Posts Tagged ‘trinity’

A Logical Model of ‘God Concepts’?

December 17, 2007

For an honest person, choosing a religion is a bit like being stranded in a desert with thousands of sign-posts, all pointing in an opposite direction. There are thousands of concepts of God(s), naturally only one such concept can be correct, since they contradict each other on many aspects, thus most of them are mutually exclusive in their validity — that is to say, only one can be true whilst rendering others false. For instance, either there is one God or there are 10 gods, both of them cannot be true simultaneously. In this paper, we explore the various concepts of god, in particular trinity, and its relation to abstract reasoning.

God no doubt would have known of this, and yet God wishes for us to choose the right path. Upon examining animals, one observes that we have been blest with remarkable amount of wisdom and intellect, and that we seem to have a choice of choosing a religious path. Therefore a fair God, assuming He/She wants us to embark upon the right path, would have instilled in us some mechanisms or tools, which can be utilized for the objective of choosing the right path. Had this not been true, then it would have implied that God is not just and He/She placed us in a situation such that only randomness can be our source of aid. Not implanting in us some tools or mechanism for choosing the right path and yet expecting us to choose the right path is a form of oppression and unjustness from God.

So what tools are available to us? For sure, one of the most worthy, if not the only tool, is our intellect and utilization of it. We observe that we have a choice of choosing the right religion and we also observe that we are also blest with greater intellect whilst other creations are not. Thus, it would not be an unreasonable deduction that Logic and usage of wisdom and intellect is a tool that we ought to apply to eliminate wrong concepts of God. In this series of articles we shall be examining the various concepts of God under the umbrella of logic and natural deduction. In this article we shall be examining mostly Christian doctrines.

Some might however argue that God could use some other supernatural mechanism to guide one to truth — that is plausible, however, since most of us have not been visited by a Holy Spirit or some other supernatural spirit, we can be innocent in our disbelief and the whole blame can be put on the Holy Spirit (and God therefore), who are intended to guide us. For the rest of us, logic is the best tool for eliminating wrong concepts of God. Indeed, apart from logic and intellect there seems to be no universal tool for examining concepts of God.

1) Trinity mon-ity and and multi-nity

There are many religions, including Christianity and Hinduism, which assert that 1 God is of the form n-tuple, that is to say god forms trinity or a n-tuple, where n is a natural number. Hinduism, whilst believing in thousands of Gods asserts that it is in fact one god. Christians believe:

“Trinity Central doctrine of Christianity, according to which God is three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. There is only one God, but he exists as ‘three in one and one in three’.” — Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-Trinity.html

“In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as “three persons in one God,” all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

“Shield of the Trinity” or “Scutum Fidei” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-basic.png) also states that neither of the three are same or equal but they are all god. It states:

The links are non-directional — this is emphasized in one thirteenth-century manuscript by writing the link captions
“EST” or “NON EST” twice as many times (going in both directions within each
link), and is shown in some modern versions of the diagram by superimposing each
occurrence of the “is” / “is not” text on a double-headed arrow ↔ (rather than
enclosing it within a link). So the following twelve propositions can be read
off the diagram:
“The Father is God”
“The Son is God”
“The Holy
Spirit is God”
“God is the Father”
“God is the Son”
“God is the Holy
Spirit”
“The Father is not the Son”
“The Son is not the Father”
“The
Father is not the Holy Spirit”
“The Holy Spirit is not the Father”
“The
Son is not the Holy Spirit”
“The Holy Spirit is not the Son”

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

It is essential to understand that Trinity does not state that w + x +y = z, Trinity on the other hand states that x + x + x = x, where w, x, y and z are variables of different instance and sustenance. For example, it can be stated that Father, Mother and Son makes one family — this is a reasonable conclusion, however, to state that father + father + father makes ONE father is incorrect. Trinity asserts that, Father (who is god), son (who is god), Holy Spirit (who is god) makes one god (god + god + god = one god), it does not merely say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make one god together and that the three entities are not god independently. Hence x+x+x = x is a valid symbolisation. For instance, 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples. However, using calculus derived of Trinity would certainly instantiate: 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple = 1 apple.

