None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God

[Jal]

None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God
Christians and Muslims both believe in Jesus, love him, and honor him. They are, however, divided over the question of his divinity. Fortunately, this difference can be resolved if we refer the question to both the Bible and the Quran, because, both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus is not God.

To read more please visit this site:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm

[Yahzi]

This begs the question of why we would accept the Quran as an authority on anything. Particulary since we don't even accept the Bible as an authority on the existance of Jesus.

Newsflash, dude: we don't take the Bible as anything but a bunch of badly told fairy tales, and we don't think any different of the Quran. All your holy books are the same: scary stories told by deceitful men to gain power and influence they don't deserve.

Atheists don't believe in Jesus, and wouldn't love or honour him if they did. Maybe this isn't the message board for you...

[FireGarden]

Hiya, Jal, welcome to the Forum
Ignore Yahzi, he's too quick to judge people. There are plenty of theists on the board. Islam doesn't get discussed much, so it makes a nice change. Are you Muslim yourself?

I haven't had time to read all of the pages you linked. I just browsed it.

Stamenflicker gave me an answer to this question some time back. From John 1:14 "The word became flesh and lived among us for a while. We have seen the glory, the glory of the only begotten [Son] who came from the Father" I don't know why "son" is in brackets.

The page you linked to explains this by saying that "the word" is God's first creation “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works...” (Proverbs 8:22) But in the King James Version that I have access to I can't find reference to the word in that passage. Proverbs seems to be talking about Wisdom "Doth not Wisdom cry?" ....... "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old"

(In fact, it doesn't even start with "In the beginning was the word", but "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth")

However, I can agree that there are many passages that seem to divide Jesus and God. EG: (As given in the page you linked) Mark 10:18 Jesus answered "Why do you call me good? No one is good - except god alone." But this could be interpreted as "Do you think I am God?"


Anyway, for some Christians the point is no longer debatable. They've had newer prophets. EG: The Mormons. The Angel Moroni revealed the book of Mormon to Joseph Smith.

From Encart98: Mormons believe in:
a definition of the Trinity as three separate individuals, God the Father and Jesus Christ being physical persons united in purpose; and a belief that human beings can, if they live the commandments of God to the full, attain the status of godhood in future aeons.

So, at first seeming to agree with Muslims (Jesus is not God), but then saying that you can attain godhood. (Which I hadn't known they believed)


For Stamenflicker (if he's reading) or others:
The coming of Jesus is supposed to have been foretold in the old testament, but where does it say that God himself will come to Earth.

Also, who is Athanasius? A google search turned up nothing.
According to "Newton for Beginners" by William Rankin,
[Newton] learns Hebrew and retranslates the Bible from original texts. He discoveres that in the 4th century [...] key passages in the bible were doctored by Athanasius. The falsified text elevates Christ on a level with God [...] Newton finds that Christ is simply another prophet like Moses, and the worshipping of Christ as God's equal is idolatry

Newton doesn't seem to have looked into Islam, but he seems to have reached the same conclusion.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
Also, who is Athanasius? A google search turned up nothing.

Maybe you typed it incorrectly when you did your search. There's plenty of information about St. Athanasius (http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/AthanasSt.html) available online.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Yahzi
This begs the question of why we would accept the Quran as an authority on anything. Particulary since we don't even accept the Bible as an authority on the existance of Jesus.

Newsflash, dude: we don't take the Bible as anything but a bunch of badly told fairy tales, and we don't think any different of the Quran. All your holy books are the same: scary stories told by deceitful men to gain power and influence they don't deserve.

Atheists don't believe in Jesus, and wouldn't love or honour him if they did. Maybe this isn't the message board for you...

We? Don't speak on behalf of all of us. Speak for yourself.

Why such hostility towards a newbie? If you don't like his beliefs try to convince him with arguments instead. A post like that only shows that you haven't got the intellect to do that, so you use insults like a child.

Jal,
welcome to the board. ;) There are indeed many atheists on this board, but I hope that won't discourage you.

Peter :)

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


Maybe you typed it incorrectly when you did your search. There's plenty of information about St. Athanasius (http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/AthanasSt.html) available online.

Thanks ceo_esq :)
You're probably right


[Edit]
From that page:
He defended the homoousion formula that states that Christ is of the same substance as the Father, against the various Arian parties who held that Christ was not identical in substance with the Father.

