Why Jesus is not God and can't be God.

Great Debates
1

1 **He never claimed to be God almighty. It’s nowhere in the Bible. **

He did say he was one with God in John 10:30 and many try to use that to say he is part of a combined being. (trinity). But that does not work since Jesus also says that his disciples can be one with God just as he is in the same book: John 17:21

Also compare Luke 12:8, Jude 1, Corinthians 1:2, Ephesians 1:4, Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:6

2 The word “trinity” does not occur in the bible.

It’s a Catholic invention based on popular Greek philosopy (Plato) of an era before Christ, and of course the very common Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian triads. Most cultures in that part of the world had a pantheon with 3 top-level gods at the top. Even in some Northern/Western European and Asian religions you can see a triad. The Hebrews and first century christians believed nothing of the sort. Deuteronomy 6:4
They were monotheistic just like muslims are.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that Trinity was only established solidly in the 4th century. (1967 vol XIV page 299.

Encyclopedia Americana says Trinitarianism was a clear deviation from early christian teaching. (1956 vol XXVII page 294L.

You might also read John L. McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible says on page 899. (New York 1965)

3 The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is NOT a person.

Read Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38 and think about how that can possibly be a person. Also read Acts 7: 55 and 56 and you’ll see there is no mention of the Holy spirit standing with the rest of them. Neither is there in Revelation 7:10 or 22:1-3.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says itself that most of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something and not someone. (1967 Vol. XIII page 575)
4 Jesus PRAYED to God. He even begged God for things.

How does God Almighty pray and beg to anyone? How does God almighty say Not my will but your will be done? Matt. 26:39 Does that make sense???

Jesus always kept saying he was SENT. How could anyone SEND God Almighty on a mission? John 8:17-18. Note how Jesus makes it clear that he and his father are two separate persons such as Mosaic Law requires for admissible testimony.

Why would Jesus keep saying i’m only doing MY FATHER’S will??? Why does he say he can not do anything without his Father’s command??
5 **The Bible calls Jesus the FIRST BORN of all creation. **
Colossians 1:15,16 : We all know what first born means and what creation means.
Any atheist understands what it means to be born and to be created, so why are “christians” ignoring what the bible says?

Now you can bend and confuse the words first born or try to play with translations, but the exact words *first born * appear 30 times before Colossians and every time it is applied to living creatures such as the first born of Israel and the first born of Pharaoh. Further more the term first born is only applied to Jesus in Colossians and NOT to “The Father” or the Holy Spirit.

To ignore all this and make something else out of it only makes sense if you madly deeply truly want to believe in a 3-fold deity, like Assyrians and Babylonians and other current Asian religions do.

The current official Catholic stance on Trinity is that it’s a mystery and can not be explained or understood. (How fitting and convenient!)
Bonus material:

Mark 13:32 says Jesus, the Son does not know of something that
only the Father knows. So how can he be the same person or part of the same being?? Plus the Holy Spirit is also excluded from knowing this thing. Trinity is strictly a Matrix character.

In Matthew 20:20-23 Jesus says he can not grant something because it’s something his father decides. How strange, if he is God Almighty!

John 14:28: Jesus says the Father is *greater *than him.

1 Corinthians 11:3: Jesus says that Christ is the head of each man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Plain and simple. Note this was written after Jesus was executed and ascended in 55 AD.
Final evidence: 1 Corinthians 15:27 and 28. Jesus subjects/submits himself to God.
I could go on for a few hours more with verses, I just don’t have the time.
I don’t mean any disrespect, but sometimes i understand atheists, agnostics and muslims when they say christians are naive and ignorant. If you just read the book, think for yourself and cut away traditions and (corrupt) institutions it will make life so much better.

The Roman Catholic church used to *burn *people like William Tyndale and John Wycliffe for trying to translate the bible into modern languages the common people could read. Why do you think that is? (think about it)

There’s nobody stopping you from studying the bible today is there?

Ask yourself: “Why am i being lied to?” Matthew 7:15-23 and Acts 20:29
Love y’all,

Ruben

2

You must have missed the last thread we had on the Trinity.

I’ll simply quote myself–

Most of your so-called “evidence” is simply and solely a by-product of Jesus’ humanity while on earth, nothing more.

Incidentally, you might be interested to learn that St. Paul described you in II Timothy 3:5–
“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

3

But, “of all creation” means he must have been “born” before Cain or Abel. How is that possible if he were not God?

4

So, according to your theory there, ancient Hebrews considered their God as part of a trinity?

5

The Hebrew word ʼelo·him′ (gods) is from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·him′ is the plural of ʼeloh′ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to several gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), more often it’s used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence.

'Elo·him′ is used in the Bible for God Himself, angels, idol gods (singular and plural), and even men. (of high status or with appointments by God such as Moses)

When applied to God, ʼElo·him′ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Just like even today in 2013 Kings and queens say WE and US instead I and ME. (ever heard Queen Elizabeth of England on TV? Ever heard of Napoleon?)

Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·him′] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·him′] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”

—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
When trying to fool children you only need to say 1 thing and make a small comment to confuse them. When trying to fool students one needs more.

Now can you answer any of the points i made? Whom did Christ pray to and beg?
Whom did he tell not my will but yours be done? Can you make sense of it? It’s easier to discredit my person than dealing with the bible isn’t it?

I don’t mind you insulting me, as a real disciple of Jesus Christ i am used to insults and threats. No surprise that’s all there is offered instead of solid answers and biblical support for beliefs.

So please keep insulting me and not actually addressing the issue. I’ll take your insults all day.

