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

Great Debates
121

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-the-bibles-inerrancy-limited-to-matters-pertaining-to-salvation

This is what I learned at Catholic school all my life; it seems like the Catholics think the Bible is inerrant. I’m not digging for cites from every denomination … on matters of Faith (vs History, Science, etc), most Xtian religions consider the Bible to be accurate in it’s teachings. Notice in the text you quoted I said “accuracy”, not inerrancy or infallibility.

Regarding orthodox xtianity … duh, I think they got it wrong. I think a simple reading of the Bible displays the existence of three separate Supreme Beings. If the Church officials were uncomfortable with this and it reminded them too much of Egyptian/ other heathen (or later Roman) faiths, so they pronounced a mysterious way to declare Yahweh “three, three, three Gods in One”, then I respectfully disagree. I’m well aware that my views are not orthodox.

122

This is what I’ve ran across too, although I’m not familiar with liberals that much, but had always assumed they realized there really wasn’t ever such a thing as an original, and how would they know if it was authoritative without knowing its contents?

I’m not telling you anything new, you know the bible had much borrowing going on, and most higher critics agree that at least four major parts of the Pentateuch come into play from various sources, not to mention other interpolations that crept in later on. There were many creation myths to pick from, and something like 400 flood accounts to borrow from. The fact they collect bits of this into five different books for the first time as well as I’m sure add some of their own material, wouldn’t make this part original to me.

And it’s no news that the gospels originally started out as oral teachings that later were written down, and as time went on miracle stories were added, along with more interpolations added as well as the names being attached to the books much later. So what would have ever been considered an original here?

Other books have major additions added centuries later, some to make it appear as prophecy, I’m thinking particularly of Isaiah, but this is true of other books. So what part of Isaiah as it appears in today’s bible would have ever been considered a part of the original?

Perhaps a few of Paul’s letters might be the closest to have ever meeting such a thing as an original, and many higher critics think Paul didn’t write many of the books that were once subscribed to him, and not sure if any credible scholar could point to a single book of his and say with confidence that at least something had not been added or tampered with.

But when one puts all of these books in bible form, it makes it even more impossible to say that at one time there was ever such a thing as an original. Even If an original is meant to say the first bible that collected all 66 or 73 (or pick a number) books, into whatever language they think it was done in, I fail to see how anyone would think it was original realizing how much of the bible was put together.

123

Quoted from jw.org-

“The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is an accurate, easy-to-read translation of the Bible. It has been printed in whole or in part in over 100 languages. More than 170 million copies have been distributed.”

This is presumably the version with which the OP is familiar. I gather the quotes he used to support his position came from this version. I don’t see any reason, for the purposes of this discussion, to resort to examining papyrus scrolls or clay tablets. The archaeological investigations of Biblical texts is another subject. I’m comfortable dealing with the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures for the purposes of this thread.

Here are some other versions (listed in another thread in Great Debates)
I’m willing to refer to any of these, if one of them pleases the majority of posters. They all say basically the same thing. We’re not talking Dead Sea Scrolls here. The OP was arguing from a readily available translation.
International Version (©2011)

New Living Translation (©2007)

English Standard Version (©2001)

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)

International Standard Version (©2012)

NET Bible (©2006)

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

American King James Version

American Standard Version

Douay-Rheims Bible

Darby Bible Translation

English Revised Version

Webster’s Bible Translation

World English Bible

Young’s Literal Translation

124

When i started quoting the bible verses i found most important i took my time to use a number of Bible translations that were Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

I also noted wich translations i used and deliberately did not use the New World Translation i often use. (but not all the time)

So i don’t really care what translation is used, in fact i encourage people to cross check as many translations possible.
So far i’ve given a fair amount of texts and the response were scarce or none to the verses. Somebody answer to the question of Jesus handing over the Kingdom to his father is “Hey i hand over things to myself all the time.” So there you have it, i rest my case on that.

On another problem, namely that the Bible and Jesus himself speaks of the God and Father of Jesus Christ there was no response at all.[
I’ll keep believing the biblical evidence, namely that Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael; the very first person JHWH created. This first born of all creation helped create all the rest alongside his father.

I’ll also acknowledge what God tells Job, namely that all the angels sang and rejoiced when God completed the earth. (so adam and humans were not the first sons of God)

Most folk don’t stop to think about why the word LORD is in the bible and nobody cares to ask what the Hebrews/Jews and Christ himself called God.

Hint: They didn’t speak English, or any of the languages that translate LORD or DOMINUS or KURIOS… Lord is a title. God has a name and it has been removed about 7000 times based on Jewish/Talmudic superstition and tradition not to use the Tetragrammaton JHWH anymore so the people were save from using it in vain. :smack:

Christianity chose to repeat that human tradition and around 2008 the Vatican even decreed that JHWH must never be used again. They have now officially forbidden it.

