14 Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God

[Dream]

I personally think its because if they were forced to admit that He is God then they would have to admit that everything else is true and what that implies.

I don't know but would just like to further point out that Netti would not fall for just some crap he found in some book. Definitely he was just looking for the best language he could find to explain things, and he likes to make sure he's in line with the Bible. Finding the right words is something he's good at. You can correct me, but I think rather than teaching out of Urantia he was picking something co-Biblical out of it, like a sort of 'Footprints in the sand' or a song. Also, to be a false apostle he'd have to claim to be an apostle in the first place.

 

[path_of_one]

Good question and I would like people to answer this one..

I personally think its because if they were forced to admit that He is God then they would have to admit that everything else is true and what that implies.

I have no agenda in believing or not believing Jesus is God. I just refuse to define God in any way. I refuse to believe my puny mind can fully comprehend and define God. I keep myself in what I see as my place.

My issue is more this idea of "everything else" and "what that implies." These items have been variously defined by different churches over the 2000-some years of Christianity. Agreement on the divinity of Jesus seems to have no direct correlation to unity among believers on what that means- that is what "everything else" that is true is and "what is implied" by that. Hence, we have in-fighting and a lack of unity that seems directly opposite what the love and grace of God given through Jesus the Christ should be leading to.

Some let an institution or pastor define for them what the "everything else" is; I have chosen personal study from an ecumenical, historical, and Spirit-led perspective. Somehow my views are often seen as heretical, but such as me is stuck with an unfortunate predicament- deny where the Spirit and reason have both led me, deny my own experience of the living Christ and God or accept that where I have been led is not where this or that institution or pastor wanted me to be led.

 

[citizenzen]

Now as for sin...and hell...and damnation...I still can't figure out how Christians took the Jewish writings and then believed something the Jews don't.

Did Paul and Jesus advocate the same religion? It is a key historical question, and the answer is hard to deny. Jesus taught his followers to keep the [Jewish] law as God had commanded in order to enter the kingdom. Paul taught that keeping the law had nothing to do with entering the kingdom. For Paul, only the death and resurrection of Jesus mattered. The historical Jesus taught the law. Paul taught Jesus. Or, as some scholars have put it, already with Paul the religion of Jesus has become the religion about Jesus. — Jesus, Interrupted

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's the thing: There is this search for what primitive, pristine Christianity might be. I haven't seen, and I don't think anyone else can make a valid claim to have seen the original artifact. So everyone takes a nuanced position, one way or the other, and digs in along some line of demarcation. But if the question is limited to: what was the NT authors intent?, I don't think one can say that it wasn't to present Jesus as tantamount to God, if not God in fact.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Did Paul and Jesus advocate the same religion?

That sounds like a good question, but it's really a nonsensical question. There is no pristine object. Nobody knows what Jesus "actually" said or did. If you want to argue red words plus gnostic gospels against John plus Paul that's one thing, but we simply don't know who Jesus or Paul were, literally. So, as FS says, we're back to the text, and the text alone. It either stands on its own, at face value, or it doesn't.

I personally choose to take an un-nuanced position. I think the Bible is another collection of interesting old literary artifacts. I don't "believe" in any of it for a second. The rest of you can dig in and defend anywhere you want. Not you, of course, CZ. I know you don't have a dog in this either.

 

[citizenzen]

Not you, of course, CZ. I know you don't have a dog in this either.

Unrelenting inquiry. That's my dog.

Buddhists have a concept "kill the Buddha"... that is kill to the idea of what you think enlightenment should be and discover for yourself what it is, not based on anything written in the past, but what is happening right now before your very eyes.

I know there must be many Christians who likewise challenge their understanding to connect with God, in effect creating a religion that may fall within the realm of Christianity, yet is a new manifestation of it.

Each person walks a unique path in their journey to oneness. I'm on mine. I do not seek to change the course of yours.

Peace to all my interfaith companions. Your journeys will be fruitful.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Yeah, but you can't kill the Buddha. He always slips away somehow. There will always be another form to emulate. It never ends. You can't kill it. You can't stop without dying, and then it only stops for you.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

...or something.

Chris

 

[wil]

exactly....not that I look forward to it like tomorrow...but I am anticipatory...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Remember the film Logan's Run?

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

When Jesus sits down on the right hand of the Father, who I presume we'll agree is God, is there any real distinction between their Will, one compared to the other? With that in mind the question becomes: without anthropmorphizing, how are they distinct deities?

Chris

 

[wil]

When Jesus sits down on the right hand of the Father, who I presume we'll agree is God, is there any real distinction between their Will, one compared to the other? With that in mind the question becomes: without anthropmorphizing, how are they distinct deities?

Chris

When we understand we are in the midst, from the inside looking out...no there will be no distinction, between one, the other or us.