To state x + x + x = x, where x is an entity (personality) would be highly illogical in every sense! God (father) + God (son) + God(Holy Spirit) would make 3 Gods. Only way Father + Son + Holy Spirit can equate to one god is, if and only if, we accept that Father, Son and Holy spirit are not god independently, however, combined together they make 1 god, but this would contradict the teaching of Trinity as can be demonstrated by the above provided references, including the Shield of the Trinity. Indeed it is as such that when one prompts, is Jesus, independently of Holy Spirit, a God, then the reply given is “yes”.

Bearing that in mind, we can easily challenge the various explanations Christians give with the objective of logically explaining trinity. One such example is that of an Egg: yolk, white and shell accumulate to makes one egg. However, teachings of Trinity would assert that 1 yolk + 1 yolk + 1 yolk = 1 yolk and not 1 yolk + 1 shell + 1 white = 1 egg, as is evident from The Shield of Trinity. Christians try to bring such other ridiculous examples, such that of water being in three states, which do not even begin to explain away the contradictions in the Trinity.

Furthermore, if Jesus himself, independently is God, then what need is there of the Holy Ghost and Father? The other two godheads would be rendered totally useless as mere one is sufficient! If Jesus is God based on dependency of Father or Holy Spirit then not only would this contradict Trinity, but Christians would have to agree with the fact that Jesus is not God, Father is not God nor Holy Ghost is God, but 3 working together in unison makes 1 God — essentially, it would bottle down to 3 mini gods, even more of a nonsensical notion, which is even contradictory to the Christian theology and scriptures!

2) 100% God and 100% Man

Hinduism, Christianity and many paganistic religions cling onto the concept of anthropomorphism (i.e. God becoming a man). This argument establishes a connection between an omnipotent, infinite being immersing himself in a finite, limited human being. Christians assert that Jesus, for instance, was 100% and 100% God. That is One being, in a form of a human, exhibiting both (that is all) human characteristics and God characteristics. Thus, the individual would have to be simultaneously all-knowing and not-all-knowing; that individual would have to be limited in power and yet not be limited in power. However, it is contradictory to assert one can exhibit both such contrary characteristics simultaneously. To be God is to be totally divine, to be human is to be not divine, however it is not possible to be divine and not divine simultaneously. This argument can be proven formally thus:

In mathematics and logic, one can proof a proposition using many techniques and methodologies. Reductio ad absurdum/Proof by contradiction, is one such way, this is when opposite of proposition/argument is assumed and shown that such an assumption leads to absurdity, hence the proposition was incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction provides more information on Reductio ad absurdum. Note: in mathematical and scientific community Reductio ad absurdum is an absolutely valid form of proof. It is as effective a way of making a logical conclusion as any. In the words of G. H. Hardy (A Mathematician’s Apology), “Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician’s finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game.”

Proposition: Human X is not God.

Fact 1: God is all knowing; Fact 2: Humans are not all knowing

Thus we assume the opposite of proposition; Human X is God. Now if X is God then X is all knowing, however since X is Human, X is not all knowing simultaneously. So X is all knowing and not all knowing simultaneously — an absurdity/contradiction. This means our assumption was wrong that “X is God”. Thus, it is shown that X cannot be God.

Therefore, the entire concept of 100% God and 100% man is highly ridiculous and does not deserve any intellectual attention.

3) “Son of God” /Begotten Son

If this “Son of God” meaning is metaphorical then it would have a completely different connotation. For instance, it would not be unreasonable to think that we are children of God, in a sense that God protects and sustains us, in a sense a father would. However, some religions such as Christianity assert that this sonship of God is not metaphorical but literal, if an individual differs from this literal interpretation then naturally he or she would be agreeing with Islam or Judaic teachings; contrary to Christian, Hindu or paganistic teachings. Upon accepting “Son of God” thesis to be literal, a series of questions should arise. Christians go as far as labelling Jesus as “Begotten son of God”. However, what does it mean to say “begotten Son”? Sonship implies sexual intercourse, how did God came to acquire a son, therefore? Does god engage in an animal act of sexual intercourse or does god have genitals?

Marian-Webster defines begotten as follows:
“Main Entry: be·get Pronunciation: bi-‘get, bE-Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): be·got /-‘gät /; also be·gat /-‘gat/; be·got·ten /-‘gä-t&n /; or -got; -get·tingEtymology: Middle English begeten, alteration of beyeten, from Old English bigietan 1 : to procreate as the father : SIRE
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

Oxford(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/beget?view=uk) defines begotten as:
“• verb (begetting; past begot; past part. begotten) archaic or literary 1 produce (a child). 2 cause. — DERIVATIVES begetter noun.

