The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

[Harmonious]

I think Christianity is not a lifestyle; it’s just a quick Sunday morning church visit and a label.
Although some Christians do pray before each meal and spend much time with their Bible, many don’t in the West, so to say Christianity is life style, it can't be shunted into a few spare hours, your daily life should be effected; even your food choices are explained in the book etc.

When you feel actively involved and as if you are truly religious, then this is a lifestyle.

There are Christians who do this.

 

[esmith]

The followers of Jesus split up into two sects immediately after the disappearance of Jesus, and one of them eventually eliminated the other. The sect that prevailed followed St Paul, who ingeniously over-ruled many of the fundamental teachings of Jesus. As a result, we have Christianity which preaches Trinity, Original Sin, and Atonement through the suffering and crucifixion of God’s Only Begotten Son etc.

Better read-up a little before making a statement that there were only two sects. There were at a minimum of 4.

Orthodox: Modern Christians.

Ebionites: Jewish-Christians- kept Jewish custom and law. Said Jesus was fully human from sexual union of Joseph & Mary, adopted by God at his baptism.

Marcionites: Went to opposite extreme of Ebionites; said Jesus was fully a deity, to be more accurate a phantasm: view described as docetism.

Gnostics: Jesus was a Aeon from the Pleroma to provide the knowledge for some humans to return to the Pleroma to have an afterlife.

All of them believed that Jesus was the "messiah" with the same understanding of Jesus role as the Orthodox, just got there a little differently.

 

[no-body]

The Bible did not suffer distortion through translation and time, it's core doctrine remains intact to this day and reflects the early beliefs of Christians in the 1st century. The historical record of Jesus Christ is depicted by not only the sypnoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but the epistles of Paul, many of those epistles were written within a 10-15 year period after the death and resurrection of Christ.

My understanding is we don't even have the original originals just "originals" people copied down. I think it is naive to think translators and copyist wouldn't alter the text with their bias. Christians are quick to point out that most of the translations errors are paltry which is true, but there are still errors that change the meaning of scripture. Some are even instituted today to reflect the bias of today's Christians, look at the new international version of the bible i.e. changing that one line of text specifically in Paul to "homosexuals"

You never even cited secular sources that reference the historical Jesus and early christianity such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny and many more. There are over a dozen secular sources that validate early Christianity and the footprint of Jesus's life, miracles, death and the spread of Christianity.

None of these people ever claimed to see Jesus, just hear about him and his followers. Their descriptions all suspiciously sound like the way urban legends get started too.

 

[lili76]

Many scriptural texts were omitted or modified by the Catholic Church to serve its own purpose so the New Testament is surely not identical to original scriptures. In addition, the English version of the Bible has modifications of the scriptural messages because the translators used whatever vocabulary was closely related but not identical (because sometimes it's impossible from one language to another) to the original aramaic or hebrew. It may very well have sometimes been unintentional.

 

[esmith]

My understanding is we don't even have the original originals just "originals" people copied down.

We don't even have copies of the copies of the copies of the copies....ad nausuem

I think it is naive to think translators and copyist wouldn't alter the text with their bias. Christians are quick to point out that most of the translations errors are paltry which is true, but there are still errors that change the meaning of scripture. Some are even instituted today to reflect the bias of today's Christians, look at the new international version of the bible i.e. changing that one line of text specifically in Paul to "homosexuals"

At the present time there are around 5400 Greek manuscripts of the NT plus thousands that were translated into Latin and other copies in many different languages. There are more differences in the 5400 Greek manuscripts than there are words in the NT. Scribes made many mistakes some small, some large, some accidental, some on purpose. Who knows what the originals said. Also remember that the Synoptic Gospels plus John was written from oral stories. Ever play the game where you sit in a circle and someone starts a story at one end and the story goes around the circle. It is completely different by the time it gets back to the start, now amplify that thousand if not hundred of thousand times as stories are told and retold. What do you think you get?

 

[ccdnn]

Muffled,

It is indispensable for me to look for the truth and study comparative religion because if I would like to know whether the information in the links is true or false, I should not depend on my emotions, feelings, or traditions. Rather, I should depend on my reason and intellect.

Harmonious,

Many people are not satisfied with Christianity. They feel it is too liberal, too fluid and changes for the culture. Islam on the other hand is more rigid and does not as a whole allow much for modern changes and the whims of society. Many like it because they feel other religions have loose standards.

For women, it is a big and welcome change from the "in your face" sexuality of western culture. Women are not required by the Qur'an to veil. They are required to dress modestly and it is *recommended* that they cover their hair. However, most do veil and some go farther with the face screen or other traditional clothes. Women dressed like this consider themselves marked as religious women, not easy dates. They don't get hit on. No one gawks at their bodies.They are clearly off limits sexually and many say it is liberating not to have to conform to western standards of sexy dress, makeup and spending so much time and money on appearance. You buy a five-dollar hair cover, put your hair in a ponytail and cover, wear long skirt and a tunic shirt -you're set.

