14 Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God

[wil]

Well the fact of the matter is...we don't know what Jesus said...but what has been written is clear... But I wouldn't believe in any G!d so insecure that demanded worship.


Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.

Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said...but I say to you.."

Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46 - not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord." Jesus calls Himself Lord, which is God.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 - Jesus says that He is "Lord of the Sabbath." He is the Lord of God's law which means He is God.

Matt. 18:20 - Jesus says where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them.

Matt. 21:3; Luke 19:31,34 - Jesus calls himself "Lord." "The Lord has need of them."

Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70 - Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus said He is with us always, even unto the end of the world. Only God is omnipresent.

Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said "tell how much God has done for you." And the man declared how much Jesus did.

Luke 17:18 - Jesus asks why the other nine lepers did not come back to give praise to Him, God, except the Samaritan leper.

Luke 19:38,40 - Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. If these were silent, the very stones would cry out.

John 5:18 - Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews knew this because Jesus called God His Father and made Himself equal to God. This is why Jesus was crucified.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Well the fact of the matter is...we don't know what Jesus said...but what has been written is clear... But I wouldn't believe in any G!d so insecure that demanded worship.

You mistake God's command to worhip him as a need, or insecurity. It is not for his benefit, but yours. Should you not worhip the one that created you? Besides my view, isn't this all prescribed in the OT?

I'll get to your posts if you want later. As most if not all of those are countered to your point in themselves or close proximity in Biblical texts. If that's what you believe, fine. I am happy to examine them further. As I have in the past.

 

[Shibolet]

So if resurrection is not, in your opinion, true then he died? To me that means there are more possibilities than just 1 as you have prescribed.

I have prescribed nothing. Judaism the Faith of Jesus has prescribed that there is no resurrection. The truth is that the dead will never return. (Isa. 26:14; Job 10:21; II Sam. 12:23)

1. He died. Romans got it right, God enlisted Jesus' prophet-hood for only 3 years.

According to Paul in Heb. 7:12,22 yes, Jesus replaced the Jewish Priesthood, changed the Law and became the guarantee of a better covenant than the Jewish one. Not according to Judaism.

2. He did not die, Romans placed the wrong man on the cross, and Jesus hid alive for 3ish days (another discussion on the ish part) and did reveal himself after the weekend to his apostles whose story got changed over the next few decades. He then ascended to heaven to await his time for second coming.

That's a Muslim version that does not make any sense to me either.

3. Same as 2. but he lived in self exile hidden from even his family and friends until his natural or unnatural non recorded death happened.

That's true.

If it is number 2 that is real, then from a Jewish perspective, what makes Mouhammed not possible to be the final messenger before the Messiah's return and establishment of the messianic age? I'm not asking you to accept my POV, just asking does it not seem possible?

That's not a Jewish perspective; at least not mine. I do not believe in an individual Messiah. The Messianic age yes, but formed by Messianic leaders. The Messiah per se is according to the collective concept of the People, not of the individual. (Hab. 3:13)

 

[donnann]

I have prescribed nothing. Judaism the Faith of Jesus has prescribed that there is no resurrection. The truth is that the dead will never return. (Isa. 26:14; Job 10:21; II Sam. 12:23)



According to Paul in Heb. 7:12,22 yes, Jesus replaced the Jewish Priesthood, changed the Law and became the guarantee of a better covenant than the Jewish one. Not according to Judaism.



That's a Muslim version that does not make any sense to me either.



That's true.



That's not a Jewish perspective; at least not mine. I do not believe in an individual Messiah. The Messianic age yes, but formed by Messianic leaders. The Messiah per se is according to the collective concept of the People, not of the individual. (Hab. 3:13)

Judaism 101: Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

You can quit correcting me, I don't care for it.

That isn't what I'm saying. Not realizing the faults or able to make sense of them isn't being dumb, it is simply unconsidered by most Christians

You say this and then you state the other side of the argument like so:

"Kinda weird he would be telling his "Chosen people" on the day of Judgement "Haha I tricked you. Too bad you didn't believe me when I came as Jesus because you listened to what I said before. Now you are all going to HELL!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!""

Your rhetoric puts your own logic as flawless and the opposition as drooling imbeciles. Numerous Christians have pointed out that they read the Bible as Jesus stating that he is God. Either you accept that they believe that or don't. Saying 'No he isn't' isn't getting anyone anywhere.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

You can quit correcting me, I don't care for it.



You say this and then you state the other side of the argument like so:

"Kinda weird he would be telling his "Chosen people" on the day of Judgement "Haha I tricked you. Too bad you didn't believe me when I came as Jesus because you listened to what I said before. Now you are all going to HELL!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!""

Your rhetoric puts your own logic as flawless and the opposition as drooling imbeciles. Numerous Christians have pointed out that they read the Bible as Jesus stating that he is God. Either you accept that they believe that or don't. Saying 'No he isn't' isn't getting anyone anywhere.

No offense meant, but If I'm quoting something with a simple error, I will fix it. I'm sorry if that is not OK with you.