Hence up to this day people are still easily confused (fooled) when they read LORD and somebody tells them it’s Jesus.

Been fun, i’m out.

125

[quote=“ruben4ruben, post:124, topic:665115”]

When i started quoting the bible verses i found most important i took my time to use a number of Bible translations that were Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

I also noted wich translations i used and deliberately did not use the New World Translation i often use. (but not all the time)

So i don’t really care what translation is used, in fact i encourage people to cross check as many translations possible.
\\\\\

I stand corrected. We’ll maybe all agree that this thread is based on excerpts from several translations of the Bible.

I’m sorry to see Ruben go, but I’ll explain, in case he’s still checking in, that I didn’t address his many Biblical quotes one by one because I agree with him that the Bible portrays Jesus as a separate figure from Yahweh (however you wish to spell it). I don’t necessarily agree that those passages imply that Jesus is not a God … on the contrary, I think the Bible puts forward the idea that Jesus is the Son of God, and is likewise a God. I just don’t want to argue faith with Ruben because I believe no Scriptural examples will change his mind. No offense intended.

126

That’s nonsense and you know it. Many acknowledged and addressed your concerns, but realized they could answer some of the questions as a whole, without having to go through each specific question.

Already looking for an exit? Earlier someone pointed out how you were not responding to anyone that showed scripture support for a Trinitarian understanding. You replied with all they had to do was to pick which specific ones you wanted them to respond to and to point out the ones you missed. Now you’re gone for several days, and you really didn’t have a lot to address, but still choose to ignore those trying to correspond to you. If you were sincere when you said this, would you like to try again? I wouldn’t want to accuse you of the dishonest practice of using “sin of omission” but leaving now while being aware of many of the verses that support a Trinitarian view, while mostly you only reiterating the scriptures that support a non-Trinitarian view, can you put all of this in proper perspective reconciling all of it without leaving anything out since you insist you stick to the bible? You didn’t say anything about sticking to just certain parts of it or some of it.

127

This is the same kind of assertion you made on the previous page - that everyone else is following tradition, doctrine and dogma, whereas you’re just following the Bible. I’ll repeat my question from post #90 (which you did not answer):

I think it most likely you are interpreting the Bible as directed by the tradition and doctrine you have accepted - I’m not going to say there’s anything especially wrong with that, but you’re insulting our intelligence when you pretend it is not so.

Of course, if you say you came to exactly your current view independently after just picking up the Bible, and only later discovered you were in complete alignment with the doctrines of the Watchtower Society, well, I guess I’ll offer you my surprised, but sincere apology.

128

I came up with my heretical view of the Scriptures all by myself … what do I get? A lollipop? A balloon? A stoning? I hope it’s a lollipop.

129

Stoning by lollipops bound in balloons.

130

I’d like to see your Biblical evidence that Michael was the first being that God created. I see a couple of references to him in Daniel and Revelation (and one in Jude) but none that contain that claim.

131

Anything you prefer, as far as I’m concerned - I just happened to find the OP’s stance a little imposturous.

However, it looks like we might have to wait until the next time he starts this thread.

132

Are the angels fully-formed individual beings? Or are they dependent entities, more like “instruments of God’s will” than autonomous moral agents. When they rebelled, they may have been striving for autonomy, but at that point, they pretty much stopped working. It’s as if my car decided it wanted to choose where to go, and ignored me at the wheel. Okay, I’ll just stop putting in gas. What victory?

Counting angels as “sons of God” is sort of like counting the cook, gardener, and chauffeur as “members of the family.”

133

Sorry everybody,

i’m not out really. But i’m eager to start a new biblical topic. I guess i’m a bit too eager and maybe a bit too forward/curt/uptight in my last posts. Forgive me, that’s not nice.

I’m still game if anyone has specific questions on biblical verses they feel support trinity. I don’t like people skipping things so i should not do it.
(I did answer on Elohim, Logos/Word and several others)

However, a forum debate is so fluid, i think i underestimated the fast flow of it all. But as i proposed earlier; I’ll trade comments. I got a bit upset because nobody answered most of the “heaviest” verses against trinity. I still have had almost no response on those. I’m not gonna repeat the 5 questions i offered, the post is still there.

If anyone wants to answer them, even just 1 at a time, i promise to trade and answer the verses i’m supposed to have missed. Fair enough?

Now in the mean time i’m gonna research on my previous statement about the Archangel Michael being identified as Christ. I said it, so i’ll dig it up. Will do my best to get it done Thursday.
I saw someone asked about angels and why God let the Eden incident happen.
I gather from the bible that angels do have free will just like Adam had free will and yes, the Devil also had free will. Ezekiel 28 says that angel was faultless and beautiful before making the wrong choice.

