Thread: Jesus Is Not The Son Of God, According To The Bible.

Hi invader tech! Jesus used the phrase "Son of Man" of Himself as a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

The description "Son of Man" was a Messianic title, one Jews at that time would have been familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred.

Also, it identified himself with humanity from the lineage of King David. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1,14), but He was also fully human.

1 John 4:2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."

The phrase "Son of Man" indicates that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is truly a human being.

Beautiful reply.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

So if the bible calls Jesus the son of man, why do many people still call Jesus god? I fail to see the connection.
[/b]

Yes as what was mentioned above he is just called the Son of man because he existed in human form for a while. However, Jesus is not called God the Son, but the Son of God. Jesus is not God, he is son and the bible mentions that he is his only-begotten Son. To beget means to have created, so therefore Jesus was created. As you can see I am not a trinitarian.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Jesus was fully God (John 1:1,14),
[/b]

Concerning John 1:1, that is a poor translation(I have done research) It should really be translated: "In the begginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was a god(or the word was divine) Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:


1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.



People who use that verse to prove the trinity overlook the fact that first of all, it doesnt even mention the holy spirit along with Jesus and God "being the same."

Hello, finally on this topic lol. First of all, this is with respect!

<div align="center">John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.</div>

<div align="center">En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos</div>

I agree the text can be translated "the Word was divine", however, that is far different from "the Word was a god".

If John meant the Word was merely divine as in god-like he would have written using the adjective:
<div align="center">ho Logos en Theios</div>

If John meant the Word was just a god, he would have written:
<div align="center">ho Logos en Theos</div>

Notice the author did not write using the definite article:
<div align="center">ho Logos en ho theos</div>

That would have meant that God was ONLY the Logos. Thus, this distinction reflects He who was with God since the beginning (the Logos is uncreated) and shares the same nature of God.

But even Adam was created directly by god, and no one calls him the son of God. He was instead titled the &#39;king of man&#39;.

And as for translations, why doesn&#39;t each translation come directly from its first source? In almost every bible I find completely different meanings, and yet nothing that says factually that jesus was the son of God. I&#39;m just saying, every translation of the Koran is directly from the Arabic text, from which is was originally created. Was the bible originally written in Latin? Whatever language it was written from should always be the language to translate is from. Unfortunately since that is not the case, modern day bibles carry skewed and different meanings.

Dear Invader,

Christianity as a Monolithic Entity should find it embarrassing as to how the Doctrine of the Trinity came into being, that is, the Doctrine which supposed that the Messiah would be acclaimed as Son of God and then equal to God.

It came from the scriptural phrase "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"... or what they thought was "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". But these scribes and scholars were not Hebrews.. not at this point in Church History. This was with Christians of the 2nd Century. Jerusalem had already be destroyed late in the 1st Century and the Jews of the Messianic Church dispersed, or what Jews that remained had little to say or to do in the dealings of a Church that had become primarily Greek Gentile, with the Paulist predisposition to minimize Hebraic Influences and to discount the Law as having become obsolete. So it was that these Greek Scholars and Scribes saw the Hebraic Notations, the shorthand abbreviations that should have read "Abraham the Father, Isaac the Son, and Jacob in the Spirit of Israel", and they totally missed the point and instead rendered it as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Pure Greek Ignorance of things Hebraic.

But then the misunderstanding was convenient for Paulist Salvation Doctrine. You see, the Doctrine of Salvation by Messianic Murder required that the Life and Blood of Jesus be of nearly Infinite Potency. One ordinary man might die to save another ordinary man, as the math would be One for One. But the Doctrine of Salvation placed the Life of Jesus against the Lives of possibly an infinite number of men, present and future. Such Absolute Power required Jesus to be Absolute, and in the Greek Mind, all absolutes could only be possessed by God. It became Theologically necessary for Jesus to be made God. So the scribes jumped on the misunderstanding of the abbreviation "Father Son and Ghost".

