How does The Bible deny the Divinity of Jesus???

Christians and Muslims both believe in Jesus, love him, and honor him. They are, however, divided over the question of his divinity.
Fortunately, this difference can be resolved if we refer the question to both the Bible and the Quran, because, both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus is not God.
It is clear enough to everyone that the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, so we do not need to spend much time explaining that.
On the other hand, many people misunderstand the Bible; they feel that the belief in Jesus as God is so widespread that it must have come from the Bible. This article shows quite conclusively that the Bible does not teach that.
The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not God. In the Bible God is always someone else other than Jesus.
Some will say that something Jesus said or something he did while on the earth proves that he is God. We will show that the disciples never came to the conclusion that Jesus is God. And those are people who lived and walked with Jesus and thus knew first hand what he said and did. Furthermore, we are told in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible that the disciples were being guided by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is God, surely they should know it. But they did not. They kept worshipping the one true God who was worshipped by Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (see Acts 3:13).
All of the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).
Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).
Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).
Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.
So we see then, that some of the later writers had a higher view of Jesus, but none of the writers of the Bible believed that Jesus is God. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped (see John 17: 3).
In the rest of this article we will explore the Bible in more depth, and deal with the passages which are most often misquoted as proofs of Jesus’ divinity. We will show, with God’s help, that these do not mean what they are so often used to prove.
Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as a proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion.
The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven. Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God. They continually and consistently use the title God to refer to someone else other than Jesus.
Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying:
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22).
It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.
In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is not God. For he always turns the title God away from Jesus. Take the following references for example:
“God has raised this Jesus...” (Acts 2:32)
“God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)
In both passages, the title God is turned away from Jesus. So why he did this, if Jesus was God?
For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said:
“God raised up his servant...” (Acts 3:26).
The title servant refers to Jesus. This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared:
“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13).
Peter must have known that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never spoke of a Triune God. They always spoke of God as the only God. Here, as in Matthew 12:18, Jesus is the servant of God. Matthew tells us that Jesus was the same servant of God spoken of in Isaiah 42:1. So, according to Matthew and Peter, Jesus is not God, but God’s servant. The Old Testament repeatedly says that God is alone (e.g. Isaiah 45:5).
All of the disciples of Jesus held this view. In Acts 4:24 we are told that the believers prayed to God saying:
“...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.’”
It is clear that the one they were praying to was not Jesus, because, two verses later, they referred to Jesus as
“...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.” (Acts 4:27).
If Jesus was God, his disciples should have said this clearly. Instead, they kept preaching that Jesus was God’s Christ. We are told in Acts:
“Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.” (Acts 5:42).
The Greek word “Christ” is a human title. It means “Anointed.” If Jesus was God, why would the disciples continually refer to him with human titles like servant and Christ of God, and consistently use the title God for the one who raised Jesus? Did they fear men? No! They boldly preached the truth fearing neither imprisonment nor death. When they faced opposition from the authorities, Peter declared:
“We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus...” (Acts 5:29-30).
Were they lacking the Holy Spirit? No! They were supported by the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:3, 4:8, and 5:32). They were simply teaching what they had learnt from Jesus — that Jesus was not God but, rather, God’s servant and Christ.
The Quran confirms that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ), and that he was God’s servant (see the Holy Quran 3:45 and 19:30).

Christians and Muslims agree that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. The Gospels show that Jesus was not all-powerful, and not all-knowing, since he had some limitations.
Mark tells us in his gospel that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except few things: “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.” (Mark 6:5). Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark 8:22-26).
Therefore, although we hold a great love and respect for Jesus, we need to understand that he is not the all-powerful God.
Mark’s Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (see also Matthew 24:36).
Therefore, Jesus could not have been the all-knowing God. Some will say that Jesus knew when the last day will occur, but he chose not to tell. But that complicates matters further. Jesus could have said that he knows but he does not wish to tell. Instead, he said that he does not know. We must believe him. Jesus does not lie at all.
The Gospel of Luke also reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52). In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God’s knowledge and wisdom is always perfect, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything always. So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and thus he was not God.
Another example for the limited knowledge of Jesus is the fig tree episode in the Gospels. Mark tells us as follows: “The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.” (Mark 11:12-13).
It is clear from these verses that the knowledge of Jesus was limited on two counts. First, he did not know that the tree had no fruit until he came to it. Second, he did not know that it was not the right season to expect figs on trees.
Can he become God later? No! Because there is only one God, and He is God from everlasting to everlasting (see Psalms 90:2).
Someone may say that Jesus was God but he took the form of a servant and therefore became limited. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. God said so according to Malachi 3:6.
Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, God declares: “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.” (Isaiah 43:10).