No allegation that any text was changed.
There's too much to read in all the associated links, so this a great opportunity for some kind and trustworthy soul to post a summary that I would unquestioningly believe ;)

I'm off to do some work now :)

Hi-ho, Hi-ho. ...

[Barkhorn1x]

You have now posted a couple of threads that - IMO - are pretty close to Islamic propaganda.

I have a question for you on this one in particular;

If - as the OP states - both the Bible and Quran teach us that Jesus was not divine how does this in any way prove that Islam is the result of divine revelation?

Perhaps I am reading too much into your post? However, I think not, given your crowing about how fast Islam is growing in the US.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[Upchurch]

Also, one must consider the source:Originally posted by Jal
To read more please visit this site:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm
Why is an Islam-based website an authority on Christianity beliefs and history? For that manner, why would they write and post such an article, since it is outside the scope of their site?

The only answer is propaganda. I'm not a supporter of Christianity, but this is a rather obvious spin on the Christian Bible to try to discredit another religion.

[FireGarden]

Jesus is central to both beliefs, so of course they are going to discuss it. In what way is it beyond the scope of their site?

There is a passage (probably several) in the Koran where Jesus is asked by God "Did you ever ask mankind to worship you and Mary along side me?" And Jesus denies that he did. Do you really think that the question of Jesus' status should never come up in a discussion between the two faiths? And given the history within the Christian faith (I don't have time to read up on Athanasius and the Arians) discussing what the bible says on the matter is surely inevitable.


Anyway, it seems that there aren't any Christians that want to discuss this. But early days yet. I'm sure Stamenflicker will be interested.

[FireGarden]

Sorry to double post.

Here's a Christian site that debates Islamic arguments
http://answering-islam.org/index.html

It links to this one (via another page)
http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/theo/islam_christ.html

It is very well known that this idea of the wonder-working infant has been borrowed from the apocryphal pseudo-gospels of the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite (‘clay birds’) and the ‘cradle’ story is taken from the so-called Gospel of the Infancy which itself derives from the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite
Then

Again it must be emphasised – this is what the Qur’an portrays as Islamic Christology, not what it asserts is Christian doctrine. It need hardly be stated that these stories are purely mythological, and should not be taken seriously. They may present us with the ’Isa of Muslim faith, but they in no way resemble the Jesus of History; for the latter, we must turn to the canonical gospels. It would seem to be the case that Muslims realised their gaffe early on.
I've made that mistake myself a few times. Some book shops just can't keep the psuedo-science on the sci-fi shelves.
As the Islamic empire expanded, coming into contact with increasing number of Christians, this picture of Jesus would have become increasingly embarrassing, as it became clear that no Christian group adhered to it or believed such legends as presented in the Qur’an or apocryphal works. The total absence of such a depiction of Jesus from the canonical gospels would have been a bitter blow to Islamic credibility, and stifled opportunity for conversions.
But why would they need to be embarrassed? That depiction is what "the Qur’an portrays as Islamic Christology, NOT what it asserts is Christian doctrine" So obviously they know the difference between apocryphal and cononical gospels.

Discussing Shakespeare was never this good!

[Yahzi]

Ignore Yahzi, he's too quick to judge people
While it is inarguable that Yahzi is quick to judge people, the fact that he is always right suggest that it might not be "too."

[stamenflicker]

For Stamenflicker (if he's reading) or others:

Hey Good Props,

I am reading. I think the concept is very problematic at many scriptural levels, our own bible not excluded. I'm not really saying I don't believe it, only that it is logically incoherent. I don't think it's logically impossible, nor do I particularly think it is improbable. I do see it for what it is however: a big internal incosistency.

One of my intellectual hypocrisies? That would be a well founded critique, but one worth debating.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

While it is inarguable that Yahzi is quick to judge people, the fact that he is always right suggest that it might not be "too."

Yahzi is always right because when he's proven wrong he immediately puts you on ignore. He has admitted his ignore list is full, so we can all do the math.

Flick

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick
I don't think we'll be finding the definitive answer here. There are too many texts and too much latitude in how they are interpreted.

One thing we can be sure of, however.
If it was really that important (and if God exists ;)) then he would have made it clearer and easier to understand.

So either it's not important or ....


(Now I've got you :))

[stamenflicker]

If it was really that important (and if God exists ) then he would have made it clearer and easier to understand.

I don't see a good reason for your assumption. And it is a big assumption.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If it was really that important (and if God exists ) then he would have made it clearer and easier to understand.

