm'

From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): - X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.



and now the term for 'son'

bên

bane

From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

So, as an untrained "arm-chair scholar", it seems to me that there are two thoughts here, in context to the verse. Remember, that the 2nd 'man'in the verse.. the "son"... is the 'âdâm, and that God formed the original Adam from the dust.

Basically paraphrased, the way i see it, Bildad (one of Job's friends) is saying, "why would God care about lowly mankind, while he is alive.. and even less when a decendant of the man that God made (formed from the ground), goes to dwell with the worms?"



Remember, that the 2nd 'man'in the verse.. the "son"... is the 'âdâm, and that God formed Adam from the dust.

[b]Christians will then insist that Jesus was called the Messiah and that this proves he was God. The Hebrew word mashiah of which the Greek translation is christos simply means 'anointed one', and refers to anyone sent by God to help the people of Israel. Even a non-Jew could be and sometimes was called a Messiah.

I'm not quite sure where to look, to confirm or deny this, so right now i'm gonna have to say that i dont know.

The Bible even calls the pagan Persian King Cyrus a Messiah because he let the Jews return to their homeland (Is. 45:1).

By only looking at the vs. you've given, the reason that that king was called messiah is not given, but i would suspect that that is not the reason, or atleast not the whole reason... and i aint gonna look for it right now...

Maybe if this were your work, or you contribute to the conversation.. but as it stands, this is as far as i go.. atleast for tonight.



johnny

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I think you'll find that you will get more people responding to your thread if you keep your major points short, and link to an article instead of copying and pasting and passing it off as your own.

this is exactly what christianity is guilty of--stealing other peoples' ideas and taking forever to say nothing new. not to mention two millenia of brutality and the propagation of hatred.

christianity is shit.

I wasn't trying to pass it off as my own, I fully admit it's not. I was too tired to make my own thread though, and this article said it better than I could.

So, do i continue or not?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

So, do i continue or not?

Your decision, man, although I'm not buying a lot of your arguments.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

Your decision, man, although I'm not buying a lot of your arguments.

Care to post where and why?

Maybe "son of God" was a metaphor jesus used to help the people of the time he was in come to terms with some of the new ideas he was slingin' about?

The Bible was written by these people, it could continue this idea.

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Maybe "son of God" was a metaphor jesus used to help the people of the time he was in come to terms with some of the new ideas he was slingin' about?

The Bible was written by these people, it could continue this idea.



as "Twitch_67" pointed out, the term 'son of God' was also in the OT.... and so were those "new ideas"... Jesus explained them. Most, if not all, of the major Doctrines can be traced to Genesis chapters 1-11.

johnny

although I think its a bunch of hogwash tempered by centuries of bullshitting, the word SON isn't used as the way GOD fucked someone and conceived. Not in THAT way. Its a more 'spiritual' way.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Care to post where and why?



He apparently wasn't expecting someone with some actual knowledge of scripture to post here and decimate his plagiarized arguments.

Nice job in this thread, man. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I was wrong. We learn from our mistakes. The Bible says that he is the son of god.



edit - does anyone else find the "this message has been edited" message a big clunky looking?



[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 11-02-2006).]

As big of you as it was to admit that, what you should really take from this is that it's ignorant to post long diatribes insulting people's beliefs when you know next to nothing about them.

The Bible is an enormous series of books. You cannot go through cherry-picking scriptures in an attempt to discredit it. That cannot be done of ANY book, let alone the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As big of you as it was to admit that, what you should really take from this is that it's ignorant to post long diatribes insulting people's beliefs when you know next to nothing about them.

Well actually, the main reason I posted it was to see some responses to it. You have to have problems, if people questioning your beliefs offends you.

You weren't questioning. You were trying to make Christians look stupid. You failed, all because of your ignorance. All I'm saying is that you should probably know something about the Bible before you try and use it against Christians.

You can ask xtreem...I have NO problem defending my faith.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You weren't questioning. You were trying to make Christians look stupid. You failed, all because of your ignorance. All I'm saying is that you should probably know something about the Bible before you try and use it against Christians.

