14 Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God

[citizenzen]

The trip is Spong and Ehrman are striving to correect exactly that. They amongst other critical thinkers are reviewing the earliest texts, but it is more complicated than that, just because the earliest we have don't contain a certain phrase doesn't mean that that one early version is correct...their books go into detail on the forensics.

The other thing is that they are well respected by those that read their research. I'd say 90% of their detractors have never read their books. They both are perfectly glad to discuss or debate with anyone and it is quite interesting when they do. One has to remember Ehrman got his degrees from some very bible thumpin colleges.

Thanks for the back up wil.

We don't have to fear inquiry. Nobody can or wants to take God away from you. I only ask that we look at these things openly and honestly, without fear.

From one of the final chapters of Jesus, Interrupted...

Even now, as I type these words, I'm on a beach holiday with two of my closest, most intimate friends, two people whom I love dearly and who would do anything for me, and I for them. As it turns out, they are both smarter than I, better read than I, more sophisticated philosophically than I (we can't all be intellectual superstars). They both would have, and do have, no problem with the historical information I have laid out in this book. And they both unashamedly call themselves Christians. Ask them if they believe in God, they would say yes. Think Christ is God? Yes. Think he is the Lord? Yes. Faith is not a matter of smarts.

 

[seattlegal]

Mercy is reasonable judgment. It can be nothing more than recognizing that there is no wrong to be forgiven.

In the Catholic tradition I was raised with, Absolution was part of the Sacrament of Confession. It was the part toward the end, where the priest has heard the confession, judges it to have been sincere, and tells the penitent they are free to go. If I recall, it would include a blessing.

The penitent can feel free to go with an understanding of what they need to do in the way of penance. This is in effect assurance of how to become reconciled though G-d's Grace.

Absolution can be a very uplifting thing because it's a moment of truth - a recognition of the penitent's sincerity. In a way, it is archaic. It's kind of like rewarding the penitent for faith. Still, it make sense to me as a ritual and symbol and I can see how it can add a beautiful clarity.

Well yes, ritual without faith would be merely going through the motions--what benefit would it be, other than busy-work?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Well yes, ritual without faith would be merely going through the motions--what benefit would it be, other than busy-work?

Depends on the religion. Historically, Zen was a communal activity that was not particularly concerned with one's own personall enlightenment. The latter concern seems to be part of a modernized "self-help" version of it.

In medieval Japan, Zen was considered suited for collective political/imperial purposes. Zen master Eisai saw himself as a religious revolutionary. But in real life he was expected to come up with the right incantations for war situations and other such adaptive functions that were apparently pretty much in line with what the traditional Temdai and Shingon priests did before him.

It seems Durkheim and his functionalist friends were right that religious behavior helps maintain group solidarity. One Buddhist master I knew was a former army sergeant. I thought he did a very good at maintaining social solidarity.

 

[seattlegal]

Depends on the religion. Historically, Zen was a communal activity that was not particularly concerned with one's own personall enlightenment. The latter concern seems to be part of a modernized "self-help" version of it.

In medieval Japan, Zen was considered suited for collective political/imperial purposes. Zen master Eisai saw himself as a religious revolutionary. But in real life he was expected to come up with the right incantations for war situations and other such adaptive functions that were apparently pretty much in line with what the traditional Temdai and Shingon priests did before him.

It seems Durkheim and his functionalist friends were right that religious behavior helps maintain group solidarity. One Buddhist master I knew was a former army sergeant. I thought he did a very good at maintaining social solidarity.

These things run counter to what Jesus taught:

Matt 6:5-8
5 "Whenever you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by people. I assure you: They've got their reward! (C) 6 But when you pray, go into your private room, shut your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (D) [c] 7 When you pray, don't babble like the idolaters, [d] since they imagine they'll be heard for their many words. (E) 8 Don't be like them, because your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him. (F)
​

 

[path_of_one]

It seems Durkheim and his functionalist friends were right that religious behavior helps maintain group solidarity. One Buddhist master I knew was a former army sergeant. I thought he did a very good at maintaining social solidarity.

