Jesus or the Church? What is the definition of a Christian? Is a Christian simply the one who goes to Church, or is he the one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? On the surface it may seem that the two types of people are one and the same, however, with a closer look at the Bible, and also the history of Christianity, it becomes evident that there is a marked difference between the two. It is not uncommon to find many Christians who have never read the complete Bible even once, let alone the history of Christianity! If any time is given it is spent by going to Church once in a while and listening to the local Vicar/Priest, but never really questioning or investigating the truth of what is being said. Various doctrines, that are taken for granted, are never looked into to verify whether they in fact have an origin in the Bible or not. Since this research will contain numerous Biblical references, it is important first to establish two matters: 1- For a non Christian reader, Biblical verses would not constitute absolute truth nor would they be considered the word of God. However, Biblical verses are quoted here because the subject is Christianity and Christian doctrines. Therefore, for all who believe in the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the ‘atonement’ and so on, they will accept Biblical verses as evidence. 2- The second important issue here is whether some Biblical verses are to be taken literally or symbolically? It has been known in various debates that one side regards the verses that agree with their claims as literal while as they describe the verses that contradict their claims to being symbolic! Quite convenient for them it must be said! One such example is when John 14:28 is quoted to the believers in the Trinity. This verse, which has Jesus declaring “My father is greater than I”, contradicts the heart of the Trinity which has Jesus and God as equal. When presented with this verse, the advocates of the Trinity are known to say “Oh, but this verse is symbolic”! Or “you are taking this verse out of context”! But when they are told “then should we also take the phrase of ‘son of God’ as symbolic?” They quickly reply “No, that is literal”! This leads us to the conclusion that it is not rational for any side to pick and choose what they wish to label as literal and what is symbolic. For this reason, we shall regard all Biblical verses used here as literal, and to be taken for face value. If we do not, then there would be no point in quoting any Biblical verses. ----------------------------------------- If we start by looking into Christianity as a religion, when was it established and by whom, we find startling facts. All the first believers and followers of Jesus were Jews. Jesus himself lived all his life as a Jew. All the first followers of Jesus, and for the first 200 years prayed in the Synagogues. The earliest known Church was not built until the year 232 A. D., two whole centuries after Jesus died. That is found at Dura-Euphrates (The History of Christianity, a Lion handbook, page 76). Up until the time Jesus died Christianity, as a religion independent from Judaism, did not exist. In his own words, Jesus asserted that he did not come to establish a new religion, but instead he had come in fulfilment of the prophecies in the Jewish Scripture (Old Testament): “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (The Bible, Mathew 5:17-18) Many doctrines that constitute the foundation of Christianity, such as the Trinity, have no origin in the Bible. The article of faith up until the end of the 2nd century was: “I believe in God the Almighty” (Articles of the Apostolic Creed, Theodore Zahn, p. 33-37) Between 180 and 210 A. D. the word ‘Father’ was added before the ‘Almighty’. This was opposed by a number of Bishops. Bishops Victor and Zephysius immediately defied this addition, as they stated that it is a sin to add or subtract to the Scripture. At the time, the Holy Spirit was still understood to mean a superior angel, not of one substance with God. Arius, a senior presbyter, was among the many who believed that the Father alone was really God, the son did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality, sovereignty and purity. He did not exist before he was “begotten” by the Father. With the aid of reason Arius proceeded to prove that Jesus is not God: There was a time when Jesus did not exist, therefore Jesus is not eternal, and since God is eternal, Jesus cannot be God. (The History of Christianity, a Lion handbook, p. 164). Arius also stated his case with evidence from the Scripture. If Jesus said: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) “No messenger is greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16) Thus to believe that God and Jesus are equal is to deny the truth of the Scripture. It was not until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D., and against strong opposition from many Bishops, that the concept of the Trinity was adopted. To exclude the arguments of Arius the council produced its own creed, which was called the creed of Nicaea. The Creed of Nicaea “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, Very God from Very God” (The History of Christianity, a Lion handbook, p. 177). Once this outrageous creed was approved and set as law, the cast was set, and the corruption was born! The council also decided that all gospels not in agreement with the creed should be burned. It became a capital offence to possess an unauthorised gospel. As a result, over a million Christians were killed in the years that followed. In an attempt to understand the implications of the creed, one is ultimately faced with the following questions: 1- If Jesus is made of the same substance as God, as the creed states, he must be a god as well; and if he is a god, is he a different god? If he is, that would make them two gods, but the creed says: “We believe in one God” 2- If Jesus is a god but not a different god then he must be God himself. If that is the case how can he be begotten by God? Besides, how can the idea of a begotten god be reconciled with the concept of the Eternal God? These two possibilities are in direct contradiction to the Bible. The first of these two possibilities, which makes Jesus a different god from God contradicts the Bible which asserts that