 

[rusra02]

Jesus is not a GOD:

Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India. He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness.
God revealed a holy book to Jesus called the Injeel, some parts of which may be still available in the teachings of God to Jesus in the New Testament. But this does not mean that the Bible we have today because it is not the original scriptures that were revealed by God. They underwent alterations, additions, and omissions. This was also said by the Committee charged with revising The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version). This Committee consisted of thirty-two scholars who served as members of the Committee. They secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations.
The Committee said in the Preface to The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version), p. iv, “Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.

The Committee also said in the Preface, p. vii, Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32, 51, etc.).
Christians take their information about Jesus from the Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments. These contain four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus. They have been written, according to tradition, respectively by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are placed at the beginning of the New Testament and comprise close to half of it.
Encyclopedia Britannica notes that "none of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its faith in Jesus.

The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

The Bible - A Closer Look!
islamtomorrow

Who Was Jesus According to Jesus?
islaminfo

IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD?
jamaat.net/bible

The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison
soundvision

THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS
sultan.org

Christ in Islam
home2 swipnet se

Mary & Jesus in Quran
islamworld net

None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God
islam-guide

You are correct that the Bible's writers did not believe Jesus is almighty God. However, the Bible does refer to him as God's only-begotten son, who was with his Father, Jehovah, when the heavens and earth were created. (John 3:16, John 1:1-3)
Jesus in his pre and post human existence, is a god in the sense that he is next to his Father in power and authority (not in the sense that he should be worshipped). Jesus continues to be subject to Jehovah. (1 Corinthians 11:3) He is the true Prophet. (Acts 3:19-26) There is no salvation in anyone else.(Acts 4:12) True worshippers of God accept Jesus as God's means for salvation, as noted at John 3:16.

 

[Ninez]

Assuming you mean "Almighty God", even Jesus himself denied that. He always emphasized that he and his Father were not equal. (John 14:28)

 

[Harmonious]

Harmonious,

Many people are not satisfied with Christianity.

I know. I'm not specifically advocating Christianity. But I don't think it is fair to say that all Christians don't do anything but "go to church on Sunday."

They feel it is too liberal, too fluid and changes for the culture.

For some, you would be right. But that is still a VERY broad brush, and it isn't necessarily very accurate in how certain Christians would describe what they feel or what they believe.

Islam on the other hand is more rigid and does not as a whole allow much for modern changes and the whims of society. Many like it because they feel other religions have loose standards.

Granted, there are those who feel that way.

For women, it is a big and welcome change from the "in your face" sexuality of western culture. Women are not required by the Qur'an to veil. They are required to dress modestly and it is *recommended* that they cover their hair. However, most do veil and some go farther with the face screen or other traditional clothes. Women dressed like this consider themselves marked as religious women, not easy dates. They don't get hit on. No one gawks at their bodies.They are clearly off limits sexually and many say it is liberating not to have to conform to western standards of sexy dress, makeup and spending so much time and money on appearance. You buy a five-dollar hair cover, put your hair in a ponytail and cover, wear long skirt and a tunic shirt -you're set.

I hear that.

Living as an Orthodox Jew, I mostly LIVE that. (I don't wear a veil, nor do I cover my hair, but at such a time as I am married, I will indeed cover my hair.) But the modest dress is very much a part of me.

Jews and Muslims agree on many things, far more than the mainstream media would have people believe. However, it is not fair to say that all Christians just "go with the flow" when it comes to the immodesty of the Western World.

 

[ccdnn]

I agree with you for example, Islam is not a “religion” in the narrow sense used by secular humanists and does not rely upon blind faith to make its case, but rather, encourages to use minds, for example, the Qur'an invites to ponder upon the wonders of creation, and challenges with intellectual arguments, further study of the Qur'an demonstrates that sound reasoning and scientific knowledge confirm rather than contradict authentic revelation and its ability to satisfy the intellect whilst bringing peace to the soul. Also Islam deals with every aspect of life, spiritual and physical; its jurisprudence is based on a creed, instruction on worship, and ordinances regarding social, economic, and political aspects.
That's what I got from Islam-online & Islam way women's board and a few others of mine. Stats taken by many college groups say that women convert 4 times more often then men.

 

[KennethM]

According to Christian scripture that latter makes Him the former.

I have to disagree with that. 1 Timothy 3:16 was clearly changed from ΟΣ to ΘΣ the nomina sacre form of God in Greek. You can see it in both the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus. Changes which were meant to discourage an adoptionist reading of the scriptures but that doesn't mean they are true nor does it mean that they are the original intent of the scripture's author.

 

[Harmonious]

I have to disagree with that. 1 Timothy 3:16 was clearly changed from ΟΣ to ΘΣ the nomina sacre form of God in Greek. You can see it in both the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus. Changes which were meant to discourage an adoptionist reading of the scriptures but that doesn't mean they are true nor does it mean that they are the original intent of the scripture's author.

The irony of this post makes me smile. Ask me about my adoptionist readings of Tanach...

 

[Harmonious]

The irony of this post makes me smile. Ask me about my adoptionist readings of Tanach...

That should read: Ask me about my THOUGHTS on adoptionist readings of Tanach...