I think it does, but the caveat is that religion on an individual level is different from religion on a communal level. Hence, religion as a social activity and identity exists and has functions in society. Yet, people in each religion have very different reasons for religious activity and different experiences of religion (i.e., see William James). This is an interesting intersection (one of many) between the individual and the society/culture. As society has emergent properties, we find that various individuals may have quite divergent beliefs and experiences in a single religion, yet the religion still provides certain functionality in society.

 

[wil]

In today's email

Lynda Beltz, from western Pennsylvania, writes:

Was Jesus also God? Or was he just a wonderful, inspired man more in touch with spiritual things than most other men?

Dear Lynda,
Unfortunately, the way you ask this question does not lend itself to a simple answer. I need to know what you mean by the word "God" and what you mean by an "inspired man." This confusion has been created by the Church itself out of a dualistic mindset that believed that God and human life, heaven and earth, souls and bodies, spirit and flesh were radically separate categories. That reflected an ancient mindset that is not part of our world view.

The Christian experience best articulated by St. Paul affirmed that "God was in Christ," that is, in the person of Jesus we met, engaged and interacted with the presence of God. Later when Christians tried to define how God, whom they thought lived above the sky, got into Jesus living on this earth, they had a problem. That is where you begin to get the explanations you find in the gospels.

Mark, the earliest gospel (ca. 70) said that at Jesus' baptism the heavens opened and the spirit of God entered him. The word you used, inspired, really means filled with the spirit.

When Matthew wrote (82-85) he introduced the Virgin Birth story that said God entered Jesus at conception. At that moment, Jesus' full humanity was compromised. Luke, writing a bit later (88-93), confirmed Matthew's Virgin Birth account, but with greatly varying details. John, writing at the end of the century (95-100), asserted that Jesus was "The Word of God" present as part of God at the dawn of creation, and that this "Word" was enfleshed in the fully human Jesus. It is of note that John totally omits the miraculous birth story.

I think most of this debate is irrelevant. I believe that God can dwell in all of us and that the experience of the early Christians was that God indwelt Jesus in a particularly full and complete way.

To say that "Jesus is God" in a simplistic way is absolute nonsense. Jesus prayed to God. Was he talking to himself? Jesus died. Can one say God dies?

I meet God in Jesus. I also meet God in people like you. The difference, I am convinced, is one of degree not one of kind.

–John Shelby Spong

 

[Marsh]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point Marsh. Are you saying that Bart Ehrman is unqualified to offer an insight in this debate?

No, I think he's perfect to offer his insight in this debate. So is FaithfulServant, because the qualification to offer opinions on spiritual matters has nothing to do with secular education, and everything to do with having a soul.

Who Jesus is will, I believe, never be uncovered in a debate. Perhaps I'm wrong, and Bart Ehrman will figure it all out. Or Professor Needleman (if you get that reference). Or someone else with credentials out the wazoo. Personally, I wouldn't bet on it. I've done lots of reading outside of the Bible (admittedly, most of it Christian), and I've noticed a trend: ultimately, the author knows nothing more than you do. They pretend to know, they sound like they know, they use the title of PhD or MDiv or whatever to prove that they know, but they don't know. If they did know, it would make perfect sense and everyone would flock to them. The fact that there are so many books by so many professors and pastors and what-not seems to me a pretty good indication that debate has gotten us no farther ahead-- and, indeed, possibly a bit more confused. That's fine, though; confusion is not a bad thing, because it promotes thinking, an thinking is the goal. Personally, I have always found myself farther ahead by reading the Bible and thinking about its meaning rather than to buy the lastest book and chew what someone else has already chewed...

Prechewed spiritual food.... blecccch!

So to summarize, let Bart Ehrman's ideas stand on their own merit, rather than on his credentials. And let's not dismiss someone's ideas because of a lack of credentials, either. After all, we don't want to go back to this, do we?

14Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[e]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

22All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.

23Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.' "

24"I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27And there were many in Israel with leprosy[f] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian."

28All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

They almost stoned Jesus for not having proper credentials!

 

[citizenzen]

So to summarize, let Bart Ehrman's ideas stand on their own merit, rather than on his credentials. And let's not dismiss someone's ideas because of a lack of credentials, either. After all, we don't want to go back to this, do we?

They almost stoned Jesus for not having proper credentials!