We would see future Theologians also stretching whatever would fall in their grasp. The greatest example there would be the Deification of Paul via the Protestant Doctrine of All Scripture as Word of God. You see, under Catholicism, the Scriptures, though Holy, were still seen as reference materials that could be read in context and compared as per degree of relevance and importance. So the Catholics could well consider that the Words of Christ had more importance than the words of a mere paul. But because Protestant Doctrine rested entirely on Paulist writings, while ignoring the Sermon of the Mount, the Parables, and the Teachings of the Lord&#39;s Prayer and Last Supper -- because Paul was the only influence on Protestant Doctrine, then Paul had to be made equal to Christ who had been made equal to God. A=B=C so A=C Paul equals God. The Protestant Doctrine of All Scripture is the Word of God was a construction to effectively deify Paul.

Then the Protestants wonder why the World&#39;s Higher Religions shy away from Christian Ecumenicalism. First Christianity violates Monotheism by deifying the Messiah, and THEN they further violate monothism by Deifying an ordinary man who had no other qualification then a very convenient doctrine -- that men could sin and still have eternal life because the Jews had the foresight to murder their Messiah.

[attachmentid=44]

This is a hindu trinity. The triune Gods were Brahama, Vishnu, and Shiva.


Babylon is the place of origin of all False Doctrine and the Trinity
Their tiune Gods of Babylon were Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar.

Note what the bible says:
Revelations 18:2: And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen&#33; Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a lurking place of every unclean exhalation and a lurking place of every unclean and hated bird&#33;

vs 4: And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues.

18:21: And a strong angel lifted up a stone like a great millstone and hurled it into the sea, saying: “Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again.

Babylon the Great represents false religion. It is wise to reject doctrines that had its roots from ancient Babylon.

Many people are confused about the trinity, there is lots of dissagreement.
This confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason."
Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: "God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Cardinal John O&#39;Connor states: "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don&#39;t begin to understand." And Pope John Paul II speaks of "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, &#39;But how does one preach the Trinity?&#39; And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."

Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God&#39;s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: "A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation." Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."


Some say that "it is just a mystery that you have to accept." Hmmm...

1 Corninthians 14:33: for God is not a God of confusion

Babylon comes from the word "Babel" which means "confusion."

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

[attachmentid=44]

This is a hindu trinity. The triune Gods were Brahama, Vishnu, and Shiva.
Babylon is the place of origin of all False Doctrine and the Trinity
Their tiune Gods of Babylon were Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar.

Note what the bible says:
Revelations 18:2: And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen&#33; Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a lurking place of every unclean exhalation and a lurking place of every unclean and hated bird&#33;

vs 4: And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues.

18:21: And a strong angel lifted up a stone like a great millstone and hurled it into the sea, saying: “Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again.

Babylon the Great represents false religion. It is wise to reject doctrines that had its roots from ancient Babylon.

Many people are confused about the trinity, there is lots of dissagreement.
This confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason."
Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: "God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Cardinal John O&#39;Connor states: "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don&#39;t begin to understand." And Pope John Paul II speaks of "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, &#39;But how does one preach the Trinity?&#39; And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."

Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God&#39;s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: "A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation." Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."
Some say that "it is just a mystery that you have to accept." Hmmm...

1 Corninthians 14:33: for God is not a God of confusion

Babylon comes from the word "Babel" which means "confusion."
[/b]

one time on the simpsons someone used an analogy saying "you dont have a hindus chance in heaven." i found that hilarious and uproarious... u see, its funny, because its true.

But even Adam was created directly by god, and no one calls him the son of God. He was instead titled the &#39;king of man&#39;.

And as for translations, why doesn&#39;t each translation come directly from its first source? In almost every bible I find completely different meanings, and yet nothing that says factually that jesus was the son of God. I&#39;m just saying, every translation of the Koran is directly from the Arabic text, from which is was originally created. Was the bible originally written in Latin? Whatever language it was written from should always be the language to translate is from. Unfortunately since that is not the case, modern day bibles carry skewed and different meanings.
[/b]

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Good observation invader_tech. Not even Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor David received this privilege. Being the Son of God is not like what we are familiar with. Its not like the Father got married and had a son. Jesus was conceived in the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, &#39;The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.&#39;"

Take for example Judas, who we learn in John 6:71, is the son of Simon. In John 17:12 we find he is the son of perdition. Perdition means utter ruin, destruction, and waste. Judas is not the actual son of ruin, destruction, and waste, but his identity is a manifestation of it. In the same way, Jesus is the Son of God. The Son of God is GOD manifest&#33;

John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."


