14 Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,202
Reaction score
2,671
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
yup.... the bible....2/3 of it is the Jewish Text....and the Jews don't just use their bible, but the midrash...and the rash is a bookcase of books going into the detailed commentary...

You surely can't just read the bible alone and understand all the nuance of the authors' life perspective, his agenda, the audience he wrote it to, the time he wrote it, the language it was written in, the idioms, the metaphors....this ain't no simple process of math where two plus two equal four...
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,636
Reaction score
2,760
Points
108
....and the Jews don't just use their bible, but the midrash...and the rash is a bookcase of books going into the detailed commentary...
Exactly.

You surely can't just read the bible alone ... this ain't no simple process of math where two plus two equal four...
But so many assume it is. So many assume that because they can read, the text must reveal itself to them in all its depth and meaning and, if it doesn't, if they can't see it, then it isn't there! And if there's a contradiction, then the whole thing's invalid.

It often seems to me that those who make the 'contradiction' argument can only make it stick on the a priori assumption that the Bible should be inerrant in the literal sense – a text without mistake of any sort – and I see those who critique the Bible on the basis of 'bad history' or 'bad science' is really a sub-set of the same assumption of critiquing the Bible for not being what it never set out to be ... and then there's the contrary opinion that says the Bible enables one to spin any kind of story one wants, it's there as a source of self-affirmation.

Everybody loves Jesus ... but not quite enough to do as He says ...
 

Devils' Advocate

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
382
Points
83
Location
In this so called Reality. Well, most of the time.
To be fair though - Bible thumpers are the book's worst enemies. They insist that every word is divinely inspired. The literal Word O God. Every single word. So when someone starts pointing out the contradictions, they are reacting to the discrepancy between what they read and what they are being told.
 

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,202
Reaction score
2,671
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Tis true.... they are often literalists.... but the real funny contemplation... Why are most atheists literalists? It is like they've never read poetry, or aesops fables or watched history change over time..
 

EdgyDolmen

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
79
Points
28
But so many assume it is. So many assume that because they can read, the text must reveal itself to them in all its depth and meaning and, if it doesn't, if they can't see it, then it isn't there! And if there's a contradiction, then the whole thing's invalid.

It often seems to me that those who make the 'contradiction' argument can only make it stick on the a priori assumption that the Bible should be inerrant in the literal sense – a text without mistake of any sort – and I see those who critique the Bible on the basis of 'bad history' or 'bad science' is really a sub-set of the same assumption of critiquing the Bible for not being what it never set out to be ... and then there's the contrary opinion that says the Bible enables one to spin any kind of story one wants, it's there as a source of self-affirmation.

Everybody loves Jesus ... but not quite enough to do as He says ...

I make this observation while humbly keeping the great Socrates quote in mind: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." I understand.

IMHO however - If I can't see it, it is NOT there! If it can be seen yet no word exists for it, it still is NOT there! Okay I will grant you we can waste a lot of time on that one.

Anyone of average intelligence should read and study their bible and determine what it says to them. They can decide what relevance metaphor and analogy play. If they are serious the book will speak to them on some level. What the book says to someone else does not matter.

Contradictions and errors are to be expected in a book based on oral history that was finally written by multiple authors and multiple scribes over multiple years. Oh yes. The politics and translations.

I've read the book many times. Understood it but...

As for Jesus - Strong morals/ethics story!
 

Namaste Jesus

Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai
Moderator
Messages
3,842
Reaction score
1,190
Points
108
Location
Between Celestial Planes
Just imagine if the same truth in advertising statutes that are in place now existed when the Bible was written. I can see the sales pitch now.

"Coming to a scribe near you. Possibly the greatest story ever told. A re-edited version of a translated translation of a secondhand account of someone else's opinion.

Text so complicated even the authors don't understand it and neither will you."