— ORIGIN Old English, get, obtain by effort. ”

Therefore, believing literally in Sonship would refer to the first definition of the word begotten, second definition would apply to all of us and is of course metaphorical in sense of the word “begotten son”. A logical contradiction arises when we take sonship literally: if God is eternal, and has no beginning then it would mean that god cannot be a son. To be son is to have a beginning, but to be god is to be eternal therefore an entity can either be a god or it can have a beginning. Father procures son, thus before the son was procured then there was no such entity “son”, thus that individual would have had to have a beginning and consequently not be eternal. In other words, if the son (god) was begat at time x then there was no god at time x-1 or time < x, which would mean god had a beginning and was not eternal. However, those corresponding religions simultaneously teach eternalship of god and that god has no beginning and yet they assert that the sonship is to be taken literally — this leads to a contradiction, the two cannot exist simultaneously. If the entity is God then it cannot be Son and if it is Son then it cannot be God — the two are mutually exclusive. To sum up the argument: Let x be the proposition that ‘god is eternal (has no begining)’, let y be the proposition that ‘Son has a beginning’ (this must be a consequence if the Sonship is to be taken literally) then it would mean: { (x IMPLY (NOT y) ) XOR ( (y IMPLY (NOT x)). In other words, only one of them can be true, so if Jesus or another being is a literal “Son of God” then logically it cannot simultaneously be a god and vice versa — or else there is contradiction in the definition of “god” or “son”. Naturally god being eternal is widely accepted and sonship not being literal and metaphorical would support Islam or Judaistic teachings.

Following on from the previous points, if Jesus is son then he cannot be always with the father (co-existing always), because father is always before son. To say Son is eternal is in itself a contradiction, as there must have existed a time when Father existed yet Son did not exist. This also challenges the “co-existing” clause in the trinity doctrine. If they were co-existing then if Jesus was a Son then Jesus was not son simultaneously (as he was ever-existing) — not only does this completely contradict the definition of Son and Father. this also leads to several contradictions, therefore can be proven to be false mathematically using the method of “Reductio ad absurdum”.

4) “God dying for our Sins”

“God died for our sins” is a phrase often exclaimed aloud by many Christians, Hindu and paganistic religion practitioners. God (man) dying theorem does not only apply to Christianity but also to paganistic religions who also have gods, who too died for our sins. This argument needs to be divided into 2 sub-sections because upon confrontation with logical questions, they assert instead that God himself did not die but a man died.

First, let’s analyse the premiss of God (not man) himself dying. If Jesus (God) part died for 3 days, then this would imply that trinity did not hold for that period of time, and Twinity (Father and Holy Spirit) existed only. Since Twinity existed, and yet all three godheads are co-existing then this would mean the Twinity should have perished too, nonetheless regardless of whether Father and Holy Spirit died along with Jesus, a question emerges: Who was the God whilst the God was dead and non-existing? This would mean God is not eternal, which would contradict corresponding religious teachings anyway. Furthermore, if Jesus is God, and if Jesus died, and if God’s action are independent (meaning all things in universe happen with his consent); it then follows logically (by implication) that God committed a suicide! If not, then it would imply that God did not die, but a mere, mortal, insignificant man died.

But upon realising ridiculous implications of God dying, many Christians alter their initial meaningless statement to “God part did not die, but the man part of Jesus died”, so essentially a man died. But then a mere man died, which is of no significance. The Christians would then state that “Jesus was sinless, whom we need for redemption and salvation”, but this is as meaningless a statement as any, the concept of sin and sinless is religion bounded; it differs from a religion to religion and from an individual to individual. Upon what criteria are we judging Jesus as sinless? Based on Judaic criteria? Based on Islamic or Hindu criteria? Based on my, Bob and Tom’s criteria? Jesus is not sinless according to any of the above stated criteria! Christians are rendering Jesus as sinless by tailoring the definition of sinless to his actions and thoughts. Whatever Jesus did is to be regarded as perfect, therefore it is a bit like comparing what ever he did with criteria “whatever he did was perfect and sinless”, and then concluding he was sinless. I can use this criteria to label myself as sinless too! Without a universal criteria or agreed upon criteria we cannot label anyone as sinless, therefore, since such set of criteria has not been found, labelling Jesus sinless is therefore meaningless and the significant question of why would God-Man wish to die and create this nonsensical drama, when he could just forgive as a forgiving God would, remains to be unanswered. Such sort of dying for sins is a bit like a transaction: Blood-For-Forgiveness, one would have to spent blood (instead of sincerity) in order to have one’s sins forgiven. This is more like a trading than a forgiving god. So in essence, this stance totally undermines the logic in the Christian doctrine of salvation.