Who said I was trying to make Christians look stupid? I didn't write the article, so if the article came off as trying to make Christians look dumb - which it didn't to me - then take it out on the writer of the article.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:



Who said I was trying to make Christians look stupid? I didn't write the article, so if the article came off as trying to make Christians look dumb - which it didn't to me - then take it out on the writer of the article.

Your threads in this forum have a theme that consistently attempt to discredit Christianity and make the adherents of the faith appear moronic.

Since you copied and pasted that article, you must have agreed with it. The sad part is, you didn't know what you were talking about.

Again, educate yourself about it before attempting to argue against it. That's all. No offense, mang. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 11-02-2006).]

No, that's not so. I know for a fact that there are dumb Christians and smart Christians, just as there are dumb atheists and smart atheists. In fact, one of my friends is a Christian and has an IQ of 140. What I dislike is the extremists.

I admit, I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and it has been a very long time since I've read the Bible and I don't have too great of a memory.

IQ doesn't really mean a whole lot...

By extremists do you mean Pentacostal ? LOL Just kiddin'...

The whole jesus was God thing is nothing but a dirty trick to get around "God is the only one you must worship" Those that believed in the abrahamic God craved to bring their God down to their level and worship a paricular person, as the greeks and pagans did. Mostly this is the fault of the apostle Paul who massacred the bible to coincide with his own gnostic believes. Heaven forbid christians of today use their own minds rather than quote scripture and preachers that are just quoting other preachers from hundreds of years ago.

It's scary shit listening to these people drawn on and on about the "lord God" in a monotone voice. It's like a hypnotic recording. If there is a God that is not what he is about.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

Christians claim that Jesus was God. Let us see if there is any justification for this strange claim. If Jesus really was God it is very strange that he never said so. There is not one place in the whole of the Bible where Jesus simply and unambigously says, 'I am God.' Christians will object to this and say that Jesus often called himself or was called the Son of God. However, the Bible clearly shows that any good person who had strong faith qualified to be called a Son of God. For example, Jesus called Adam a son of God (Lk. 3:38).

It will happen that in the very place where it was said of them, 'You are not my people' they will be called 'sons of the living God' (Rom. 9:26).

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven (Matt 5:44-45).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26).

You are God's; you are all sons of the Most High(Ps. 82:6).

Jesus is called God's 'only begotten son' but even this is not unique. In the Psalms God says to King David, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you' (Ps. 2:7). Further, Jesus distinctly said that when he called himself a son of God he did not mean he was God or related to God in a literal sense. When the Jewish priests criticized him for claiming to be equal with God, Jesus said:

Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods?' If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? (Jn. 10:34-36).

Christians will protest that in these quotes 'son of god' is not written in capitals but when Jesus makes his claims capitals are used thus, 'Son of God'. But capital letters to make a phrase outstanding or to give it emphasis is an innovation of modern English. In ancient Greek and Aramaic, the languages in which the New Testament was written, capital letters were never used and so the distinction between 'son of god' and 'Son of God' did not exist. Christians make an enormous fuss about Jesus' claims to be a son of God but as we can see, there is absolutely nothing unique in this claim. Christians could say that the term Son of God is used in the Bible in two different ways - as a title for a particularly holy person and for the actual son of God, Jesus, who was with God in heaven before coming to earth. But even in this second sense Jesus was not unique. The Bible tells us that God had numerous sons with him in heaven who later came to earth and lived with humans just as Jesus is supposed to have done.

When mankind began to increase and spread all over the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; so they took for themselves such women as they chose (Gen 6:1-3)

In the Bible Jesus is called the Son of Man more than eighty times. Yet the Bible also tells us that in the eyes of God the Son of Man is no thing more than a worm (Job, 25:6). How can Christians claim that the Son of Man is God when the Bible itself says that the Son of Man is nothing more than a lowly worm?