Please show me the post where I've dismissed somebody's ideas because of a lack of credentials.

Methinks you're tilting at windmills, Don Quixote.

 

[Netti-Netti]

...yet the religion still provides certain functionality in society.

Yes, something that's roughly equivalent to the social function of gossip.

 

[path_of_one]

Well, a lot more than that. In most societies, particularly before large centralized governments, religion also provided pseudo-scientific, ecological, medical, and other systems that were useful.

 

[Marsh]

Please show me the post where I've dismissed somebody's ideas because of a lack of credentials.

Methinks you're tilting at windmills, Don Quixote.

You didn't. However, you did imply that a person's secular credentials gives them some sort of special status in a spiritual debate, which I don't think is true.

By the way, has anyone seen my wash basin? I was just wearing it a few minutes ago...

 

[wil]

Is a theology degree from a bible college a secular credential?

Is obtaining the rank of bishop a secular credential?

 

[citizenzen]

You didn't. However, you did imply that a person's secular credentials gives them some sort of special status in a spiritual debate, which I don't think is true.

Duuude! I implied special status?!

Let's review....

The bible is clear on who Jesus is if you dont pick and choose which authors of the books to believe. I would never read a source outside of the bible for clarification on who Jesus was especially if it contradicts what the word is saying. We call that false teaching or apostate teaching and we are taught to beware of them.

After quoting an article from Wikipedia, I said in reply, "Ignore him all you like FS, but his credentials are hard to dismiss so blithely.

Marsh, does that imply "special status"? Help me out here, because I'm having a hard time seeing that.

blithe
Pronunciation:
\ˈblīth, ˈblīth\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
blith·er; blith·est
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English blīthe; akin to Old High German blīdi joyous
Date:
before 12th century
1 : of a happy lighthearted character or disposition
2 : lacking due thought or consideration : casual, heedless <blithe unconcern>

 

[Quahom1]

If you define Jesus as God, you limit God. If you define Jesus as "not God," you still limit God.

What a conundrum.

If one defines Jesus as "God made Man", then there is no limit to God...

 

[Marsh]

Duuude! I implied special status?!

Let's review....



After quoting an article from Wikipedia, I said in reply, "Ignore him all you like FS, but his credentials are hard to dismiss so blithely.

Marsh, does that imply "special status"? Help me out here, because I'm having a hard time seeing that.

blithe
Pronunciation:
\ˈblīth, ˈblīth\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
blith·er; blith·est
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English blīthe; akin to Old High German blīdi joyous
Date:
before 12th century
1 : of a happy lighthearted character or disposition
2 : lacking due thought or consideration : casual, heedless <blithe unconcern>

Duuuuude, don't be so sensitive!

Credential (from Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge): An attestation of qualification, competence, or authority issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant de jure or de facto authority or assumed competence to do so.

What is implied by saying this guy's credentials shouldn't be dismissed is that they are meaningful. Faithfulservant, to the best of my knowledge, does not possess a graduate degree in this area and has written no books on the subject (forgive me if I'm wrong, F) Thus, she does not possess the same credentials as whatshisname does. One might then imply that her thoughts are not as relevant.

You know, you could have just said, "Marsh, I didn't imply that." But noooooo, you had to bring out the dictionary. That's the problem with fundamentalist dictionary-thumpers: they're much too defensive.

 

[Marsh]

Is a theology degree from a bible college a secular credential?

Is obtaining the rank of bishop a secular credential?

A BTh, MDiv, or any other degree is bestowed upon the recipient by people-- people who have decided what knowledge was necessary to obtain the credential, and what assessment technique would be used in order to determine if the knowledge had been obtained. The same holds true for the commissioning of Bishops, Pastors, Imams, and any other religious leader: they are all hired, appointed, or elected by people. To me, this indicates that they are secular credentials-- they exist only in the secular world.

In contrast, Isaiah was a prophet who was commissioned by God. His credential was spiritual, because it was bestowed upon him by God.

 

[citizenzen]

What is implied by saying this guy's credentials shouldn't be dismissed is that they are meaningful. Faithfulservant, to the best of my knowledge, does not possess a graduate degree in this area and has written no books on the subject (forgive me if I'm wrong, F) Thus, she does not possess the same credentials as whatshisname does. One might then imply that her thoughts are not as relevant.