My story isn't of people as it is (at least to me) clearly a "what if", Jesus (PBUH) spoke in parables often according to the NT. I simply attempted to establish my contention with that of a story. Again I cannot help if you do not approve of my methods of discussion.

My point is not to get into a debate, but I would like someone to examine what I wrote and tell me HOW what I wrote is not the case. I've welcomed that criticism of Islam, and been happy to answer. Why must I walk on pins and needles when I want explanations? It seems as though there are questions certain people don't want asked here as long as it pertains to certain religions/world views.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

And again we make it abundantly clear we come down differently on courtesy and "pins and needles".

I have tried so many times to show you why anyone can believe Jesus is the son of God, and we have 12 pages on the subject, I haven't seen you comment on a single answer to your question, just sidesteps.

I really don't see how you have to make everyone else ignorant for your world to work.

And yes, you must have asked a trouble some question, that is the obvious answer here isn't it, a big cover up. Your ignorance vs. millions of people, the answer must be obvious.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

And again we make it abundantly clear we come down differently on courtesy and "pins and needles".

how so? I stated a question, you gave me an answer that was "a lot of people do... that's how". Which is not an answer. You want me to drop it even though I don't see anyone else getting offended. Last I checked I haven't seen your name pup up as a Christian, so why are you attempting to answering my question to Christians? Or getting offended at my statement.

I have tried so many times to show you why anyone can believe Jesus is the son of God, and we have 12 pages on the subject, I haven't seen you comment on a single answer to your question, just sidesteps.

I stated I would try to comment if someone wanted to hear it. and frankly if you hadn't perpetuated it, I probably wouldn't have said anything else. Also, since you are so worried about my argument, where did I contend he was a/the son of God. That is a different argument altogether. The OT is full of Sons of God. Muslims don't use the term but we aren't so dumb not to recognize that the term was once used.

I really don't see how you have to make everyone else ignorant for your world to work.

I never said anyone was ignorant. That's your own prejudices. Again, I didn't state nor did I mean anyone was ignorant, nor did I say anyone was even misinformed or lacking in knowledge. I stated a small story (or parable if you will) with a hypothetical response. Anyone is able to look at it and say, "no that's not what we think" But I was hoping someone might go a little further and explain why the OT statements of God are so different than that of the man-God Jesus (PBUH) that people prescribe him to be.

And yes, you must have asked a trouble some question, that is the obvious answer here isn't it, a big cover up. Your ignorance vs. millions of people, the answer must be obvious.

Again, this is just your prejudice. I never said there is a big cover up or that Millions of people follow an obvious lie. And really my IGNORANCE vs millions of people? you assume there is no truth, or if there is truth all is truth. which might be true. I've said it many times that my religion supports people following their religion. But, that doesn't mean that is the only possibility. Islam could be the absolute truth. And that would mean all other religions or lack thereof would be wrong. Same could be said of any religion, even Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Hell even Satanism (sry I couldn't resist a joke in all this seriousness) or any others.

Since we are on the point of what I think, I think the Bible was once a beacon of knowledge. over time, translations, and undocumented copies, it is mostly a feel good story with many illogical statements and some inconsistencies. That is why I don't follow it anymore. Well not directly. But I don't hold anyone who does as lesser. Same as Jews. I respect all people who follow their religion. I do see issues with many, and I can't understand why people do not. I am not smarter than everyone. I welcome friendly debate, and general discussion. That's how people (apparently not all but some) learn about others' POV and compare it to theirs to enhance their own religion's understanding.

With 1 person attempting to give an answer even remotely textually based, I can only assume noone wants this discussion to go any further. So I'm out of this one... unless something pops up to draw me back.

 

[Thomas]

Hi BigJoeNobody –

I have pointed out the error in claiming Jesus never declared His divinity, so has Wil.

I'm not asking you believe, but only that you acknowledge the assertion that Jesus never claimed His divinity is wrong.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Hi BigJoeNobody –

I have pointed out the error in claiming Jesus never declared His divinity, so has Wil.

I'm not asking you believe, but only that you acknowledge the assertion that Jesus never claimed His divinity is wrong.

I got your point. I didn't comment back on your or wil's post because it is not what i was asking. To me not correcting someone doesn't mean you acknowledge that they are correct. And without stepping into bounds of debate i cannot show that the verses do not indicate divinity. I didn't mean to continue asking...

 

[wil]

BJN

You don't believe....again....we get that....ain't nuthin worse than a former smoker.

But you going on about trying to twist and prove statements that say one thing and making them say another is either you regurgitating the pablum of those who are instructing you....or you are questioning your conversion and trying to bolster your own beliefs by trying to get us to go along with them...

Obviously my opinion. But again, if you feel the need to tear down others to make yourself more comfortable...I'd say let it go and focus on your own belief system.... I thought Mohamed was ok with the people of the book?

 

[Thomas]

My point in this discussion is simply that the literal aspect of the Bible doesn't make logical sense If the only commandment to be followed is believe Jesus (PBUH) is God.