God is One and indivisible: “The first of all the commandments is Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One.” (Mark 12:29) The second possibility is that there is only one god who came down to earth in the form of a man. If that is so, and since God is indivisible, then we must conclude that God and Jesus must be one being. However, this does not conform with many verses in the Bible where Jesus and God are clearly spoken of as two separate beings: 1- If God came down to earth as a man, one would expect that after the end of His life on earth, and upon His return to Heaven, He would be One being not two. This is not in agreement with the following verse: “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19) This verse, which speaks about Jesus after he was raised up into Heaven, clearly indicates that God and Jesus are not one being, for how can God be sitting on the right hand of Himself?!! How can two persons be sting next to one another yet still be one person! 2- “…………and he often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed” (Luke 5:16) “And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up on a mountain by himself to pray”(Mathew 14:23) These two verses which speak about Jesus are of great significance. How can Jesus be God if he was worshipping God as any other mortal? Who is he praying to? The Church have been known to seek refuge in the “symbolic” route to explain this verse! They suggest that Jesus was only praying in a symbolic manner so as to teach the people how to conduct prayer. This argument is clearly invalid for the simple reason that the words “wilderness” and “by himself” indicate that at those specific times, Jesus was all on his own while praying. He could not have been teaching anybody! 3- “and Jesus ……….for forty days in the wilderness was tempted by the devil” (Luke 4:1) In the Bible we also read: “God cannot be tempted by the devil” (James 1:13) If God cannot be tempted by the devil, and Jesus was tempted by the devil, then Jesus cannot be God. 4- Jesus himself refused to be called son of God on a number of occasions. In the following verse he rebukes the ones who called him son of God, preferring the title of ‘Messiah’: “And devils came out of many, crying out and saying, ‘You are the son of God!’ And he, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that he was the Messiah” (Luke 4:41). The refusal of Jesus to be called the son of God, and choosing instead the title of ‘son of man’ also occurred during the trial at the Sanhedrian. When he was asked if he claimed to be the son of God he replied: “So you say. But I tell you this: from now you shall see the son of man seated at the right hand of God” (Mathew 26:64) (in some Bibles the words ‘the words are yours’ instead of ‘so you say’) 5- On numerous occasions Jesus speaks of himself as a prophet: “A prophet is not without honour except in his home town and his own house” (Mathew 13:57) (Mark 6:4) and (Luke 4:24) We also read: “I must journey today, tomorrow and the day following for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33) “This is the prophet Jesus” (Mathew 21:11) 6- Jesus also spoke of himself as the messenger of God: “Whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes God’s messenger because he is God’s messenger will share in his reward.” (Mathew 10:40) “No messenger is greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16) The distinction in this verse is made very clear by Jesus between himself and the One who sent him. This is again made clear in the following verse: “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) These verses clearly speak of two separate beings. To claim that Jesus and God are one reduces these verses to mere nonsense! 7- In various other verses Jesus is referred to as the servant of God: “Here is my servant whom I have chosen” (Mathew 12:18) “To you first, God having raised up His servant Jesus, sent him to bless you” (The Acts 3:26). These two verses, which are a fulfilment of Isaiah 42:1-4, speak of Jesus as the servant of God and not as a God. The Church will usually argue that the terms ‘prophet’ or ‘servant’ are symbolic and are not to be taken literally. That is fine as long as this principle is applied to other equally important issues. Why does it have to be that when it comes to the title of ‘son of God’ the Church insists on taking it literally?!! All these verses that speak of Jesus as a prophet of God, a messenger of God and indeed the servant of God if anything affirm the fact that Jesus was a man who worshipped God like any other mortal. 8- Jesus did not think of himself as being perfect, let alone divine. He knew in his heart that only God is perfect: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18) These are hardly the words of someone who thought of himself as God come down to earth in the form of a man! In actual fact, in these words Jesus makes a very clear distinction between God and himself. 9- In all the Bible there is not one verse where Jesus says that he is God come down to earth, that he is divine or that he should be worshipped. On the contrary he taught the people to worship God in Heaven: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Luke 4:8) Was Jesus God come down to earth and did not know it himself? The divinity of Jesus is never taught by Jesus and has no origin in the Bible, but was adopted some time after the death of Jesus. In addition to the previous evidence from the New Testament that refute the divinity of Jesus, it can also be demonstrated that the Jesus’ divinity is inconsistent with the prophecies contained in the Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah. Jesus was a Jew who lived and worshipped God according to the law of Moses. Jesus himself said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Mathew 5:17-18) With the words “to fulfil” Jesus was referring to the prophecies in the Jewish Scripture. These prophecies speak about the coming of the Messiah, the King of Jews. We do not find one prophecy that speaks of the coming of God in the form of a man or of a divine son of God! All the prophecies spoke of the coming of the King of Jews not of God. ......................... by A. Muhammad
Posted on: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:15:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015