Some will say that this whole discussion over the divinity of Jesus is unnecessary. They say, the important thing is to accept Jesus as your personal savior. On the contrary, the Bible’s writers stressed that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to understand who exactly is God. Failure to understand this would be to violate the first and greatest of all the commandments in the Bible. This commandment was emphasized by Jesus, on whom be peace, when a teacher of the Law of Moses asked him: “‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:28-30).
Notice that Jesus was quoting the first commandment from the book of Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Jesus confirmed not only that this commandment is still valid, but also that it is the most important of all the commandments. If Jesus thought that he himself is God, why did not he say so? Instead, he stressed that God is one. The man who questioned Jesus understood this, and what the man says next makes it clear that God is not Jesus, for he said to Jesus: “‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.’” (Mark 12:32).
Now if Jesus was God, he would have told the man so. Instead, he let the man refer to God as someone other than Jesus, and he even saw that the man had spoken wisely: “When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” (Mark 12:34). If Jesus knew that God is a trinity, why did not he say so? Why did not he say that God is one in three, or three in one? Instead, he declared that God is one. True imitators of Jesus will imitate him also in this declaration of God’s oneness. They will not add the word three where Jesus never said it.
Does salvation depend on this commandment? Yes, says the Bible! Jesus made this clear when another man approached Jesus to learn from him (see Mark 10:17-29). The man fell on his knees and said to Jesus: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied: “Why do you call me good? No one is good — except God alone.” (Mark 10:17-18).
By so saying, Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God. Then he proceeded with the answer to the man’s question about how to get salvation. Jesus told him: “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17, also see Mark 10:19).
Remember that the most important of all the commandments, according to Jesus, is to know God as the only God. Jesus further emphasized this in the Gospel According to John. In John 17:1, Jesus lifted his eyes to heaven and prayed, addressing God as Father. Then in verse three, he said to God as follows: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3).
This proves beyond doubt that if people want to get eternal life they must know that the One, whom Jesus was praying to, is the only true God, and they must know that Jesus was sent by the true God. Some say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But Jesus said that the Father alone is the only true God. True followers of Jesus will follow him in this too. Jesus had said that his true followers are those who hold to his teachings. He said: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.” (John 8:31). His teaching is that people must continue to keep the commandments, especially the first commandment which emphasizes that God is alone, and that God should be loved with all our hearts and all our strengths.
We love Jesus, but we must not love him as God. Today many love Jesus more than they love God. This is because they see God as a vengeful person who wanted to exact a penalty from them, and they see Jesus as the savior who rescued them from the wrath of God. Yet God is our only savior. According to Isaiah 43:11, God said: “I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.” Also God said according to Isaiah 45:21-22: “Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.”
The Quran confirms the first commandment and addresses it to all humankind (see the Holy Quran 2:163). And God declares that true believers love Him more than anyone else or anything else (Quran 2:165).
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: “I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions...” (1 Timothy 5:21).
It is clear from this that the title God applies not to Christ Jesus, but to someone else. In the following chapter, he again differentiates between God and Jesus when he says: “In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession...” (1 Timothy 6:13).
Paul then went on to speak of the second appearance of Jesus: “the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time.” (1 Timothy 6:14-15).
Again, the title God is deliberately turned away from Jesus. Incidentally, many people think that when Jesus is called “Lord” in the Bible that this means “God.” But in the Bible this title means master or teacher, and it can be used for addressing humans (see 1 Peter 3:6).
What is more important, however, is to notice what Paul said about God in the following passage, which clearly shows that Jesus is not God: “God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.” (1 Timothy 6:15-16).
Paul said that God alone is immortal. Immortal means he does not die. Check any dictionary. Now, anyone who believes that Jesus died cannot believe that Jesus is God. Such a belief would contradict what Paul said here. Furthermore, to say that God died is a blasphemy against God. Who would run the world if God died? Paul believed that God does not die.
Paul also said in that passage that God dwells in unapproachable light — that no one has seen God or can see him. Paul knew that many thousands of people had seen Jesus. Yet Paul said that no one has seen God, because Paul was sure that Jesus is not God. This is why Paul went on teaching that Jesus was not God, but that he was the Christ (see Acts 9:22 and 18:5).
When he was in Athens, Paul spoke of God as “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.” (Acts 17:24). Then he identified Jesus as “the man he (i.e. God) has appointed.” (Acts 17:31).
Clearly, for Paul, Jesus was not God, and he would be shocked to see his writings used for proving the opposite of what he believed. Paul even testified in court saying: “I admit that I worship the God of our fathers...” (Acts 24:14).
He also said that Jesus is the servant of that God, for we read in Acts: “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13).
For Paul, the Father alone is God. Paul said that there is “one God and Father of all...” (Ephesians 4:6). Paul said again: “...for us there is but one God, the Father . . . and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ...” (1 Corinthians 8:6).
Paul’s letter to the Philippians (Philippians 2:6-11) is often quoted as a proof that Jesus is God. But the very passage shows that Jesus is not God. This passage has to agree with Isaiah 45:22-24 where God said that every knee should bow to God, and every tongue should confess that righteousness and strength are in God alone. Paul was aware of this passage, for he quoted it in Romans 14:11. Knowing this, Paul declared: “I kneel before the Father.” (Ephesians 3:14).
The letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:6) says that the angels of God should worship the Son. But this passage depends on Deuteronomy 32:43, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament used by Christians today, and the Septuagint version is no longer considered valid by Christians. However, even the Septuagint version, does not say worship the Son. It says let the Angels of God worship God. The Bible insists that God alone is to be worshipped: “When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: ‘Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.’” (2 Kings 17:35-39).
Jesus, on whom be peace, believed in this, for he also stressed it in Luke 4:8. And Jesus too fell on his face and worshipped God (see Matthew 26:39). Paul knew that Jesus worshipped God (see Hebrews 5:7). Paul taught that Jesus will remain forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).
The Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel, was completed to its present form some seventy years after Jesus was raised up to heaven. This Gospel in its final form says one more thing about Jesus that was unknown from the previous three Gospels — that Jesus was the Word of God. John means that Jesus was God’s agent through whom God created everything else. This is often misunderstood to mean that Jesus was God Himself. But John was saying, as Paul had already said, that Jesus was God’s first creature. In the Book of Revelation in the Bible, we find that Jesus is: “the beginning of God’s creation” (Revelation 3:14, also see 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:15).
Anyone who says that the Word of God is a person distinct from God must also admit that the Word was created, for the Word speaks in the Bible saying: “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works...” (Proverbs 8:22).
This Gospel, nevertheless, clearly teaches that Jesus is not God. If it did not continue this teaching, then it would contradict the other three Gospels and also the letters of Paul from which it is clearly established that Jesus is not God. We find here that Jesus was not co-equal with the Father, for Jesus said: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28).
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe — Jesus or the people? Muslims and Christians agree that God is self-existent. This means that He does not derive his existence from anyone. Yet John tells us that Jesus’ existence is caused by the Father. Jesus said in this Gospel: “...I live because of the Father...” (John 6:57).
John tells us that Jesus cannot do anything by his own when he quotes Jesus as saying: “By myself I can do nothing...” (John 5:30). This agrees with what we learn about Jesus from other Gospels. In Mark, for example, we learn that Jesus performed miracles by a power which was not within his control. This is especially clear from an episode in which a woman is healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him. Mark describes Jesus’ actions thus: “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’” (Mark 5:30). His disciples could not provide a satisfactory answer, so Mark tells us: “Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.” (Mark 5:32). This shows that the power that healed the woman was not within Jesus’ control. He knew that the power had gone out of him, but he did not know where it went. Some other intelligent being had to guide that power to the woman who needed to be healed. God was that intelligent being.
It is no wonder, then, that in Acts of the Apostles we read that it was God who did the miracles through Jesus (Acts 2:22).
God did extraordinary miracles through others too, but that does not make the others God (see Acts 19:11). Why, then, is Jesus taken for God? Even when Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, he had to ask God to do it. Lazarus’ sister, Martha, knew this, for she said to Jesus: “I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” (John 11:22).
Martha knew that Jesus was not God, and John who reported this with approval knew it also. Jesus had a God, for when he was about to ascend to heaven, he said: “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17).
John was sure that no one had seen God, although he knew that many people had seen Jesus (see John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12). In fact Jesus himself told the crowds, that they have never seen the Father, nor have they heard the Father’s voice (John 5:37). Notice that if Jesus was the Father, his statement here would be false. Who is the only God in John’s Gospel? The Father alone.
Jesus testified this when he declared that the God of the Jews is the Father (John 8:54). Jesus too confirmed that the Father alone is the only true God (see John 17:1-3). And Jesus said to his enemies: “...you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” (John 8:40). According to John, therefore, Jesus was not God, and nothing John wrote should be taken as proof that he was God — unless one wishes to disagree with John.
For example, in Matthew 9:2, Jesus said to a certain man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” Because of this, some say that Jesus must be God since only God can forgive sins. However, if you are willing to read just a few verses further, you will find that the people “...praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:8). This shows that the people knew, and Matthew agrees, that Jesus is not the only man to receive such authority from God.
Jesus himself emphasized that he does not speak on his own authority (John 14:10) and he does nothing on his own authority, but he speaks only what the Father has taught him (John 8:28). What Jesus did here was as follows. Jesus announced to the man the knowledge Jesus received from God that God had forgiven the man.
Notice that Jesus did not say, “I forgive your sins,” but rather, “your sins are forgiven,” implying, as this would to his Jewish listeners, that God had forgiven the man. Jesus, then, did not have the power to forgive sins, and in that very episode he called himself “the Son of Man” (Matthew 9:6).
John 10:30 is often used as proof that Jesus is God because Jesus said, “I and the father are one.” But, if you read the next six verses, you will find Jesus explaining that his enemies were wrong to think that he was claiming to be God. What Jesus obviously means here is that he is one with the Father in purpose. Jesus also prayed that his disciples should be one just as Jesus and the Father are one. Obviously, he was not praying that all his disciples should somehow merge into one individual (see John 17:11 and 22). And when Luke reports that the disciples were all one, Luke does not mean that they became one single human being, but that they shared a common purpose although they were separate beings (see Acts 4:32). In terms of essence, Jesus and the Father are two, for Jesus said they are two witnesses (John 8:14-18). They have to be two, since one is greater than the other (see John 14:28). When Jesus prayed to be saved from the cross, he said: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42).
This shows that they had two separate wills, although Jesus submitted his will to the will of the Father. Two wills mean two separate individuals.
Furthermore, Jesus is reported to have said: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). If one of them forsook the other, then they must be two separate entities.
Again, Jesus is reported to have said: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46). If the spirit of one can be placed into the hands of another, they must be two separate beings.
In all of these instances, Jesus is clearly subordinate to the Father. When Jesus knelt down and prayed he obviously was not praying to himself (see Luke 22:41). He was praying to his God.
Throughout the New Testament, the Father alone is called God. In fact, the titles “Father” and “God” are used to designate one individual, not three, and never Jesus. This is also clear from the fact that Matthew substituted the title “Father” in the place of the title “God” in at least two places in his Gospel (compare Matthew 10:29 with Luke 12:6, and Matthew 12:50 with Mark 3:35). If Matthew is right in doing so, then the Father alone is God.
Was Jesus the Father? No! Because Jesus said: “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9). So Jesus is not the Father, since Jesus was standing on the earth when he said this.
The Quran seeks to bring people back to the true faith that was taught by Jesus, and by his true disciples who continued in his teaching. That teaching emphasized a continued commitment to the first commandment that God is alone. In the Quran, God directs Muslims to call readers of the Bible back to that true faith. God have said in the Quran:
Say: “O people of the Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to a word that is just between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside God.” (Quran, 3:64)