Well that's a subjective opinion, although the let-out 'if' in your statement does rather invalidate the whole thing. That Jesus is the Son of God is never presented as a commandment in the Bible in the first place, so the claim of illogicality bounces back on you, you're claiming the Bible is illogical in claiming something it actually doesn't claim.

Jesus (PBUH) never proclaims he is God...

He does, and scholarship points out that he does. It is only those 'unschooled' in reading the text who say that He doesn't. By 'unschooled' I mean the implication of His statements are lost because they're reading from a 20th century mindset that doesn't comprehend the theological significance of His statements – it's quite clear His audience knew exactly what He meant, and reacted accordingly.

The Bible has many passages where Jesus (PBUH) distinguishes himself from God.

Yes. And many other passages where He self-identifies with God.

The oft-made claim of errors, contradictions, etc. in the Biblical text is something of an industry, but really it depends on a lack of scholarship, rather than the possession of insight, for its traction. Take the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, for instance ... (I believe the Quran comes in for the same treatment.)

I think that whole debate is nonsense, resting on the assumption that because one doesn't understand it, it is therefore illogical ...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Well I lost a big ole post describing this but I don't have the time to repeat it. So I will try to give the condensed version.

Thomas, I believe your answer is as close to explaining why someone may not understand. I do disagree (and I don't see any reason anyone would be shocked by it) that the passages point to Jesus (PBUH) claiming divinity. I do understand you and wil's arguements, but from what I have available, NIV, KJV, some translations of DSSs, etc. I cannot say that they add up to difinitive proof, but will say I can see where you get the idea of it as a possibility. Is that good enough?

As for the examples stated, sometimes I do go over the top when cartoonizing an idea so that the issue I have is very clear. If you find them, or found them, offensive, my appologies, I just wanted to make it clear what I was discussing

 

[Thomas]

I do disagree (and I don't see any reason anyone would be shocked by it) that the passages point to Jesus (PBUH) claiming divinity. I do understand you and wil's arguements, but from what I have available, NIV, KJV, some translations of DSSs, etc. I cannot say that they add up to difinitive proof, but will say I can see where you get the idea of it as a possibility. Is that good enough?

Not really. The translations are immaterial, the statements are consistent, and the statements were seen by His audience,a s blasphemy. In many discreet ways, Jesus claims divine agency for Himself – not as a prophet nor a priest, but as someone who speaks with the authority of God, and a God who is 'jealous' of His authority, as the Hebrew Scriptures assert beyond doubt.

Even if we discuss 'possible nuanced interpretations' the question remains that the scribe presents his materials in such a way as to point to that conclusion. If, for example, Jesus was not claiming divinity, the scribe would surely defend Him by pointing out the error of those who assumed He had done so?

Again, as I've discussed elsewhere, it boils down to critique and conviction. If you don't believe in Christ, don't try and invalidate the text on grounds such as a Wil or a David McCann might argue, because they really don't hold water.

To such people I say ... Just let it go ...

I can see with Islam there is the complexity of wanting to redefine Jesus according to its own religious paradigm ... but then that was nothing new then, and still goes on today!

But no offence taken. Mind you ... I haven't read every post!

 

[The Adept]

I am an old style Unitarian - not a UU. By that I mean that I do not believe in the Trinity. If the Trinity does not exist, Jesus cannot be a God.

The trinity does not exist but Jesus could still be a god; for there are many.
(in that he is a god to some, and gods do not exist)
The title Son of God was made popular by the Roman Empire.

 

[Thomas]

The title Son of God was made popular by the Roman Empire.

The title 'Son of God' in reference to Christ derives from Christian teachings. Your claim is not uncommon, there are many like it, but they are invariably without any scholarly credibility.

 

[wil]

Isaiah 43:6
I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' and to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth--

Hosea 1:10
"Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'children of the living God.'

Romans 8:14
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

2 Corinthians 6:18 I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty.

 

[Alexandria Dillon]

Let's take Mathew 27:46 for example. Your website is saying that Jesus was saying why has God forsaken me? But when you read the next verse it clearly says that Jesus was actually calling for Elias. Sorry folks, but you actually have to read the bible for what it says, not what you want it to say.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Sorry folks, but you actually have to read the bible for what it says, not what you want it to say. Now there is a radical thought! The rub is that like any other tome that has been created partially from earlier religious texts, partially from an assemblage of sources at the time, and revisionist sources during the early Church - there are many conflicting passages.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry folks, but you actually have to read the bible for what it says, not what you want it to say.

I agree that one should read the complete text, rather than pull out verses and then interpret them as one so chooses, but one should also read the text according to the Tradition. The Bible says so itself in Acts 8:
"And Philip ... said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who (a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians) said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?"

The Hebrew Tradition rests on the informed commentary on the texts, and so do the ancient Christian traditions. The idea that the Bible is 'self explanatory' doesn't really stand investigation. Twenty minutes on the internet will reveal there's all manner of fantastic interpretations of Scripture.

"Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 echoes the Psalms:
"O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 21:2).

The reference to Elias is a pun on Eli (my God) and Eliyya (Elijah). It's all part of the mockery of those observing the crucifixion.