5) “You are limiting God”

After speaking to many Christians about similar topics, the most common ‘answer’ attained is: “You are limiting God by saying what God can do”. However, of course God can do everything, but God does all that befits his majesty, for instance, would god rape a person? Would god cease to exist? Of course not! Let us take a logical approach to this, we use Reducto du absurdum again:

Argument/Proposition: God cannot do all things

Fact 1: God is all knowing and eternal.

Thus we assume the opposite of proposition: God can do all things, if this is true, then this would mean God can become not all knowing, not eternal, not perfect, even god can make me the new god and cease to become the god. However, the above mentioned statements would mean that god is no longer a god (i.e. does not have attributes attributed to a god, i.e. God ceased to exist) – which nullifies our argument, thus by Proof by contradiction — there are things that god cannot do.

That demonstrates that “God can do all things” statement is self-contradictory, because by accepting this statement as true then such scenarios can be formulated that would cause God to stop being god — hence shown that there are limits to what god can do, whilst remaining a god. Indeed, God is all perfect, god does all that befits his majesty, god acquiring a son, god becoming a man, having other partners in the godhead and god dying are all against the attributes of one possessing perfect qualities.

Islamic Model of God

Now let us analyse what Islam says with regards to God. Islam, incidently, states:

  • God/Allah had no Son

  • God/Allah had no partner(daughter, wife, father, holy spirit or any equal). Islam has no Trinity.

  • There is nothing like God/Allah, Allah has no co-equal.

  • God/Allah is eternal — has no death and no beginning.

  • There is nothing like Allah/God i.e. There is no creation like Allah, and consequently, Allah never became a man or any other of his creation.

There is a chapter in Quran dedicated to describing the concept of God, that chapter is called “Ikhlaas” (“Sincerity”):

[Quran 112:001] Say: He is God, the One and Only;
[Quran 112:002] God, the Eternal, Absolute;
[Quran 112:003] He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
[Quran 112:004] And there is none like unto Him.

Most of the theists agree on the first fact: God is one. However, they have tuples of God, which we have argued to be illogical in this article — Islam however does not have Trinity or “n in 1 god” concepts. Verse 112:2 states that Allah is eternal and absolute — once again almost all theists believe in this — however Islam asserts that God has no father/son hierarchy (since god is eternal), Islam consequently also affirms that God never died. Verse 112:3 states that God does not have a father/mother or son/daughter hierarchies — once again this has been argued to be a ridiculous notion in this article. Verse 112:4 states that there is nothing like god, indicating that there is no creation of God alike God himself — hence God is/was never a man (no 100% man and 100% god) dogma.

All of the above stated verses seems to be in perfect conciliation with the logical points raised in this article! Furthermore, all of the above stated verses seems to be in contradiction with Trinity and the similar belief systems — they also seems to be in contradiction with the logical points raised in this article.

Summary

There are many who continue in their blind faith, whilst agreeing that their doctrine is self-contradictory, illogical and even humorous at times. Such kind of mentality is backward and leads to a stern belief in blind-faith. If we cannot use logic to eliminate believes of ridiculous nature then one should have no difficulty in believing in Santa, unicorns, Mother Goose and flying monkeys. Such a person should furthermore have no faith in empirical evidence, observable reality and other logical notions. However, strangely enough they use logical methodologies when it agrees with stream of thoughts and discard their importance when it conflicts with their stream of thoughts.

Being born in a certain family ought not to mean one is destined for a life time of affirmation of the creed — however ridiculous it is. If this it to be adopted as our basis for defending blindly the outrageous believes then one has no power of reasoning with a person who is born in a family ascribing to the creed of god being a monkey or earth being flat — as such, both of these would require a logical perspective in to the respective notions. Essentially, one must exert some effort into contemplating upon his or her believes whilst utilizing the tools God has blest him or her with; the objective being the sieving out of the incorrect concepts of god.