Marsh, it looks like you need dictionary definitions. And next time I'll throw in a Google Map because you have a tendency to veer dangerously off course.

Guess what? I don't know Faithfulservant's level of education and it is frankly irrelevant to me. All I care about is the words anybody writes in their post.

So the fact that you think I was trying to impugn FS's level of education, that's your delusion. And lately Marsh, you've been pretty delusional.

Keep both hands on the wheel... you're fishtailing again.

 

[iamme]

Are we?

Was there some reason you skipped Luke 7:59 about being saved by faith? “Your faith has saved you, go in peace.”

Also, what is it about "Son, your sins are forgiven" that suggests to you that Jesus was arrogating the ability to forgive?

Im gona respond

 

[iamme]

The entire issue needs to be looked at maybe from the beginning Genesis 1 v 26: “ Then God said and now WE will make human beings, they will be like US and resemble US.”There is plural here(who is us?) But lets look at the image we were being copied from:
If we are flesh, the HE/they ARE flesh(mortals, and are able to die)
If we are spirit then HE is spirit/soul and(that part immortal)
So we read throughout the old testament that God appears in various formations, i.e to Moses:burning bush, and in the mountains where Moses receives the commandments) yet never in a way that people could actually see Him. So they rejected His message and his law(though there was always some who didnt) So I believe the idea was first born in the mind of the Sovereign God In Genesis that He would come to us in a way that we can relate, by being born like us, and looking like us,walking like us, and dying like us. In the Hope that we would accept Him then. And then the preparation for this coming of HIS, as the Christ, is clear in the Bible. He chose the biological mother(virgin) and father who was a descendant of David. All so that we may soften our hearts and accept Him now in Human form, for our own sake, as we needed saving.

 

[iamme]

Luke Chapter 11 v 2
Jesus said to them when you pray, say this: “Our father who art in heaven….”

When Jesus refers to the Father, I believe He does so to remind us, the people to whom He has been sent, that the flesh that stands before them is not to be worshipped, instead that they worship the one who sent Him, which is same as the one who is in Him. I also consider strongly the possibility of this because Jesus, the Human part of Him, is and has always been aware, of the limited time he would spend with the people. And that He would return to His place in Heaven. And that to ‘see to believe’ must not be the order of the day. For then it will mean when He ascends (leaves them) would they then go back to the way they were, i.e. by rejecting God because they no longer see Him? All that He did while He walked with the people, and taught, and performed miracles, was part of Him showing that all these things that He was doing could not be possible were God not In Him(in that flesh)
So He was careful to show stuff and teach on it, so that they may copy and paste.
The Bible says He left His glorious kingdom to be amongst us.
And because these were the activities and laws and doings of the times, He showed them what needed changing where there was a wrong understanding that flowed from the way things were in the Old Testament. He also said blessed are those who believed already without seeing, while He asked another “do you believe now because you saw?”
Christ makes a clear distinction in far too many areas of the Bible referring to the “Father, the one who sent Him” He says in the Bible that He came to bear witness to the truth. Who then is able to actually choose the one who will betray Him, forming part of the sequence of events that would lead to HIS death?
All this So that the scriptures would be fulfilled. And to die the most horrid death set down for hard criminals and murderers, of which He was neither?
Yes, indeed, this was the PASSION GOD has for His creation. God wanted all to witness how willing He would go to the human death of the body He Dwelt in. There is a far more greater significance attached to the death. Not only did He die a horrid death, but He died that:
· we may have a second chance at salvation;
· that we may overcome our fear of death, even the most horrific ones the world will witness through the ages;
· that we may focus on the glory of the resurrection after living a life representative of Him, and the promise of a new life everlasting in Gods Kingdom.
Yes, He did ask the Father, “Why have you forsaken Me?”
The death of the body has to run its human natured course, and the human feelings that is attached to death as we know it. I believe that God, had exited the body during this time, and the same feelings we feel, at point of death, is the same Jesus felt.
For what use, even today is the body, once the soul/spirit has left?
But this death gave us Hope, that no matter how bad, painful, and demeaning the perishing, or dying of the body may be, that there is glory in the knowledge of the resurrection.