Original subject: Religious Mysteries – The Crucifixion

Of all the Christian mysteries, none rank as highly as the concept of Christ’s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice. In fact, Christians base their salvation on this one tenet of faith. And if it really happened, shouldn’t we all?
If it really happened, that is.
Now, I don’t know about you, but the concept of Jesus Christ having atoned for the sins of mankind sounds pretty good to me. And shouldn’t it? I mean, if we can trust that someone else atoned for all of our sins, and we can go to heaven on that concept alone, shouldn’t we instantly close on that deal?
If it really happened, that is.
So let’s check this out. We’re told Jesus Christ was crucified. But then again, we’re told a lot of things that later prove to be doubtful or even untrue, so it would be reassuring if we could verify the fact.
So let’s ask the witnesses. Let’s ask the gospel authors.
Umm, one problem. We don’t know who the authors were. This is a less popular Christian mystery (i.e., waaay less popular) – the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous.[1] Nobody knows who wrote them. Graham Stanton tells us, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to . . .’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[2]
Added in the second century? By whom? Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well.
But let’s forget all that. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right?
Right?
Well, maybe not. After all, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[3] Add to that Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[4]
Whoa. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us? That they can’t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said? After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14–15 says it was “about the sixth hour.” Luke 23:46 says Jesus’ last words were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit,” but John 19:30: says they were “It is finished!”
Now, wait a minute. Jesus’ righteous followers would have hung on his every word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. But okay, some people – not disciples, I guess, but some people (anonymous, of course) – hung on his every word, hoping for some parting words of wisdom, and they heard . . . different things?
Believe it or not, after this point, the gospel records become even more inconsistent.
Following the alleged resurrection, we hardly find a single issue the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20) agree upon. For example:
Who went to the tomb?
Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”
Mark: “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”
Luke: “The women who had come with him from Galilee” and “certain other women”
John: “Mary Magdalene”
Why did they go to the tomb?
Matthew: “To see the tomb”
Mark: They “brought spices, that they might come and anoint him”
Luke: They “brought spices”
John: no reason given
Was there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)?
Matthew: Yes
Mark: no mention
Luke: no mention
John: no mention
Did an angel descend? (I mean, come on, guys – an angel? Are we to believe that three of you somehow missed this part?)
Matthew: Yes
Mark: no mention
Luke: no mention
John: no mention
Who rolled back the stone?
Matthew: The angel (the one the other three anonymouses – now, let’s see, would that be “anonymouses” or “anonymice”? – didn’t see)
Mark: unknown
Luke: unknown
John: unknown
Who was at the tomb?
Matthew: “an angel”
Mark: “a young man”
Luke: “two men”
John: “two angels”
Where were they?
Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb.
Mark: The young man was in the tomb, “sitting on the right side.”
Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.
John: The two angels were “sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”
By whom and where was Jesus first seen?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary,” on the road to tell the disciples.
Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.
Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to “a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.”
John: Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb.
So where does this leave us, if not wondering whose idea of scripture this is?
But, hey, Christians tell us Jesus had to die for our sins. A typical conversation might go something like this:
Monotheist: Oh. So you believe God died?
Trinitarian: No, no, perish the thought. Only the man died.
Monotheist: In that case, the sacrifice didn’t need to be divine, if only the man-part died.
Trinitarian: No, no, no. The man-part died, but Jesus/God had to suffer on the cross to atone for our sins.
Monotheist: What do you mean “had to”? God doesn’t “have to” anything.