I don't see a good reason for your assumption. And it is a big assumption.

Flick

I have to assume, if an intelligent god did exist, it would define itself in this world better than it has. This one god has three personalities (Old Test, New Test, Islam). There are religions that have a rolodex of gods - where does he fit in there? He's just not defined well.

[Martin]

You assume he gives a toss.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If it was really that important (and if God exists ) then he would have made it clearer and easier to understand.

I don't see a good reason for your assumption. And it is a big assumption.

Flick

What could I have been thinking?
I forgot about the tower of Babel, and all the different languages and dialects. Of course God doesn't want us to agree on anything other than maths and some science.

But wait...
Those are important.

[Yahzi]

Why look... the Troll of Allah has not returned. After making his little witnessing post to the faithless, he has vanished into the ether, his duty discharged and his conscience salved. No doubt he will look down from heaven and see each of us in hell, and sadly shake his head that we refused to let his words enlighten us. We had our chance.

Oh and gosh Yahzi's right again. Who would have guessed?

[FireGarden]

Or perhaps Jal didn't get past your post, and thought (with justification) that this wasn't a good forum to find debate.

But I hope that he simply has a lifestyle that doesn't allow him to post everyday. I'll hold out for the weekend.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Martinm
You assume he gives a toss.

Well, if 'he' is a loving god who cares for his creations, I would think he would "give a toss". What are we?....bean sprouts?

[Jal]

God revealed a holy book to Jesus called the Injeel, some parts of which may be still available in the teachings of God to Jesus in the New Testament. But this does not mean that Muslims believe in the Bible we have today because it is not the original scriptures that were revealed by God. They underwent alterations, additions, and omissions. This was also said by the Committee charged with revising The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version). This Committee consisted of thirty-two scholars who served as members of the Committee. They secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations. The Committee said in the Preface to The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version), p. iv, “Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.” The Committee also said in the Preface, p. vii, “Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32, 51, etc.).”
For more in-depth articles regarding this subject, please visit the following external web pages: Confessions of the New American Bible and Bible Contradictions.

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch3-16-1.htm

The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

Jesus is Not Son of God According to the Bible and the Quran

Jesus in the Holy Quran

Was Jesus God and Man at the Same Time?

The Truth About Jesus

The Return of Jesus to Earth

IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD?
http://www.jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html

The Bible - A Closer Look!
http://www.todayislam.com/bible.htm

A List of Biblical Contradictions
http://sultan.org/articles/biblecon.txt

THE REAL STORY OF MARY
http://geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/3001/storyofmary.htm


Christ in Islam
http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-20479/Christ.htm

THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS
http://sultan.org/articles/Jesus.html

Who Was Jesus According to Jesus?
http://www.islaminfo.com

[Michael Redman]

Your fairy tales contradict the other guy's fairy tales. Good for you.

And why should we care?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Your fairy tales contradict the other guy's fairy tales. Good for you.

And why should we care? I have to agree.

You're preaching to the chior, Jal. (Pardon the pun) Many of us already agree that the bible is full of contradicitions and is not fully representative of reality. The only difference is that I (and, I assume, many others here) also feel that way about the Quran and any other "holy" book you care to present.

[Dancing David]

One of the interesting points about the buddhist canon: is they admit it was an oral tradition written by humans, although there was this conclave where everybody got together and recited what they knew, and allegedly they threw out what didn't have matches.
But then there is the Mhahyana school which says that anything that leads to the buddha might as well be the buddha.

Funk On.

[Yahzi]

Well, the Troll of Allah returned to post again. On the other hand, he clearly didn't actually read a single post in the thread. I maintain that his cut-and-paste job marks him as a troll, although I accept that I misjudged his tenacity.

Jal, your holy Quran underwent "alterations, additions, and omissions." The only thing it didn't undergo was a translation. But Mohammed did not write it down: rather, people he talked to wrote it down for him. And what about the Satanic verses?

Oh, why am I bothering? You aren't actually reading any responses.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Jal
God revealed ...

...blah, blah, blah - ad naseum. :rolleyes:

Is there a point to any of this Jal??

Barkhorn.

[FireGarden]

It's understandable that the atheists are here with their "fairy tales VS fairy tales" argument.

What I don't understand is why none of the Christians who post on this board are interested in making it a more interesting discussion. Do you really regard it as unimportant? Defend your beliefs!!