 

[path_of_one]

When we understand we are in the midst, from the inside looking out...no there will be no distinction, between one, the other or us.

Exactly. When any being's will is aligned with the will of God, when a being is resting in God and finding his/her being-ness within that Ground of Being... then what is the difference?

I do not seek to minimize the divinity of Christ so much as I seek to acknowledge his full humanity, and to acknowledge the potential of unity with God for all beings by extension through what Christ demonstrated. If we become vessels for God's love and grace to pour through into material reality, then indeed we are no longer separate from God, and we exist in wholeness with the Divine.

 

[Marsh]

from wikipedia...

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written about how the original New Testament texts were frequently altered by scribes for a variety of reasons, and argues that these alterations affect the interpretation of the texts.

Ignore him all you like FS, but his credentials are hard to dismiss so blithely.

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Secular credentials belong in secular study, C. I wouldn't claim that my English degree makes me an expert in Physics, so if FaithfulServant is dismissing the credentials of a theologian (which is, essentially, as secular a field of study as any else), then she's got the Bible's backing.

Now as for debate, by all means debate. But if the debate has not been resolved in two thousand years, will it ever be resolved? Can it be resolved? Jesus is a person; can people be debated? Can I debate your existence? I don't see how, really. It's not like we can engage in a Platonic dialectic and sharpen each other until we come to a conclusion on the subject of who Jesus actually was because, very simply, that's backwards. It is only through believing in Jesus Christ that he can be understood; one cannot hope to understand him first, and then believe in him. It's just like Paul asserted in the passage above: It seems like foolishness to those who don't believe.

Debate it by all means-- and in fact, it's better that the debate is going on than not going on, because as long as people keep stumbling over the meaning of Jesus, Jesus (and spiritual things) remain on peoples' minds. All I'm saying is don't expect to gain an understanding in the same way you would gain an understanding of a novel by debating its meaning. A novel is only as deep as the reader's mind; Jesus Christ is much deeper.

 

[Marsh]

G!d gets a kick out of this, did he tell you this over lunch?

Nope. He said it in the Bible though, scorner.

22 “ How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
For scorners delight in their scorning,
And fools hate knowledge.
23 Turn at my rebuke;
Surely I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you.
24 Because I have called and you refused,
I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
25 Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
27 When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.
28 “ Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
29 Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the LORD,
30 They would have none of my counsel
And despised my every rebuke.
31 Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way,
And be filled to the full with their own fancies.
32 For the turning away of the simple will slay them,
And the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 But whoever listens to me will dwell safely,
And will be secure, without fear of evil.”

Mmmmmmmmm..... apples.

 

[wil]

lol Namaste Marsh,

Thanx for the reminder, that was great. This scorner has no fear of evil, for I's dwelling safely and lie in the lap of the lord...

I like:

And fools hate knowledge....And the complacency of fools will destroy them

So I'll keep reading and learning...

 

[citizenzen]

Secular credentials belong in secular study, C. I wouldn't claim that my English degree makes me an expert in Physics, so if FaithfulServant is dismissing the credentials of a theologian (which is, essentially, as secular a field of study as any else), then she's got the Bible's backing.

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?

 

[path_of_one]

I'm also confused as to credentials, because having a MDiv or being a priest/pastor doesn't mean other Christians think you have the right to disagree with their beliefs. Spong, for example. As soon as you stray from one particular viewpoint on the scriptures, endorsed by one institution, you are decried as heretical by that institution and your credentials or former status is worthless in their eyes.

Basically, it's all about agreement. If you agree with the stance of a particular institution, then your views are valid and correct. And if you disagree, then your views are invalid, no matter what your credentials. Hence, denominational conflict and the perceived need of some churches and denominations to "save" their fellow Christians. It goes all the way back to the beginning and continues merrily onward today. Funny thing is that it is often the earlier versions of Christianity that are later decried as invalid, while the more modern interpretations are upheld as authentic.

 

[Netti-Netti]

James 2

judgment is without mercy to the one who hasn't shown mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
​

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.

 

[wil]

I'm also confused as to credentials, because having a MDiv or being a priest/pastor doesn't mean other Christians think you have the right to disagree with their beliefs. Spong, for example. As soon as you stray from one particular viewpoint on the scriptures, endorsed by one institution, you are decried as heretical by that institution and your credentials or former status is worthless in their eyes.

Basically, it's all about agreement. If you agree with the stance of a particular institution, then your views are valid and correct. And if you disagree, then your views are invalid, no matter what your credentials. Hence, denominational conflict and the perceived need of some churches and denominations to "save" their fellow Christians. It goes all the way back to the beginning and continues merrily onward today. Funny thing is that it is often the earlier versions of Christianity that are later decried as invalid, while the more modern interpretations are upheld as authentic.

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.