“God is a miracle and unfit for our reasoning” are excuses which would only apply to an unjust god who blindfolded us into diverging alleyways, yet expecting us to converge to the right one, randomly, without any aid. Indeed, there can be no initial progress in ensuring the right religion is selected unless be it via the means for reasoning…

By invitation2learn

var sc_project=3265291;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=35;
var sc_security=”bd49dc79″;

website statistics

Advertisements

Did Jesus Claim Divinity, Part 1? Examining the Four Gospels!

December 17, 2007

Introductions
Muslims believe in Jesus Christ, we believe that: Jesus was a Prophet of God, he was born off virgin Mary with no father, he was the Messiah and he was a pious man and therefore we love him too. However, Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God or in Trinity. So divinity (godship) of Jesus is a major thing which separates Muslims and Christians. Purpose of this article is to explore whether Jesus himself said that he is God in the Four Gospels.

John 10:30
Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
Greek text of John 10:30 reads: ego kai pater esmen heis

First let’s read the verse in context, which starts from the verse 23:
Jhn 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
Jhn 10:24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand.
Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

In verse 28 Jesus says “neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.” and in verse 29 he says “and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand.” and the following verse says “I and [my] Father are one. “. Verse 30 should be read with bearing in the mind the context and especially verse 28 and 29. If I person says “I am a da’ee, Jack is a da’ee, I and Jack are one”, then no one will assume that I am suggesting that Jack and I are one in physical person, naturally the interpretation would be that I am suggesting that I and Jack are one in the context (of da’ee) provided.

There is another place where the idea of oneness is applied by Jesus, in John 17:20-23:
Jhn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Jhn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Some Christians insist that Greek word “heis” in John 10:30 must have literal physical meaning. However, in verses John 17:21, John 17:22 and John 17:23 same word “heis” is used. So John 10:30 whatever “oneness” is applied, same oneness is applied in John 17:20-23. The meaning and the intention of Jesus by John 10:30 will be discussed in “Reaction of the Jews” section.

John 8:58
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Greek text of John 8:58 reads: Iesous epo autos amen amen lego humin prin Abraam ginomai ego eimi

There are two arguments which are brought forth with regards to this verse: 1) Jesus said “I am”, which is a title for God in Exodus 2) Jesus had pre-existence thus he must be god.
Regarding the first argument, if saying “i am” makes a person God then many of us are gods, indeed even in Bible others have said “I am” yet Christians do not assert their divinity. In John 9:9 even a beggar said “I am” in a very similar context:

Jhn 9:9 Some said, This is he: others [said], He is like him: [but] he said, I am [he].
Greek text of John 9:9 reads: allos lego hoti houtos esti de allos hoti esti homoios autos ekeinos lego hoti ego eimi

In KJV we see John 9:9 ending in “[he]”, however this is addition of translators, it is not found in the Greek Bible, hence “he” is in []. In the original Greek text, in both verses (john 9:9 and john 8:58) the same Greek words are used for “I am” : ego eimi.

If “I am” is used to assert divinity to Jesus then similarly a beggar must qualify as being divine since he said the same thing. The context of John 9:9 and John 5:58 is very similar, in both instances individual’s identity is being questioned, even more so in John 9:9, and they both form a similar reply. Why should Jesus saying “I am” mean he is divine but beggar’s reply mean otherwise?

Other argument with regards to John 8:58 is pre-existence of Jesus. However, the concept of pre-existence of Prophets and other man exists in the Bible. For instance, Jeremiah and Solomon both had pre-existence in the Bible. Jeremiah 1:4-5 states:
Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Proverbs 8:22-30 speaks of Solomon’s pre-existence:
Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Pro 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Pro 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;

Even, in the Quran, Surah al-A‘raaf, 7:172, Allah informed that man existed in the spiritual form before the creation of the physical world:
[007:172] And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord ? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware; (Quran, Pickthall’s Translation, 7:172)

Biblically speaking even Jeremiah and Solomon had pre-existence, does this mean they are God? If not, then why should Jesus’ pre-existence mean he is God?

Son and begotten son of God
Some Christians, who are ignorant of the Bible as a whole assert that because Jesus was called the Son of God, he must therefore be divine. For instance Mark 1:1 states:
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Greek text of Mark 1:1 reads: arche euaggelion Iesous Christos huios theos.

