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

Great Debates
61

That was an invention of Alexander Hislop in 1853’s anti-Catholic book “The Two Babylons”. Nimrod doesn’t show up outside the bible. According to Greek legends, Semiramis is the wife of first, a general named Onnes, and then, after the Assyrian King Ninus falls in love with her, he makes Onnes kill himself and then marry her, and they have a son named Ninyas. (There was, however, a medieval tradition that Semiramus, after Ninus’s death, married her son Ninyas)

Tammuz was a Sumerian God of food and shepherds, and the husband of Innana, the goddess of fertility. There’s no connection there.

62

In scrupulous honesty, I’m a hard-edged atheist and don’t believe any of this stuff. But I like to engage in discussions of it, on its own merits. My own lack of belief may, at very least, afford me a measure of disinterested objectivity.

This and other verses are definitely a challenge to the trinitarian viewpoint. The standard answer, again, is “Three persons with one nature.” So, yeah, the Father and the Son sit side by side, but still are “one” inwardly. To me, this is a linguistic cop-out. It invites contradictions.

On the other hand, we have to be careful not to use language too literally. When God “sits,” does that mean he had legs, hips, and buttocks? What need has God of a place to sit? (“What does God need with a spaceship?”) “Seated” itself is tricky, and can be interpreted in different ways.

Edited to remove color tags; forgive me, but I was finding those distracting.

What fascinates me about this verse is that it could be used to argue for the trinitarian viewpoint. Who could possibly have been present before the creation? Only God was present before the creation. If Jesus was, like God, uncreated, then he must be a “part” of God in some way.

Personally, I have never been satisfied with the pre-existence of Jesus as meaningful doctrine. I think it makes much more sense to hold that Jesus did not exist until the begetting upon Mary. However, this view is definitely a minority one, and is largely rejected on the basis of such verses as you quote.

I mentioned this one early in this thread: it certainly seems indicative of some very serious distinctions between the “persons.” God has a knowledge “firewall” installed, that keeps some of his thoughts from being known to himself? One not only wonders how, but why? Why would God keep this information secret from the Son? I understand why it is important for human believers always to be ready, at any moment, for the trumpet to sound. But the Son? Why keep him all anxious and uncertain? Is there some danger he might leak the information to a talkative Angel?

Theology: murkier than Quantum Physics, and that’s saying something!

63

In my English translation that’s handy, The first Book of Genesis has “God” creating the Earth and life on it, Book Two and Three have the “Lord God” fine tuning his creation and interacting with Man.

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;
Genesis 3
22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

“Us”? “Our”? You can make a strong case for the “Royal We” here, but I’m reading it as: “There are more than one powerful entity.” Is it God and Angels? Is it “Us Gods”?

64

What makes you think there was any Truth in the ‘original’ scriptures?
It was all existing religions, traditions, contradictions and spin right from the start.

65

Fair enough. I’m not alluding to MY beliefs, but to the beliefs of the authors of the Scriptures. Are they describing Monotheism or Polytheism? My position is that much of the Old and New Testaments describe Polytheism. Notice I said “Truth”, not fact. What I believe spiritually is irrelevant … I’m commenting on the original intent of the various authors, not the re-tooling through the ages by politically-minded religious authorities.

Whether the Bible is an accurate history or a complex invention, it’s full of contradictions that are fairly solved by a Polytheistic perspective. That would be the “Truth” of the Scriptures … no matter what you actually believe regarding omnipotent beings.

66

If God can create sub atomic particles that exist and do not exist at the same time, that vary in number depending on the position of the observer, etc., then God pretty much hasn’t bound his creation by the concepts of logic that theologians of every stripe have imposed on Him. And are these fundamental particles simpler or more complex than God Himself?
Scriptures of the Christian variety are inconsistent on the nature of God. They sometimes say have no other Gods before God, to put God before all other Gods, to there is only one God. On these things the Bible is not clear.
The Bible does state over 3,000 times that we are commanded to heal the sick and feed the poor. We are to love each other. God, in his infinite wisdom about human nature, probably understood that we would argue about useless stuff and ignore the huge task of feeding the poor and healing the sick. So he said it 3,000 times. And that still isn’t enough so that virtually every single person calling themselves a Christian ignores those commandments 24/7 in favor of disputes on what God is, rather than what needs to be done.
Don’t knock on my door to witness about monotheism and blood transfusions before making sure every sinner in town has had a meal and medical care. God talked about feeding the poor and healing the sick so much more than anything else because it is so much more important than anything else.

67

According to the Psalmist all are gods, Jesus backs this up, quoting the 81st or 82d verse, which ever translation you use!

68

The most common explanation is that if Jesus had retained the omniscience of the Godhead while on earth, he couldn’t really suffer and die as a human. Just like, in taking on human form, he gave up his omnipresence as well. Theologians will point to Philippians 2:6-11 (one of the earliest creedal expressions in the NT):

It’s a very strong Trinitarian statement, claiming that Jesus was “in the form of God” before “emptying himself” to take the “form of a servant.” Then it concludes by assigning honors to Jesus due only to God, namely the title of Lord and the bowing of every knee in heaven and earth.