Why would God make “robots” that can’t love and obey him out of free will? Why can’t angels be family if God made them? Why compare them with mere cooks, butlers or maintenance guys? The bible itself calls them Sons of God. Is the bible saying it not good enough? **Job 1:6 **

Answer about Things taking a wrong turn in Eden.
If God can see the future why should he always use that ability to peek? Since he is Almighty he can give us choice and free will to make that right choice and make him happy. Read Proverbs 27:11

If you would read the opening chapter of Job, you can see what’s been going on. Satan accused Job, and all of us, for being self serving and questioned Job’s integrity. Job was pressured, attacked and insulted from all possible sides and even starts doubting, but he holds on. Don’t you think that made God very happy?

Also note that God asks Job what he thinks he knows compared to God. We should not expect our understanding and knowledge of events to match God’s.

The God of the bible is described as having feelings. We have emotions too as we are made in his image. If you have children yourself think about how you feel about your kids and then meditate on how God feels about us.
Answer to “Do i think i have original insight?”
No.
If i say something, it is not because i believe i have some kind of “special” or original insight. I’m just a regular Joe, average bear type of guy. I do believe that anyone that studies the bible regularly and believes it to be God’s word and the ultimate judge on itself will gain better insight than most people. (bible explains bible)

My insight comes from hearing what others have found, and then like the Bereans and other 1st century people from examining those words and digging in the scriptures. In Acts it said that they reasoned (or debated) from the Scriptures. Acts 17:2
Do i follow human tradition?
I always listen to anyone…and then i’ll check the bible for myself to make up my own mind if it is right. I don’t follow human tradition, but i do look at the “cloud of witnesses” that Hebrews 12:1 mentions. I learn from Abel, Noah,Abraham Ruth, Esther, Moses, Peter, John… That’s why i don’t need to rely on human tradition and popular contemporary views. Noah was *not *popular and did not go with the flow. (no pun intended)
We shouldn’t just believe anything we are told: Proverbs 14:15 We are all responsible for our own faith and relation with God.
I’m just asking you to examine the bible. Your brain, your heart and ultimately God will do the rest.
Sorry if i came across a bit arrogant or impatient. I’ll do my best not to get too excited. I’ll focus more on enjoying the discussion. (takes his pills)

134

Well, for me, of course, no. But within the context, cool. I didn’t know the Bible referred to angels as “sons of god.” Even so: are they “servants” and “messengers” or are they truly “family?” Do they have a creative spirit? Can they originate, create, innovate? If they can rebel against God, can they rebel against a stifling artistic tradition? Could an angel invent atonalism in music?

Tolkien explored this idea: is following your own musical idea a sin? If God said, “Okay, today, the heavenly choir sings in D-minor,” and an angel thought, “But this part is just crying for a change in key,” is that sinful? If the angel is trying to create beauty, then how is that morally wrong?

Are angels the moral equivalent of man? In which case…why create man? The first draft seems to be the superior of the second draft!

135

The Bible says so little about angels, that most of what we “know” about them is just speculation or tradition. In the Bible they are messengers or mouthpieces or heralds of God. We don’t know, from the Bible, when they were created, how much in God’s image they are created, or how much if any free will they have. The bible mentions “cherubim” and “seraphim” but does not give many details. There is a tradition (for example) that Satan is a fallen angel but that is certainly up to interpretation.

Ruben, I’m not going to go back and argue with you about the Trinity verse by verse because they all come down to one person of the Trinity interacting with or relating to another one. You say that’s evidence against the doctrine. I disagree. I also take a lot of comfort in the fact (because I’m a believer in an apostolic church) that the mainstream of the church over the centuries has the same interpretation.

136

You guys sound like trekkies discussing some thing like the workings of a hyperdrive engine.
Looking for consistencies between episode TOS 3.4 and TNG 2.6.

You really should read more about the world in the times the bible was written.

137

If God is a spirit, why would there need to be a separate Holy spirit?

As I once thought, thinking about the at the Trinity, One could look at a round sausage(Like a roll of Baloney, If one looks at the side it looks square, on top it looks round, If there was a whole being and decided to divide it self in half there would be 2 parts, but if out of the love for each other they decided to each give some of their love for one another it would then be 3. then I thought, all would be of the same substance, all three parts equal. But maybe that is baloney!

138

Can you handle the whole truth?
If so come see who it is that the Christian religion really worships.

Okie

139

Heh, that link is blocked by my workplace for linking to “non-traditional religions and occult and folklore.” I never saw that filter before.

140

That link is likely to be blocked on the SDMB if the poster keeps throwing it into threads. (This post was submitted a bit prior to the explicit prohibition that Marley issued, so I have not removed it from this thread.)

However, it should be noted that the site linked is not merely incredibly stupid, it is actually dishonest*, making up etymologies and definitions that have no basis in reality. (I am always amused at the “bible believing” folks that feel it necessary to violate the prohibition against bearing false witness in order to make their arguments.)

  • Okieshowedem has asserted that he is not the author of that site, so I am not accusing him of being dishonest, only of being led astray by other dishonest people.