However, Jesus is not the only one who is said to be “Son of God” in the Bible. Many individuals are called Son of God in the Bible, for instance:
Exd 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:
Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim [is] my firstborn.
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Even Jesus said in Matthew 5:9
Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Therefore Sonship and children of God are not literal in Bible, if Jesus’ sonship is to be literal then so should Adam’s, David’s, Solomon’s, Job’s and other’s sonship be literal too.
Some Christians claim that John 3:16 indicates that Jesus is the only literal Son of God. John 3:16 states:
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, David also was called begotten son of God:
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Exd 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:

Infact, RSV version of the Bible translates John 3:16 thus:
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Even David is called begotten son of god, therefore begotten son of god itself does not establish divinity of Jesus.

The meaning of “Son of God” meant by Jesus is also explored further in the “Reactions of the Jews” section.

Is Jesus God because he was called Lord?
Aside from Jesus other people were also called “lord” in the Bible. Abraham, Esau, Joseph and David were all called “Lord”.
Gen 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Gen 32:4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
Gen 44:20 And we said unto my lord, We have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loveth him. 1Sa 25:24 And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, [upon] me [let this] iniquity [be]: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

In Act 16:30, Greek word kurios is used for “Sirs”, kurious was also translated as “lord” when it was in reference to Jesus. Indeed, one of the meaning of kurios is Sir or Master (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=30&strongs=2962&page=).

Therefore Jesus being called “lord” does not make him God, just as Abraham being called “lord” does not make him a God.

Linguistically speaking, if lord equals God then British Parliament must be full of Gods!

Calling God Father
Jesus is not the only one who called God father, consequently calling God a father does not make Jesus god:
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Was Jesus God because he had the Holy Ghost?
Having a Holy Ghost does not give divinity to Jesus since others in the Bible also had the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Act 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
Act 13:9 Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Because Jesus was “not of this world”?
Jhn 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Other individual’s in Bible are also not of this world:
Jhn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Because Jesus was “image of God”?
2 Corinthians 4:4 states “….Christ, who is the image of God.” but in Genesis 1:27 every man is an image of God
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Was Jesus God because he was Messiah/Christ?
Literal meaning of the word Messiah is “to anoint”. There are other people who are anointed too in the Bible:
1Ki 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
Gen 31:13 I [am] the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, [and] where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

When the word anointed is in reference to Jesus they translate the word as Messiah or Christ but when the word anointed (messiah) is in reference to other people they present the literal translation (anointed).

John 14:6
Some assert that because Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”, he must be God. First let us examine the context from verse 2 to verse 6:
Jhn 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.
Jhn 14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
Jhn 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There are MANY mansions, and Jesus is going to prepare A PLACE, and for A PLACE Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Naturally all prophets are the truth, none of them is a lie or they would not be a true prophet in the first Place. Jesus like other Prophets’ is also responsible for spiritual and good life after death and he was a way to God, like all other Prophets are.
John 14:6 at best proves that Jesus is a Prophet of God and not God.

John 14:8-9
Jhn 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jhn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Christians assert that since Jesus said who has seen me has seen the father, he must therefore be God. However, let’s read John 5:37:
Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

So here Jesus is saying no one has seen the Father yet in John 14:9 he says who has seen me has seen the father. So what did he mean in John 14:9? Let us examine other sayings of Jesus on this topic:

Jhn 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

So who has seen Jesus has seen the father metaphorically speaking since Jesus does what the father commands him to do. Furthermore Jesus said that any man has seen the father who works God’s commandments, without presence of Jesus:

Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

And lastly, all the tritarian Christians must also take John 14:9 verse METAPHORICALLY and not literally, this is because according to trinity Father and Jesus are SEPERATE ENTITES. Thus if who has seen Jesus has seen father is taken literally then that would mean that Jesus is the father, which is contradictory to trinity.

1 John 5:7
KJV reads:
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

RSV translations read: 1Jo 5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 1Jo 5:8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Let’s see what some other translations say:
NLT – 1Jo 5:7 – So we have these three witnesses–
NASB – 1Jo 5:7 – For there are three that testify:
Darby – 1Jo 5:7 – For they that bear witness are three:
ASV – 1Jo 5:7 – And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
HNV – 1Jo 5:7 – For there are three who testify:
NIV — 1Jo 5:7 – For there are three that testify:

One might ask why is there such variation in the translation? And which one is the correct translation? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this in his “Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says:
“This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it’s authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.”