Christians will then insist that Jesus was called the Messiah and that this proves he was God. The Hebrew word mashiah of which the Greek translation is christos simply means 'anointed one', and refers to anyone sent by God to help the people of Israel. Even a non-Jew could be and sometimes was called a Messiah. The Bible even calls the pagan Persian King Cyrus a Messiah because he let the Jews return to their homeland (Is. 45:1). So just because Jesus was called the Messiah does not prove he was God. In fact, throughout the Bible Jesus goes out of his way to make it clear that he was not God. When someone called Jesus 'good teacher' he said:

Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Lk. 18:19).

Now if Jesus was God why would he deny that he was good? We are told that Jesus prayed but if he was God why would he need to pray to himself? And when Jesus prayed, he said to God, 'not my will but yours' (LK. 22:42). Quite clearly he was making a distinction between God's will and his own. Jesus said that no one has even seen God (Jn. 1:18), meaning that when people saw him they were not seeing God. Again Jesus said that he can do nothing without God.

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father do (Jn. 5:19).

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me (Jn. 5:30).

I can do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me (Jn :28).

If Jesus was God he could do anything he wanted to do and in these passages and dozens of others he is making it as clear as crystal that he is one thing and God another. Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I' (Jn. 14:28) emphasizing again that he was not as great as God and therefore different from him. He says:

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Lk. 12:10).

Now if Jesus and the Holy Spirit were the same, to blaspheme one would be the same as blaspheming the other. In the Bible we are told that no one born of a woman can be pure (Job, 25:4). Jesus was born of a woman, his mother Mary, so he likewise must have been impure and if he was impure how could he be God? We are told that Jesus was dead for three days before ascending into heaven. How can God possibly die? Who was looking after the universe while he was dead? Jesus said that at the end of the world he would be sitting at the right hand of God to judge the world (Lk. 22:69). If Jesus and God are the same, how would it be possible for them to sit besides each other? To do this they would have to be seperate and different. And anyway, David is described to be anything other than a Good human being (Ps. 110:1). We are told that Jesus stands between God and man.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

This passage clearly states that Jesus is not God for if he was, how could he stand between God and men? It also specifically calls Jesus a man (see also Acts, 17:30-31). In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt. 1:16, Lk 3:23) we are given the name of Jesus' father, his father's faith, and so on, back through many generations. If God was really Jesus' father, why does the Bible list all of Jesus' ancestors on his father's side? Christians are forever claiming that Jesus is God and at the same time that he is the son of God. But how is this possible? How can a father be his own son and himself all at the same time? And to make matters more confused, the Holy Spirit is brought in and we are asked to believe that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all different and yet all the same. The Jewish and particularly the Islamic concepts of God are much more logical than this in that they say that God is unambiguously unitary and one, has no gender and he does not have children.

The claim of Christians that Jesus is God contradicts what the Bible says, it goes against common sense and it raises numerous logical and theological problems. Whereas if we see Jesus as he was, an outstanding teacher, reformer and prophet, none of these problems arise.

How did people come to believe Jesus is God then?

It seems inconceivable today that a mere human being could be regarded as a god but the situation was very different in the past. During the time of Jesus Israel was a land in political and social turmoil. Most people were ignorant and superstitious and wild rumours were readily listened to and beli3ved. There were numerous people passing themselves off as prophets, messiahs, wonder workers and saviors of the Jewish nation. Some of these, like Simon Magus, were apparently able to perform miracles nearly the same as those done by Jesus (Acts,8,9,ff). Others like Theudas and Judas and Galilean attracted large followings, again just as Jesus did (Acts,5,36; Acts,5,37). One of these characters even had a name almost identical to Jesus (Acts, 13,6). When Paul and his companions healed a man in Lystra a huge crowd gathered and began worshiping them as gods. Paul was horrified and tried to explain that he and his friends were only humans but 'even these words could hardly keep the crowd from offering sacrifices to them' (Acts, 14,18). Most Roman emperors were considered divine after they died and temples were built to worship them in. Clearly this was a time when any charismatic person could attract a huge following and even be proclaimed a god. It happened to others and it happened to Jesus too.

So.... every part in the Bible that says he is the son of God is wrong then? Right?