Followed by the obligatory disclaimer:

Written by scholars for scholars in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the reigning power. All works not included in this text were unceremoniously destroyed.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,636
Reaction score
2,760
Points
108
To be fair though - Bible thumpers are the book's worst enemies ... The literal Word O God. Every single word.
I know, I know. As ever, there's two sides to the coin. Bible thumpers on one side – it's all literal, Biblical thumpers on the other side, it's all contradiction. But I take your point.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,636
Reaction score
2,760
Points
108
I make this observation while humbly keeping the great Socrates quote in mind: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." I understand.
Yep ... but you have to balance that with Socrates would not say he knows nothing – literally! Or he was being coy. Plato reckoned he knew a great deal, and modern philosophy still references him as an authority. I rather see it as 'keeping an open mind' meaning there's always more to be learned.

IMHO however - If I can't see it, it is NOT there! If it can be seen yet no word exists for it, it still is NOT there! Okay I will grant you we can waste a lot of time on that one.
Oh, we sure could! I continue to make 'discoveries' ... and it's not so much about what's not there, but discerning what is.

The argument, for example, that Christ never proclaimed His divinity is now void. There's too much contemporary scholarship against that assertion to make it stick. It's clear as day in His words and deeds if you take sitz im leben, His words in context of the Jewish beliefs. Whether He was, or was just someone who believed Himself to be somehow 'empowered' by the God of Israel, is of course an open point.

I like C.S. Lewis' comment that He was either, 'mad, bad, or God' as a reasonable rule. I suppose you could soften that with 'mad, bad, mistaken, or God', but if 'mistaken', that's covered by 'mad' or 'bad' in terms of His self-understanding.

Anyone of average intelligence should read and study their bible and determine what it says to them.
Indeed. But whether what it says to them is actually what it says ... there's the rub!

They can decide what relevance metaphor and analogy play. If they are serious the book will speak to them on some level. What the book says to someone else does not matter.
Well I wouldn't discount knowledge on the basis that it comes from someone else's insight. There is the story of the woman who washes Christ's feet with ointment. In Mark, there were 'some' who saw it as a waste, in Matthew, it's His own disciples who complain. In Luke, it's his host, a Pharisee. There are three different responses, and in Mark and Matthew this seems to have decided Judas on his course of action. In Luke, the story is in a different setting, and he goes on to excoriate the host for his bad manners. The man had no respect for Christ, and had probably invited Him to show Him up as a fool. I make this point because I had my eyes opened to the Lucan account by a scholar.

Matthew follows Mark. Luke goes his own way. Which version is right? That's not the point. In all three cases, the circumstance is just the vehicle for the lesson. They all have their value. All three are using an occasion to make a point.

Some will go on to argue that, based on the differences, the thing never actually happened ... that's going too far, I think.

Contradictions and errors are to be expected in a book based on oral history that was finally written by multiple authors and multiple scribes over multiple years.
Absolutely. The same with any sacra doctrina. As for translations or versions of the text, while it's true the Bible rests largely on a couple of codexes (codices?), some of the Fathers made so many references it's possible to reconstruct the book from them!

I've read the book many times. Understood it but...
Same here.

As for Jesus - Strong morals/ethics story!
You said it.

One of my favourite 'Divine Names' is El Shaddai that was used in Abraham's time. We can't be sure what that means, but scholarship tends to the 'God of the Mountain' interpretation, a local deity. I would suggest that Noah's and Abraham's notion of God was quite different from Moses, but they were heading in that direction. I don't think the Bible is monotheist from the get-go, but from later revision. I believe the early Jews were working towards that idea, had it in inchoate form, and the final form – pure monotheism – grew out of that.
 

Devils' Advocate

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
382
Points
83
Location
In this so called Reality. Well, most of the time.
In earlier days I believed Socrates held great wisdom in his understanding that we could never really know anything. (Whether or not that is what he meant in a minute). As I grew older, the philosophy began to irritate me. It seemed more like a copout than a working philosophy. In theory I still agreed with it, but in practice I found it impractical. In this world, if one is going to be a responsible citizen, one has to gather what understanding one can and accept that as knowing. Imperfect, maybe. The world seldom grants us perfect!