As for modern day translations, proper renderings utilize the vast amount of manuscripts available. When the Bible is translated into a different language it is usually translated from the original hebrew, aramic, and koine greek. Some translations in the past were derived from an earlier translation. For example the first english translation by John Wycliffe was prepared from the Latin Vulgate in 1380.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

This is a hindu trinity. The triune Gods were Brahama, Vishnu, and Shiva.
Babylon is the place of origin of all False Doctrine and the Trinity
Their tiune Gods of Babylon were Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar.

Babylon the Great represents false religion. It is wise to reject doctrines that had its roots from ancient Babylon. [/b]

Did you know pagans taught the concept of a great flood that destroyed most of mankind? Ancient civilizations from around the world have their versions. Also, certain pagans taught Tammuz was a promised savior supernaturally conceived.

Are the biblical doctrines of the Flood and the Savior false because pagans had remotely similar beliefs long ago?

Christ is God&#39;s Only Begotten Son. Christ was advented in Jesus, therefore he (Jesus) became God and the Son. Christ is the Mediator between the Father and the Holy Ghost. What Jesus was, all men shall become in Christ, and what he did all men shall do in Christ, thus the meaning of his self-proclaimed title, Son of Man. I can go deeper. He had the true perception of the nature of reality so to say, because he was indwelt by Christ allowing him to become consciously aware of the connection to the Father through Christ who is the Mediator. Satan has the wool pulled over man&#39;s eyes, thus limiting our perception, only Christ, The Mediator can give us the true perception and teach us how to become consciously aware of the connection to the Living Father, conquering Satan and his false perception. This is the metaphor of him (Jesus Christ) healing the blind, literally and metaphorically.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

[attachmentid=44]

This is a hindu trinity. The triune Gods were Brahama, Vishnu, and Shiva.

[/b]

No, such is an artifical construction.

Some Sanskrit Scholar, rather recently, had reviewed native beliefs across the length and breadth of India and come up with some primary masculine Deities. But in no one place are all three of these Deities worshipped. There are areas where Vishnu is worshipped and the people hate Shiva and Shivites (some Vishnuvites will not even use a single word that has an &#39;s&#39; in it because it would remind them of Shiva). So these Gods seem to mutually exclusive.

Brahma, may not be considered really a God at all -- that is not an Anthropomorphic Persona, but more of a high Spiritual Status. Statues made that make Brahma into a Anthropomorphic Deity seem to have missed the point. But in my travels in India I have met Vishuvites, and Shivites, but have met nobody who believes in a God Brahma, but have met many scholars who speak of Brahma as a Lofty and Absolute Spiritual Status.

Now now now, to whether Mr. Jesus is the Son of God:

Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Wolfson College, Oxford, has argued that "the son of man" in the Gospels is unrelated to these Hebrew Bible usages. He begins with the observation that there is no example of "the" son of man in Hebrew sources. He suggests that the term originates in Aramaic — bar nasha. Based on his study of Aramaic sources, he concludes that in these sources and in the Christian Bible, "son of man" is simply a synonym for man, and a substitute for the indefinite pronoun ("one"). Based on context, he claims that one should translate "bar nasha" as someone, anyone or I. He further argues that "son of man" is in no way a title. (from wikipedia)[/b]

If so, Jesus taught us that anyone can forgive sins, drive out demons etc. This is a view I prefer, because 1. it appeals to my liberal spirit and 2. the historic accuracy of those ancient manuscripts is not certain enough to convince me otherwise and 3. we are able to treat mental illness, with increasingly refined skiils. I like to see Jesus as a great man whose wisdom transcended his time. Of course, you needn&#39;t to do the same.