As far as the OP’s “proofs” they simply show a lack of understanding of what is meant by the Trinity. One God in three persons, in eternal communion. Jesus praying to God or asking God to remove his cup is similar to other passages where Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit. I don’t think that the OP would argue that the Holy Spirit is not God (but maybe he would).

69

It’s simple. JW’s believe that Jehovah is the only one true God, Jesus is a god, but Jehovah is only one true God, but Jesus is a god, but Jehovah is the only one true God…

Kind of like saying “There’s only have one true car, a Cadlllac. Everything else is a car, but not a true car.”

70

Thing is, Jesus puts sugar on his porridge.

71

I’ve heard one analogy in computer-related terms. God exists as the universe/program out of 0’s and 1’s. People don’t understand the 0’s and 1’s, so God inserts himself as an interface avatar (Jesus), so we can understand/approach him. I forget how the Holy Spirit enters into this analogy.

72

An avatar interface who carries on a Let Not My Will But Your Will Be Done conversation with . . . himself?

73

Uh, maybe, an innate consequence of the wetware? Okay, not a great analogy.

74

Never heard of Object based programming?

75

Agreed, and, in fact, this is pretty much the explanation I gave above. What I’m wondering is, now, since Jesus has arisen and is in heaven and has taken up again the full mantle of infinite divine godliness, why doesn’t he know the destined date of his return?

Certainly, Jesus-made-flesh lost his omniscience and his omnipotence. (Although, of course, he still retained vast power – including the power to raise the dead.) But my question is: does this loss pertain today?

Is the Jesus-arisen, sitting by God, now restored to his full omniscience? The verse in question seems to say no, but that, in turn, would seem to undermine the notion of the trinity.

The trinity was “broken” for the 33 years of Jesus’ mortal life. But weren’t the fault-lines and fractures all healed at his arising to heaven?

76

Another very pretty analogy comes out of literature. God the Father is the author of the novel. God the son is the protagonist in the novel. And the Holy Spirit is the sense of personal identification that the author has for the protagonist. George Lucas, Luke Skywalker, and Lucas’ very obvious personal identification with Skywalker.

This also helps explain why God could allow Jesus to suffer. The same way Lucas can allow Skywalker to suffer: it hurts him, too, but it is necessary for the story.

77

Hmm, I don’t think I’ve really considered that before. I’ll disagree with you when you say that the verse (Mark 13:32 I assume) implies that the risen Jesus continues to be ignorant “concerning that day or hour.” At least in English, the verse is in the present tense, and could easily mean that Jesus did not know at that time, but could have been restored to full knowledge/omniscience after his resurrection or ascension. I think I’ve always unconsciously assumed that the risen Christ shared full knowledge with God the Father (and the HS). I’m willing to bet volumes have been written on the question though.

78

I hadn’t heard that one. You’re right, it is a very pretty analogy. I’ll be thinking about that one.

79

I agree, that is a great analogy. Which means it’s almost certainly heretical!

80

Funny thing is, no matter how many verses i quote, verses where Jesus himself says that he has a God and has a Father who is the same as mankind’s God and Father…

…or verses that speak of the God and Father of Jesus Christ and verses like in Revelations that say Jesus is subject to God and so on and on…

…the one debater actually digging in to the verses and not ignoring most of them to post unbiblical philosophies is an atheist. :smack:

Also funny is that apparently it does not matter how much evidence and arguments one posts. There’s some kind of mental barrier. So i guess the bible is right, it’s not about intellect or education but about having a gentle heart and the willingness to properly look at the arguments.

That’s why the scholars in Jesus time with all their education still failed to recognise him as the Messiah. They simple did not want to hear and think about it.
They valued their **own ideas and own expectations **more than the scriptures they knew inside out and studied daily.

And so they that should have recognised and accepted him first ended up ***killing ***him.

And today people happily accept the idea of: Jesus talking to himself, kneeling to himself, submitting to himself, handing the kingdom over to himself, creating himself, being firstborn to himself, sending himself, witnessing of himself, keeping knowledge from himself, being right-hand man to himself, playing ventriloquist to approve of himself and of course…

…resurrecting himself after not really dying for our sins but only dying a third part while claiming to have actually given his life for his friends. (what a cheap skate!)

So the trinity-concept makes Jesus and his death a lie as he did not really give up his life because part of him, 2 thirds, was still alife and in heaven.
It’s like somebody giving up a leg or an arm and claiming they gave their life. And if all 3parts died that day God was dead for 3 days while the bible says he’s eternal and keeps the universe together.

It’s a total mess that gets uglier the more you look at it. The exact poison the bible foretold the enemy would sow among the real wheat.

Yesterday I heard some clerics and theologians are gonna have a meeting to decide wether God should be called He, She or It. I think they might as well add They. Might as well get it over with.

Pretty soon the clerics and “christian” theologians will tell us that there is no God and Jesus never walked the earth but that it’s all a reflection of our own person. (oh wait someone alreday did that)

I’ll just stick to the bible.