Naphtali Jones

I think that I have come up with a logical argument that refutes Christ's divinity. This argument is based solely on the Bible and the Book of Enoch. However, I fear that if I spell out the entire argument in one post a lot of readers will get bogged down as it is somewhat involved. As well, I think the discussion may take off in every direction at once. To prevent this I would like to break down the argument into three parts and discuss them one step at a time. The first two are short and will not likely be controversial so they shouldn't take much discussion. Most readers of average intelligence will probably see where I am going with this but please refrain from jumping ahead until I present the evidence to back up my reasoning.

This is primarily directed at bible-believing christians but anyone who has an opinion is welcome to join in. For the purposes of this argument we will assume that Jesus was an historical person and that the gospel accounts are trustworthy and accurate accounts of his life.

Part 1:

Someone who was divine would have a knowledge or awareness of the mind of God. Therefore he or she should be able to accurately judge between what was the word of God and what wasn't. If Jesus can be shown to be unable to distinguish between false writings and the "Word of God", then we can confidently assume that he was not divine (ie. God incarnate, the only begotten Son of God, etc...)

Does everyone agree on this before we move onto the second part of my argument? Any comments so far?

Chili

Yes, but Jesus of the Gospels was not Christ. Please show me where Jesus was 'addressed' as Christ in the Gospels. The closest you will come is in Matthew 16:16 where Peter detected that Jesus was the messiah or Christ who was to come but was not Christ until after the crucifixion. (In Mk.16 he is actually called Christ in the NAB).

julma

I understand that Jesus had in fact two natures - one human, and another,divine. He became a Man in order to sacrifice himself to redeem mankind from bondage of "Sin". So He was in fact an ordinary person subject to human emotions, physical pain, etc. So there is no inconsistency if the Bible does in fact show that He was as human as everyone else.

Naphtali Jones

According to my bible (NKJV), Jesus is called Christ starting in Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ".
However, perhaps the thread title should have read "Proof that Jesus was not Divine". Are you arguing that Jesus did not (supposedly) become Divine until after the crucifixion? There were some early church groups who felt this way but from what I read in the gospels Jesus pretty much brags about being on the same level as God: "I and My father are one", "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and all that jazz.

Naphtali Jones

I still think that, despite his human limitations, Jesus would have to have understood the mind of God if he in fact had a divine nature.

The book of John seems to make this point clear:
"I and My Father are one" John 10:30
"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
"... and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent me" John 14:24b

If Jesus was the "Son of God" he would not be able to be decieved and would not believe a writing to be the word of God if it wasn't.

Alethias

Your first point is reasonable from the perspective of traditional mainstream christian doctrine.

I may be an atheist now, but I spent 40 years going to church, 27 of them as a christian.

SoT

Chili

Yes, I know that but in the lineage Jesus was nor addressed as Christ, as in "hey Christ, what do you think."

Exactly, Jesus did not become divine until the Jew nature was crucified that removed all doubt from Thomas with the exclamtion made "my Lord and my God."

Jesus spoke as Christ and as human and traveled between Bethany (heaven) and Jesusalem (earth) to clean up the old Jerusalem.

"The father and I are" one but not fully one until "son of man" becomes the "young man" and finally "fully man." See the movemement here?

But carry on, please, and clean up your mind.

Naphtali Jones

A lot of people will probably see where I am going with this but let's not jump ahead until I present my evidence please.


Part II:

The Book of Enoch is not the word of God. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm


I can't imagine too many people arguing with this part, christian or otherwise. The Book of Enoch, originally popular among the early church, fell out of favour in the third century and by the time that the church canonized the scripture it was generally not accepted as scripture. There are several theories why it was left out but nobody really knows for sure. The point is that if it really was the word of God (assuming God even has a Word), it would have been included. God would not have gone to all the trouble of leaving behind a sacred writing only to have it disappear just as the church was taking control.
As well, the book is filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. The section explaining the "Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries" (chp. 72 - 82) is hilarious as it tries to explain the procession of the Sun's movement. Apparently the sun rises and sets through a series of six portals stationed on each side of the flat earth. It spends a certain number of days on each portal as it moves from equinox to solstice.
I contend that if the book of Enoch had somehow been included in canonized scripture, it would have made a laughingstock of the entire bible.

I don't think that many will disagree, but you never know. Any comments before I go on to the third part of my argument?

~Nap

sharon45

Yeah, and it's all formed with a lot of help from the NT's writings and its constant references to the OT.

Naphtali Jones

The argument is designed to appeal to a christian who believes in the bible and thus agrees with the concept of a "Word of God". I actually came up with this a few years ago while I was going through my deconversion process. At the time I was doing a lot of reading about the history of the early church, in particular the role of the Essenes in 1st Century Judea. This is one argument that helped turn my questioning into disbelief.

~Nap