Trinitarian: God needed a sacrifice and a human wouldn’t do. God needed a sacrifice big enough to atone for the sins of humankind, so He sent His only begotten son.
Monotheist: Then we have a different concept of God. The God I believe in doesn’t have needs. My God never wants to do something but can’t because He needs something to make it possible. My God never says, “Gee, I want to do this, but I can’t. First I need this certain something. Let’s see, where can I find it?” In that scenario God would be dependent upon whatever entity could satisfy His needs. In other words, God would have to have a higher god. For a strict monotheist that’s just not possible, for God is One, supreme, self-sufficient, the source of all creation. Humankind has needs, God doesn’t. We need His guidance, mercy and forgiveness, but He doesn’t need anything in exchange. He may desire servitude and worship, but he doesn’t need it.
Trinitarian: But that’s the point; God tells us to worship Him, and we do that through prayer. But God is pure and holy, and humankind are sinners. We can’t approach God directly because of the impurity of our sins. Hence, we need an intercessor to pray through.
Monotheist: Question—did Jesus sin?
Trinitarian: Nope, he was sinless.
Monotheist: How pure was he?
Trinitarian: Jesus? 100% pure. He was God/Son of God, so he was 100% holy.
Monotheist: But then we can’t approach Jesus any more than we can God, by your criterion. Your premise is that humankind can’t pray directly to God because of the incompatibility of sinful man and the purity of anything 100% holy. If Jesus was 100% holy, then he’s no more approachable than God. On the other hand, if Jesus wasn’t 100% holy, then he was himself tainted and couldn’t approach God directly, much less be God, the Son of God, or partner with God.
A fair analogy might be that of going to meet a supremely righteous man—the holiest person alive, holiness radiating from his being, oozing from his pores. So we go to see him, but are told the “saint” won’t agree to the meeting. In fact, he can’t stand to be in the same room with a sin-tainted mortal. We can talk with his receptionist, but the saint himself? Fat chance! He’s much too holy to sit with us lesser beings. So what do we think now? Does he sound holy, or crazy?
Common sense tells us holy people are approachable—the holier, the more approachable. So why should humankind need an intermediary between us and God? And why would God demand the sacrifice of what Christians propose to be “His only begotten son” when, according to Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” This lesson was worthy of two New Testament mentions, the first in Matthew 9:13, the second in Matthew 12:7. Why, then, are clergy teaching that Jesus had to be sacrificed? And if he was sent for this purpose, why did he pray to be saved?
Perhaps Jesus’ prayer is explained by Hebrews 5:7, which states that because Jesus was a righteous man, God answered his prayer to be saved from death: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission” (Hebrews 5:7, NRSV). Now, what does “God heard his prayer” mean—that God heard it loud and clear and ignored it? No, it means God answered his prayer. It certainly can’t mean that God heard and refused the prayer, for then the phrase “because of his reverent submission” would be nonsensical, along the lines of, “God heard his prayer and refused it because he was a righteous man.”
Hm. So wouldn’t that suggest that Jesus might not have been crucified in the first place?
But let’s back up and ask ourselves, why do we have to believe to be saved? On one hand, original sin is held to be binding, whether we believe in it or not. On the other hand, salvation is held to be conditional upon acceptance (i.e., belief) of the crucifixion and atonement of Jesus. In the first case, belief is held to be irrelevant; in the second, it’s required. The question arises, “Did Jesus pay the price or not?” If he paid the price, then our sins are forgiven, whether we believe or not. If he didn’t pay the price, it doesn’t matter either way. Lastly, forgiveness doesn’t have a price. A person can’t forgive another’s debt and still demand repayment. The argument that God forgives, but only if given a sacrifice He says He doesn’t want in the first place (see Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) drags a wing and cartwheels down the runway of rational analysis. From where, then, does the formula come? According to scripture (the aforementioned anonymous scripture lacking manuscript uniformity), it’s not from Jesus. Furthermore, the Christian formula for salvation hinges off the concept of original sin, and we have to ask ourselves why we should believe that concept if we can’t substantiate the rest of the Christian formula.
But that is a different discussion.
Signed,
Anonymous (Just Kidding)