Jal,
That's an extraordinary number of links you've posted. Maybe you should try exhausting one point at a time. I'm still intending to investigate the Athanasius Vs Arians thing if I get the opportunity.

[stamenflicker]

You assume he gives a toss.

No, I assume that if he is god, I would not necessary be in a place to know.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
You assume he gives a toss.

No, I assume that if he is god, I would not necessary be in a place to know.

Flick

So if god is not revealing himself - and there is no evidence of a god - where does the leap in logic come from to say there IS a god?

[stamenflicker]

So if god is not revealing himself - and there is no evidence of a god - where does the leap in logic come from to say there IS a god?

It's the exact same logical leap as assuming an infinity.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
So if god is not revealing himself - and there is no evidence of a god - where does the leap in logic come from to say there IS a god?

It's the exact same logical leap as assuming an infinity.

Flick

I lost your point. What 'infinity' do you assume?

[stamenflicker]

Any infininty. An infinite string of numbers. An infinite amount of time. An infinite cycle of death and rebirth. An infinitely folded piece of paper. An infinite amount of good. An infinite amount of power. An infinite amount of presence.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Any infininty. An infinite string of numbers. An infinite amount of time. An infinite cycle of death and rebirth. An infinitely folded piece of paper. An infinite amount of good. An infinite amount of power. An infinite amount of presence.

Flick

Numbers - math
time - math
death and rebirth - not math
folds - physically not infinite
power - not math
presence - not math

Infinity is defined with math. Faith and God cannot be defined with math. So the 'inifinity' of these things are 'up in the air'.

[stamenflicker]

Infinity is defined with math. Faith and God cannot be defined with math. So the 'inifinity' of these things are 'up in the air'.

Infinity is defined by language, not math. We apply a sign (numerical symbol) to something which lacks a signifier. It is an identical process.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Infinity is defined with math. Faith and God cannot be defined with math. So the 'inifinity' of these things are 'up in the air'.

Infinity is defined by language, not math. We apply a sign (numerical symbol) to something which lacks a signifier. It is an identical process.

Flick

I disagree. I believe math more accurately defines 'infinity' than language. (I assume you mean the 'language' of English, for example, since math is its own language) If something cannot be defined as 'infinite' with math than it is not infinite.

[stamenflicker]

I disagree. I believe math more accurately defines 'infinity' than language. (I assume you mean the 'language' of English, for example, since math is its own language) If something cannot be defined as 'infinite' with math than it is not infinite.

Yes, I meant math was a language. Regardless of which one you may "like" better though, we have to assign a "word" (in this case a symbol) for a concept that has no empirical referrent. Therefore to assume that it is any more logical for your math based infinity, over say an infinite amount of good or power or presence, does not follow.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Yes, I meant math was a language. Regardless of which one you may "like" better though, we have to assign a "word" (in this case a symbol) for a concept that has no empirical referrent. Therefore to assume that it is any more logical for your math based infinity, over say an infinite amount of good or power or presence, does not follow.


Infinity defined by math is quantitative. Infinity through the language of "good and presence" is not.

[Roadtoad]

To get back to the original point of this thread, how do you explain John 8:58? (And for that matter, the reaction of the Jews?)

You're right, Jesus doesn't say: "Bow down and worship me." In fact, we're called upon to "Boldy go before the throne of Grace." (So much for groveling.)

[stamenflicker]

Infinity defined by math is quantitative. Infinity through the language of "good and presence" is not.

Well we just have to disagree then. I happen to believe anything is quantitative, even the infinity being peddled by our mathematicians. A number can be used to represent anything... a good deed, 100 good deeds, 15 instances of presence, 0 stamens here, 1 here, infinite stamens.

Flick

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
To get back to the original point of this thread, how do you explain John 8:58? (And for that matter, the reaction of the Jews?)

This is what the Sceptics Annotated Bible says"

8:58 In this verse, by saying "before Abraham was, I am," Jesus claims to be God. Of course, the JWs try to change the clear meaning of Jesus' words by having him say, "Before Abraham came into existence I have been." I suppose this is supposed to mean that he was around as the Archangel Michael back then or something. The NWT translates "ego eimi" as "I am" everywhere it occurs except in this verse.

But you have to remember, John is way out in left field compared to the other gospels. John was very nearly left out of the Bible. Let's face it, how could "John" write about somebody that had been dead 70 years and get anything right.