6

The rest of your quotes, while suggestive, can be explained away, especially considering the “dual-nature” doctrine of Christology, but I do think this in particular comes as close to a silver bullet against Trinitarianism as you’re going to get, and I’m very surprised that it wasn’t used as decisive evidence in the debates at Nicea. It’s a strikingly clear endorsement by Paul of what would later be considered a blatantly Arian position.

(Arianism, for those who don’t know, was the position, attributed to the early bishop Arius, that Christ was not a fully-divine person of the Godhead of one substance with God the Father, but rather a divine or semi-divine being, a sort of super-angel or sub-God, created by God the Father before the creation of the world. The Council of Nicea was the Christian council called by Constantine to settle the controversy Arius stirred up by preaching against the not-yet-orthodox-but-already-popular opinion that Jesus was, in fact, God. Despite what seemed to be an even split among bishops prior to the Council, the Council ended up overwhelmingly voting to condemn Arianism, and created the first draft of the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus Christ to be “begotten, not made.”)

7

Because when God completed making the earth all the angels rejoiced and sang.
Job 38:7

SO before Adam, before Cain, Abel and all our ancestors God had created other SONS. The Angels. Just read Genesis and you would know the answer to your question because God says in Genesis 1:26 : “Let US create man in our image.” So he was not alone at that time. He had a helper. And that fits with Colossians where it is said that through mediation of Christ, the FIRST BORN, the rest of creation was made.

He was there all along, as an angel or a divine being. Read John 1:1!! Same thing is said that through him all things were made. FIRST BORN of creation.
It’s so literally and plainly in sight if one just picks up their bible and dumps all the traditions and lies of centuries of corrupt churches. Wake up brother, you have been lied to.

8

The Council didn’t decide anything. Roman Emperor Constantine DECIDED. He was not even a christian and did not even know the bible. He was simply a politician who wanted a unified state religion without any hassle.

The Nicean decision was a Roman decision, a worldly decision and nothing any of Jesus apostles would even dream of. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits it. So what more can i say.

My point might have been mentioned by Arius, but NOBODY CARED. The so-called church was already bent and twisted and as everybody knows would soon become a money grabbing, war mongering, people torturing organization.

So to quote our friend Flyer: 2 Timothy 3:5 – “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

Looking at the hundreds of years of bloodshed and child abuse the churches of mainstream “christianity” have on their hands… Who do you think Timothy is talking about?

Wake up people. These folk are working for the other side.

9

There is no evidence that I’m aware of the Constantine played any role in the debate at Nicea or its decisions, or even that he cared, since as you point out, he wasn’t himself a Christian. What is your basis for believing that he was the one who decided between Arianism and the orthodox position, especially since you seem convinced that the church itself was already corrupt and didn’t care about Arius’s points?

10

How is it that no one knows the day of Jesus’ return, “Not even the son?”

(Harold Camping interpreted that to mean that “the son” in that passage was Satan, but this seems like an awful stretch.)

11

I agree that Constantine wanted a unified Christianity. I don’t know that he decided, though. The Arian position was rejected because the majority of bishops there were against it. I think Constantine would have been just as happy to enforce conformity with the Arian view, if that was the way the Council had decided.

Also, regarding the comment in the OP, the Catholic church didn’t have a problem in general with vernacular translations, and there were some authorized vernacular translations in the Middle Ages. . .at least two partial English translations, a Catalan translation, a few French translations, at least one Italian translation, a bunch of German translations, etc., as well as a bunch of vernacular bible stories and psalms.

The Catholic prohibition wasn’t generally on reading the bible in the vernacular. It was was in interpreting the bible differently than the Church did, or in saying that the Church didn’t have any special authority to say what the bible meant. That was the big thing that got people like Wycliff and Tyndall in trouble.

12

Mark 2:5-6:

Compare Ezekiel 34:1-16 with John 10:11-18:

Compare Exodus 3:13-14 to the following.

Whether Jesus was God or not, the authors of the Gospels pretty clearly thought he was.

13

I think you meant:

The quote from Mark could be intended to imply only that Jesus acted with God’s authority. Certainly taken by itself it suggests Jesus’ divinity, but given the lack of other such Christological statements in Mark, it seems unlikely that Mark held such a view. It could also be a later addition; I don’t know off the top of my head if there is a scholarly consensus there.

And even the Johanine passages could be read as compatible with a Christ who is merely an extension or conduit of God’s power (though that would be in strong tension with the some of the low-Christology passages in the Synoptics, i.e., Matt., Mark, and Luke).

14

As has been pointed out to you in this thread – and as I was taught when studying Biblical Hebrew – that’s the royal ‘we’.

When you heard that famous bit about Queen Victoria saying “We are not amused,” did you think it was evidence that (a) she of course had an invisible friend standing right next to her and (b) no other interpretation is even possible?

15

You’re right, looking back my post was John-heavy. There are passages in the synoptics where Jesus’ divinity can be inferred - most notably the fact that he is frequently accused of blasphemy - but it’s most clear in the Johanine tradition. I’d say the synoptics strongly support Messiah (Christ) Jesus, but do not necessarily support the idea of Jesus’ divinity.

16

Your “beyond the shadow of any possible doubt” seems to mean something like “in my opinion”. Or else, I am able to do the impossible.

If the Queen says “We are not amused”, does this prove that there are two of her? Or just that sometimes in special cases people use plurals where one would normally use a singular?

Edited to Add: The Other Waldo Pepper beat me to it.

17

Is this a whoosh?

18

If you go a little further, I think Colossians 1:18 addresses this (NIV):

Beginning & firstborn “from among the dead”.

19

Sounds like fun to me!

Yes, I’m in a mood …

20

So Jesus is neither God nor a man, but an angel? Never heard that one before.