Copyright © 2008 Laurence B. Brown—used by permission.
The author’s website is www.leveltruth.com. He is the author of two books of comparative religion entitled MisGod’ed and God’ed, as well as the Islamic primer, Bearing True Witness. All of his books are available through Amazon.com.

Footnotes:
[1] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. p. 3, 235. Also, see Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. p. 49.
[2] Stanton, Graham N. p. 19.
[3] Buttrick, George Arthur (Ed.). 1962 (1996 Print). The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 594–595 (Under Text, NT).
[4] Ibid., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. p. 12.

Original subject: the proof that there is no divinity to Jesus

The critical difference between Jesus’ teachings and the Trinitarian formula lies in elevating Jesus to divine status—a status Jesus denies in the gospels:
“Why do you call me good: No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Matthew 9:17, Mark 10-18, and Luke 18:19)
“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28)
“Most assuredly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself …” (John 5:19)
“But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent me.” (John 7:29)
“He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
“But now I go away to Him who sent me …” (John 16:5)
“Jesus answered them and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.’” (John 7:16)
“For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” (John 12:49) [1] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn1
What does Pauline theology say? That Jesus is a partner in divinity, God incarnate. So whom should a person believe? If Jesus, then let’s hear what else he might have to say:
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)
“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Luke 4:8)
“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me …” (John 4:34)
“I can of myself do nothing … I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” (John 5:30)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” (John 6:38)
“My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.” (John 7:16)
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
My italics in the above verses do not imply that Jesus spoke with that emphasis, although nobody can claim with certainty that he didn’t. Rather, the italics stress the fact that Jesus not only never claimed divinity, but would be the first to deny it. In the words of Joel Carmichael, “The idea of this new religion, with himself as its deity, was something he [Jesus Christ] could never have had the slightest inkling of. As Charles Guignebert put it, ‘It never even crossed his mind.’” [2] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn2
So if Jesus never claimed divinity, then what was he exactly? He answered that question himself:
“A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.” (Mark 6:4)
“But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” (Matthew 13:57)
“It cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.” (Luke 13:33)
Those who knew him acknowledged, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee” (Matthew 21:11), and “A great prophet has risen up among us …” (Luke 7:16). The disciples recognized Jesus as “a prophet mighty in deed …” (Luke 24:19. Also see Matthew 14:5, 21:46, and John 6:14). If these statements were inaccurate, why didn’t Jesus correct them? Why didn’t he define his divinity if, that is, he truly was divine? When the woman at the well stated, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’” (John 4:19), why didn’t he thank her for her lowly impression, but explain there was more to his essence than prophethood?
Or was there?
Jesus Christ, a mere man? Could it be? A good part of the religiously introspective world wonders, “Why not?” Acts 2:22 records Jesus as “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know.” Jesus himself is recorded as having said, “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God …” (John 8:40). Strikingly, a similar quote is found in the Holy Qur’an:
“He [Jesus] said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me Revelation and made me a prophet’” (Quran 19:30)
So was Jesus a “servant of Allah (i.e., servant of God)?” According to the Bible, yes. Or, at least, that is what we understand from Matthew 12:18: “Behold! My servant whom I have chosen …” Furthermore, Acts of the Apostles traces the growth of the early church for the first thirty years following Jesus’ ministry, but nowhere in Acts did Jesus’ disciples ever call Jesus “God.” Rather, they referred to Jesus as a man and God’s servant. [3] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn3
In fact, the only New Testament verse which supports the doctrine of the Incarnation is 1 Timothy 3:16. [4] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn4 However, with regard to this verse (which states that “God was manifest in the flesh”), Gibbon notes, “This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (I Tim. iii. 16), but we are deceived by our modern bibles. The word ë (which) was altered to qeèv (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the sixth century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac versions, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as of the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton.” [5] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn5
Fraud? Now there’s a strong word. But if we look to more modern scholarship, it’s a word well applied, for “some passages of the New Testament were modified to stress more precisely that Jesus was himself divine.” [6] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn6
The Bible was modified? For doctrinal reasons? Hard to find a more appropriate word than “fraud,” given the circumstances.
In a chapter entitled “Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text” in his book, Misquoting Jesus, Professor Ehrman elaborates on the corruption of 1 Timothy 3:16, which was detected not only by Sir Isaac Newton, but also by the eighteenth century scholar, Johann J. Wettstein. In Ehrman’s words, “A later scribe had altered the original reading, so that it no longer read “who” but “God” (made manifest in the flesh). In other words, this later corrector changed the text in such a way as to stress Christ’s divinity…. Our earliest and best manuscripts, however, speak of Christ ‘who’ was made manifest in the flesh, without calling Jesus, explicitly, God.” [7] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn7
Ehrman stresses that this corruption is evident in five early Greek manuscripts. All the same it was the corrupted, and not the “earliest and best,” biblical manuscripts which came to dominate both the medieval manuscripts and the early English translations. [8] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn8 Consequently, from medieval times on, the tenets of Christian faith have suffered the corrupting influence of a church devoted more to theology than to reality. https://www.blogger.com/null* Divinity of Jesus? An Inquiry - The Religion of Islam
Ehrman adds: “As Wettstein continued his investigations, he found other passages typically used to affirm the doctrine of the divinity of Christ that in fact represented textual problems; when these problems are resolved on text-critical grounds, in most instances references to Jesus’ divinity are taken away.” [9] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn9
Given the above there should be little surprise that twentieth-century Christianity has expanded to include those who deny the alleged divinity of Jesus. A significant sign of this realization is the following report of the London Daily News: “More than half of England’s Anglican bishops say Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today.” [10] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn10 It is worth noting that it was not mere clergy that were polled but bishops, no doubt leaving many parishioners scratching their heads and wondering who to believe, if not their bishops!

[1] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref1 See also Matthew 24:36, Luke 23:46, John 8:42, John 14:24, John 17:6-8, etc

[2] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref2 Carmichael, Joel. p. 203.

[3] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref3 Man: see Acts 2:22, 7:56, 13:38, 17:31; God’s servant: see Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30.

[4] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref4 In the past, some theologians attempted to validate the Incarnation on the basis of John 1:14 and Colossians 2:9. However, in the face of modern textual criticism these verses have fallen from favor, and for good reason. John 1:14 speaks of “the Word,” which by no means implies divinity, and “the only begotten of the Father,” which by no means is an accurate translation. Both of these subjects were discussed (and discredited) in previous chapters. As for Colossians, problems transcend the incomprehensible wording, beginning with the simple fact that Colossians is now thought to have been forged. For details, see Bart D. Ehrman’s Lost Christianities, page 235.

[5] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref5 Gibbon, Edward, Esq. Vol. 5, Chapter XLVII, p. 207.

[6] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref6 Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. P. 286.

[7] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref7 Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. P. 157.

[8] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref8 Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. P. 157.
https://www.blogger.com/null* Divinity of Jesus? An Inquiry - The Religion of Islam For further clarification, see Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Pp. 573-4.

[9] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref9 Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. P. 113.

[10] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref10 London Daily News. June 25, 1984.