Richard Porson in “Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley”, pp. 30-33 goes on to provide evidence that the verse 1 John 5:7 was only added at 400CE.

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible says “The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.”

Misha’al Al-Kadhi writes on this in his book “What Did Jesus Really Say” in the section 1.2.2.5:
“For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is.”

So according to biblical scholars and the most recent translation of the Bible 1 John 5:7 has additions, which were not to be found in most ancient manuscripts of the Bible, consequently it is now thrown out of the Bible.

Because Jesus was “worshipped”?
In many places in the Four Gospels Jesus was worshipped, for example in John 9:38 :
Jhn 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
Greek text of John 9:38 reads: de phemi kurios pisteuo kai proskuneo autos

Greek word used for “worship” in John 9:38 is “proskuneo”, which has following meanings:
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
1) to the Jewish high priests
2) to God
3) to Christ
4) to heavenly beings
5) to demons

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=9&verse=38&strongs=4352&page=

Therefore the word proskuneo is in reference to respect and respect is not a physical worship, which one would do to God.

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [him].
Greek text of Act 10:25 reads: de hos Petros ginomai eiserchomai Kornelios sunantao autos pipto epi pous proskuneo

Same greek and english word is used in Act 10:25, which is used in john 9:38 and many other places in the Bible where Jesus is “worshipped”. Let us not forget that Cornelius was a pious men as stated in Act 10:2. Therefore naturally Cornelius would not worship Peter like he would worship God, but he would have worshipped through respect, most likely by falling upon Peter’s knees. This confirms that this worship is a form of a respect made to prophets and people of high authority and not necessarily of God. Furthermore, other people even in OT are given this kind of respect, which re-enforces that paying respect does not mean divinity:

1Sa 25:23 And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground,
2Ki 4:37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.
Gen 50:18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we [be] thy servants.
2Sa 19:18 And there went over a ferry boat to carry over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good. And Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king, as he was come over Jordan;

Because he forgave sins?
Does Jesus being able to forgive sin make him God? Were the Pharisees correct in their reaction or were they once again trying to find unnecessary faults with Jesus?

John 20:22-23 states:
Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Jhn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

If being able to forgive sins makes a person God then the disciples were appointed God? They were able to forgive sin! If forgiving sin is criterion for making a person God then disciples were made god too. In Leviticus we read:
Lev 5:13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and [the remnant] shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering.

Therefore the Priest is also playing a part in sin forgiveness, does that make him God? Jesus also said:
Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

If Jesus alone is required for forgiving sin, then why would he ask Father to forgive sins?

Jesus said he is “Lord of Sabbath”?
Some assert because Jesus said he is the Lord of Sabbath he is God, however let us read the context in which he said that, since Lord can have several meanings such as master/sir. Let’s read it in the context:
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

In the verse 1 and verse 2, Jesus’ disciples pluck and ate corn and that displeased the Pharisees. In verse 3 and 4, Jesus justifies himself by giving an example of David, who and his disciples ate even though it was unlawful for them. Here Jesus is trying to show that God allowed exceptions in the law, based upon the person and his authority. In the verse 5, Jesus again shows an exception where the Priests broke the Sabbath and yet remained guiltless. Once again, Jesus demonstrates that God allows exceptions in the law based on the persons involved and their authority. In verse 6, Jesus states that he is greater than the Priests. In verse 7, Jesus shows their ignorance and enforces he and disciples are guiltless. And then in verse 8, Jesus says he is the Lord of Sabbath, meaning he is given authority over Sabbath just like Priests were given authority in verse 5, they were not made to follow it, they were the exceptions.

Jesus further stated in verse 3 and 4, how David was allowed to eat without committing sin. In both examples Jesus indicates that the authority is given to people from God. Therefore Jesus is lord of Sabbath, meaning he does not have to follow it, since he is made an exceptional case just like others before him. His lordship is in reference to not obliged to follow the Sabbath and this was given from God. When read in context, Lord of Sabbath become clear that its in reference to breaking Sabbath and yet remaining sinless. This is the reason why Jesus gave the examples of David and priests, if the above discussed was not his assertion then he would not have given these examples. If this makes Jesus God, then surely the priests and also David ought to be God?