In more recent years I have taken yet another look at the man's thinking and now believe that his philosophy was not a belief system after all. Rather it was a tool he used to question people's belief structures. He actually knew plenty. He used the 'know nothing' system as a strategy to get others to think about just what it was they thought they knew versus what they really knew.
 

EdgyDolmen

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
79
Points
28
Thomas re post #188 - We disagree on very little. I do stand by my remarks.

Attempting to be brief unfortunately causes some ambiguities in my posts but I'll not write a page of explanation after the fact. I will try to be more concise and complete hereafter.

I always enjoy reading your remarks. ED
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,636
Reaction score
2,760
Points
108
Hi ED –

Thanks for that. I do think that an internet forum is not the most ideal place to discuss ideas, especially when one aims for the necessary brevity!

I've managed to assume entirely the wrong end of the stick with a few people here, I think. I'm not saying we'd argue, probably the opposite.

There's a tradition that Jesus came from a Pharisee background, and He argues with them so often because He's closer to them than the Saduccees (who seem to coat-tail on the Ps) and never with an Essene! That's the rub between me and me old mate Wil. Some people, like yourself, DA and others see things differently, differently, whereas Wil and I see the same, differently (does that make sense?), so he's copped my exasperation more than once. Luckily he seems a tough old boot, and I'm all in favour of a 'robust Christianity' that's neither 'gentle Jesus meek and mind' (I rather see Him as nothing of the sort) nor Bible-thumping literalism.

On the 'ambiguity' front, I'm reading a very technical philosophical argument that proposes Christian metaphysics as the least 'constrained' in its scope from the philosophical point of view. Right up my street, but, good God! Paragraph after paragraph explaining something over and over again from every conceivable angle to the point where I think I've got it, and then I think I haven't! I can only do a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Good scholarly practice proceeds like a mathematical proof, word by word, line by line to ensure there's no logical or other 'gaps' in the argument. But sheesh, it's the definition of 'dry reading'.

Enjoy your posts too, by the way. Don't let me turn what should be a pleasure into a labour ...
 

EdgyDolmen

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
79
Points
28
There's a tradition that Jesus came from a Pharisee background, and He argues with them so often because He's closer to them than the Saduccees (who seem to coat-tail on the Ps) and never with an Essene! That's the rub between me and me old mate Wil. Some people, like yourself, DA and others see things differently, differently, whereas Wil and I see the same, differently (does that make sense?), so he's copped my exasperation more than once. Luckily he seems a tough old boot, and I'm all in favour of a 'robust Christianity' that's neither 'gentle Jesus meek and mind' (I rather see Him as nothing of the sort) nor Bible-thumping literalism.

I remember the story/stories and I do understand your analogy.

Enjoy your posts too, by the way. Don't let me turn what should be a pleasure into a labour ...

Naw man. I have thick skin. No problems. We can spar (I think that brings out your best) without being personal...ED
 

EdgyDolmen

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
79
Points
28
I tried to post this elsewhere but it was rejected due to my lack of posts. This is good as any unless somebody feels like it should be moved.

I have been reading about Khan today. The Geng! I have read some things that I had not read before. Here is a Khan argument (Ad Hominem argument I reckon) that basically says, "It is so just because father said it is so." The father spoken of here is the Heavenly Father. Maybe not yours but a Heavenly Father just the same.

"I am the Flail (wave) of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." -- Genghis Khan (1162 - 1227)

Implied in Khan's statement is that he has the inside track to God's thinking and motives, that he is God's henchman! Of course, Khan was and is not alone in this belief: God under various monikers supposedly still speaks directly to various world figures, often advising them to commit carnage in his name.
 
Top