Original subject: Polygamy in Judaism and Christianity

Polygamy is not a practice limited to the religion of Islam; rather, it is something well-known in the history of the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, as well. It is only in the later times that their religious men frowned upon it or forbade it outright. However, when one looks into the early history of the religions, they will find that it was at least an acceptable practice, if not encouraged.
Polygamy in Judaism Polygamy existed among the Israelites before the time of Moses, who continued the institution without imposing any limit on the number of marriages which a Hebrew husband might contract. The Jewish Encyclopedia states,
While there is no evidence of a polyandrous state in primitive Jewish society, polygamy seems to have been a well-established institution, dating from the most ancient times and extending to comparatively modern days. [1] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn1
Another common practice was the taking of concubines. [2] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn2 In later times, the Talmud of Jerusalem restricted the number by the ability of the husband to maintain the wives properly. Some rabbis, however, counseled that a man should not take more than four wives. Polygamy was prohibited in Judaism by the rabbis, not God. Rabbi Gershom ben Judah is credited by forbidding polygamy in the 11th century outlawing it for a 1,000 years (that ended in 1987) to Eastern European Jews (Ashkanazi). The Mediterranean (Sephardic) Jews continued to practice polygamy. [3] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn3 Consequently, according to Will Durant, ‘polygamy was practiced by rich Jews in Islamic lands, but was rare among the Jews of Christendom.’ [4] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn4 According to Joseph Ginat, professor of social and culture anthropology at the University of Haifa, it is common and growing among the 180,000 Bedouin of Israel. It is also frequent among Mediterranean Jews living in Yemen, rabbis permitting Jews to marry up to four wives. [5] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn5 In modern Israel, where a wife cannot bear children or is mentally ill, the rabbis give a husband the right to marry a second woman without divorcing his first wife. [6] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn6
Polygamy in Christianity Jesus, who otherwise overlooked polygamy, is irrelevant as an model for marriage customs, since he did not marry during his earthly ministry. According to Father Eugene Hillman, ‘Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.’ [7] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn7 The Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to Greco-Roman culture that prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution. [8] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn8
The Roman emperor, Valentinian I, in the fourth century, authorized Christians to take two wives. In the eighth century Charlemagne, holding power over both church and state, in his own person practiced polygamy, having six, or according to some authorities, nine wives. [9] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn9 According to Joseph Ginat, the author of Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society, the Catholic Church frowned on the practice, but occasionally sanctioned second marriages for political leaders. [10] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn10
St. Augustine seems to have observed in it no intrinsic immorality or sinfulness, and declared that polygamy was not a crime where it was the legal institution of a country. [11] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn11 He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15, paragraph 17), that polygamy
…was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to get a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.”
He declined to judge the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. In another place, he wrote, “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living.” [12] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn12
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther said, “I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him for it does not contradict the Scripture.” He advised Philip of Hesse that he should keep his second marriage a secret to avoid public scandal. [13] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn13 One of the greatest poets of the English language and the famous English Puritan, John Milton (1608 - 1674), wrote, ‘I have not said ‘the marriage of one man with one woman’ lest I should by implication charge the holy patriarchs and pillars of our faith, Abraham and others who had more than one wife, at the same time, with habitual sin; and lest I should be forced to exclude from the sanctuary of God as spurious, the whole offspring which sprang from them, yea, the whole of the sons of Israel, for whom the sanctuary itself was made. For it is said in Deuteronomy (xxii. 2,) “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Jehovah even to the tenth generation.” [14] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn14 On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. [15] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn15
African churches have long recognized polygamy. They stated in the 1988 Lambeth Conference, “It has long been recognized in the Anglican Communion that polygamy in parts of Africa, and traditional marriage, do genuinely have features of both faithfulness and righteousness.” [16] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn16 Mwai Kibaki, the Christian president of Kenya, whose victory was attributed to ‘the hand of the Lord’ by the Presbyterian Church of East Africa, is polygamous. [17] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn17 No longer under the previous rule of Christian whites, post-apartheid South Africa has also legalized polygamy. [18] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn18
Early in its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy in the United States. Splinter groups left the Church to continue the practice after the Church banned it. Polygamy among these groups persists today in Utah, neighboring states, and the spin-off colonies, as well as among isolated individuals with no organized church affiliation.
In the United States, polygamy is illegal, but it exists unofficially, with an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 people living as polygamists in the West. Typically, these families are Mormon fundamentalists or Christian groups that maintain polygamy is a time-honored and scriptural practice. [19] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftn19
Before one points the finger at Islam and Muslims when discussing polygamy, it is necessary that one have enough knowledge of the subject and its history. One should not judge practices held acceptable throughout history though the narrow mind of the present times. Rather, one should research the subject thoroughly and most importantly, seek divine guidance.

[1] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref1 “Polygamy”, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board and Julius H. Greenstone. . The Jewish Encyclopedia. (POLYGAMY - JewishEncyclopedia.com POLYGAMY - JewishEncyclopedia.com).

[2] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref2 “Pilegesh”, Emil G. Hirsch, Schulim Ochser and the Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. The Jewish Encyclopedia.
(PILEGESH - JewishEncyclopedia.com PILEGESH - JewishEncyclopedia.com).

[3] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref3 “Takkanah.” Encyclopædia Britannica from
Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071020 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071020) Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Globally, Polygamy Is
Commonplace,” The Salt Lake Tribune 20 Sep. 1998.