Does Jew’s reaction proves anything?
Jews throughout the Bible seems to understand Jesus, but do they understand him correctly? For instance in John 10 they appear to have misunderstood Jesus, if we read from John 10:33-36:
Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Verse 33 states that Jews understood that Jesus is blaspheming. In verse 34 Jesus states “Is it not written in you law” — referring to OT, which he confirmed in Matthew 5:17-20. He further says “I said, that ye are gods”, he is obviously referring to Psalms 82:6:

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

So Jesus is saying, if God called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called ‘Gods’) and the scripture cannot be broken (in other words – you cannot contradict me!).” – Jesus is arguing that “if good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as “GODS” in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault – then why do you take exception to me? – When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, “a son of God” as against others being called “God” by God Himself. Even if I (Jesus) described myself as “god” in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me.” In verse 36 Jesus confirms he was appointed to the position of holy man by father, just as Jeremiah was sanctified from Father in Jeremiah 1:5.

Also in John 5, Jesus had healed a certain man in Bethesda on Sabbath, which the Jews disapproved of. He furthermore says in “Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”. The Jews take it for granted that Jesus is an ordinary Jew, but Jesus affirms his closeness to God, and hence his statement that Father works hitherto makes them assume that he is making himself to God by stating what God would do. However, if we imagine Jesus to be a holy man, such as a Prophet, then Jesus’ statement would not be blasphemous. It is once again Jew’s misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of his true identity that makes them think that Jesus is making himself equal to God. If they accepted him as a Prophet then his statement would have no problem.

Furthermore, Jesus defends himself from the Jew’s misunderstanding continuously until verse 47. He even says him and father are separate entities in verse 32 and 36. He defends himself by saying that they have never heard nor seen the father, therefore clearly refuting the allegation in John 5:18. He even says he can do nothing of himself in John 5:30 in order to remove the misconception!

Because he was the “Saviour”?
Some assert because Jesus was called saviour he must be god, however there were other saviours in the Bible too:
2Ki 13:5 (And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.
Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

Are the other saviours God too? If not then why should Jesus being a saviour make him God?
Because he did Miracles?

Bible is full of miracles by Isaiah, Moses, Ezekiel and others. Jesus raised Lazarus from death, however, Ezekiel 37:1-10 states that Ezekiel raised a whole city from dead. Joshua stopped the sun and the moon for one whole day in Joshua 10:12-13.

Elisha is said to have raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 2 Kings 13:21, 2 Kings 5:14, 2 Kings 4:44, and 2 Kings 6:11.)

Bible records many miracles performed by Moses such as parting of the sea, of his changing of a stick into a serpent, of his changing of water into blood and so forth. According to Jesus himself, miracles does not even a person prophet, let alone God:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Adam had no father nor mother, Eve had no mother and Jesus had no Father. Therefore Jesus’ birth does not make him a God, if it does then Adam is a bigger God.

Hebrews 7:1-4 states that Melchizedec was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God”, is he God too? Jesus also said:
Luk 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

So Jesus even states that miracles he does, such as casting out devil are by the finger of God and not himself.

Because he was “Sinless“?
Some assert because Jesus was ‘sinless’ he must be God, however Zacharias and Elisabeth were also ‘sinless’ as they followed ALL commandments. Since they followed ALL commandments they must have been sinless. However, the actual word “sinless” is not even to be found in the KJV Bible!

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Furthermore:
Luk 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
Luk 1:14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

John was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb, naturally Holy Ghost would prevent him from sinning!

Conclusion
In OT there are many verses, where God says he is God such as: Gen 17:1, Gen 26:24, Gen 28:13, Gen 31:13, Exd 3:6, Lev 18:30, Lev 19:3, Lev 19:25, Lev 20:7, Isa 46:9, Deu 29:6
and many others. But if Jesus is God from OT why would he remain shy of repeating his godship many times EXPLICITLY? Christians claim Jesus is Man and God at the same thing, Jesus explicitly confirmed his Manship in John 8:40:
Jhn 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

However, there is no verse in the four gospels from the mouth of Jesus as explicit as John 8:40, which affirms his Godship. Yet we have countless statements of Jesus in the four gospels, could he not find the time to make a mention of his Godship?

counter free hit unique web
visitors since 08/07/2006