[4] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref4 Will Durant, “The Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization -Christian, Islamic, and Judaic - from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325-1300” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950) 380.

[5] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref5 Christopher Smith, “Polygamy’s Practice Stirs Debate in Israel,” Salt Lake Tribune Dec. 7, 2001.

[6] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref6 Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Globally, Polygamy Is Commonplace,” The Salt Lake Tribune 20 Sep. 1998.

[7] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref7 Polygamy Reconsidered, p. 140.

[8] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref8 Ibid., p. 17.

[9] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref9 Matilda Joslyn Gage, “Woman, Church And State,” p. 398.

[10] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref10 Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Globally, Polygamy Is Commonplace,” The Salt Lake Tribune 20 Sep. 1998.

[11] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref11 St. Augustine, lib. ii. cont. Faust, ch. xlvii.

[12] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref12 Deferrari, vol. 27: “Saint Augustine - Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects” (1955), pp. 31, 34, 36, 18.

[13] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref13 Matilda Joslyn Gage, “Woman, Church And State,” p. 398-399.

[14] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref14 Matilda Joslyn Gage, “Woman, Church And State,” p. 400.

[15] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref15 O. Jensen, A Genealogical Handbook of German Research (Rev. Ed., 1980) p. 59.

[16] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref16 Robin Gill, “Churchgoing and Christian Ethics” (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 249,

[17] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref17 Sam Gonza, “Churches Celebrate Kenya’s New President,” Christianity Today Feb 20. 2003. Marc Lacey, “Polygamy in Kenya an issue after wives of president revealed,” New York Times Dec 19. 2003.

[18] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref18 Aurelia Dyanti, “Two wives better than one for some South Africa men,” The Star July 16, 2003.

[19] https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6458419575881893908#_ftnref19 Cheryl Wetzstein, “Traditionalists Fear Same-Sex Unions Legitimize Polygamy,” The Washington Times 13 Dec. 2000.

Original subject: Ninety Verses Says Jesus Is Not God

All four Gospels record Jesus as saying, “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.”
The word ‘son’ cannot be accepted literally because in the Bible, God apparently addresses many of his chosen servants as ‘son’ and ‘sons.’ The Hebrews believed God is One, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense. Therefore, it is obvious the expression ‘son of God’ merely meant ‘Servant of God’; one who, because of faithful service, was close and dear to God as a son is to his father.
Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, ‘son of God’ signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. This can be seen in Acts 14: 11-13, where we read that when Paul and Barnabas preached in a city of Turkey, pagans claimed they were gods incarnate. They called Barnabas the Roman god Zeus, and Paul the Roman god Hermes.
Furthermore, the New Testament Greek word translated as ‘son’ is ‘pias’ and ‘paida’ which mean ‘servant’ or ‘son’ in the sense of servant.’ These are translated to ‘son’ in reference to Jesus and ‘servant’ in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible. So, consistent with other verses, Jesus was merely saying that he is God’s servant.
Additional problems with Trinity
To a Christian, God had to take human form to understand temptation and human suffering, but the concept is not based on any clear words of Jesus. In contrast, God does not need to be tempted and suffer in order to be able to understand and forgive man’s sins, for He is the all knowing Creator of man. This is expressed in the verse:
‘And the Lord said: ‘I have surely seen the affliction of My people that are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; for I know their pains.’ (Exodus 3:7)
God forgave sin before Jesus’ appearance, and He continues to forgive without any assistance. When a believer sins, he is to repent sincerely in order to receive forgiveness. Indeed, the offer to humble oneself before God and be saved is made to all humankind.
‘And there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10)
Biblically, people can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentance sought directly from God. This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called inter cessionary role Jesus plays in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian belief that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is only through Jesus. What about the salvation of people before Jesus? Jesus’ death neither brings atonement from sin, nor is it in any way a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
Christians claim that in the birth of Jesus, there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of God in the form of a human being. To say that God became truly a human being invites a number of questions. Let us ask the following about the man-God Jesus:
*What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)? Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh?
*During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and blood that was shed from his wounds? Did the cells of his body die as ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of God, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God. The everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: ‘For I the Lord do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6)
Did Jesus’ flesh dwell in safety after his death?
Unless Jesus’ body never underwent ‘decay’ during his lifetime he could not be God, but if it did not undergo ‘decay’ then he was not truly human.
Bible says that God is not man
• ‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
• ‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)
Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible
• ‘… a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40)
• ‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)
• ‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31)
• ‘… the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)
The Bible says that God is not a son of man
• ‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19)
• The Bible often calls Jesus ‘a son of man’ or ‘the son of man.’
• ‘… so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40)
• ‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27)
• ‘… until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28)
• ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10)
• ‘… because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27)
In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3).
Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called ‘the son of man’, he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called ‘son of man’ specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a ‘son of man’ according to the Bible.
The Bible says that Jesus denied he is God
• Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)
• And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17)
Jesus did not teach people that he was God
If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.
The Bible says that God is greater than Jesus
• ‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)
• ‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
Jesus cannot be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.
Jesus never instructed his disciples to worship him
• ‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ (Luke 11:2)
• ‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)
• ‘The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.’ (John 4:23)
If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself
Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.