If you were to ask a Christian, or rather a gospel-reading Christian, who the ‘Son of Man’ is, invariably, you will get the answer that he is Jesus. As this article will show, what is surprising is that the very early Christians did not believe that Jesus was the Son of Man. In fact, one never finds the phrase in any of Paul’s writings, whose authentic letters span the fifties CE. Moreover, despite what the gospels say, reading between the lines, in all probability, Jesus thought the Son of Man was someone else. Furthermore, there is serious doubt whether the Son of Man actually exists or ever existed.
Human Being
The phrase ‘son of man’ appears roughly 200 times in the Bible, about 70 of which appear in the gospels. Ordinarily, it means ‘human being,’ and it always has this meaning in Ezekiel, where it appears about 90 times. For instance, in Ezekiel chapter 2 alone it appears 4 times:
“And he [God] said unto me [Ezekiel], ‘Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.’ And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me. And he said unto me, ‘Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, “Thus saith the Lord God.” And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them. And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious. But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.’ And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein; And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.” (Ezekiel 2:1–10, KJV, emphasis mine)
All 4 occurrences of the phrase “son of man” in this passage mean ‘human being’ and it is not a title of any sort.
Gospels
In the gospels, however, most of the time, it refers to Jesus, and it is a sort of title. Some of the verses are very clear who the phrase refers to; to give a few examples:
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, ‘Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?’” (Matthew 16:13, KJV, emphasis mine)
Note the all-telling phrase “I the Son of man.”
“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40, KJV, emphasis mine)
Jesus was the one buried for three partial days.
“As they [the apostles Peter, James, and John] came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, ‘Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.’” (Matthew 17:9, KJV, emphasis mine)
Jesus was the one who resurrected.
“And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples [apostles] apart in the way, and said unto them, ‘Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death.’” (Matthew 20:17–18, KJV, emphasis mine)
Jesus was the one who was betrayed by his apostle Judas and consequently sentenced to death.
But there are several exceptions in the gospels where it’s not so obvious who the phrase refers to; for example:
“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me [Jesus] and of my words in this adulterous [unfaithful] and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38, KJV, emphasis mine)
Notice the word “also,” which gives the impression that the “Son of Man” is someone other than Jesus. Luke’s gospel, written around 90 CE, twenty-odd years after Mark’s, gives the same verse almost word for word, except that it strategically leaves out the word “also”—presumably, not to leave any doubt in the reader’s mind.
“Whosoever shall be ashamed of me [Jesus] and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26, KJV, emphasis mine)
Biblical Scholarship
Mark’s version (the one that includes the word “also”), however, passes the ‘criterion of dissimilarity’: something embarrassing Christians would not make up—like Jesus’s crucifixion or baptism—but which has the ring of truth. This means that it is, most probably, what Jesus said originally. Recall that Mark’s gospel was the earliest gospel written (around 70 CE) and so probably the most authentic. Luke’s version is what later Christians (who wanted to extol him higher than he claimed to be) started to believe in Jesus. New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explains this much better in his book Did Jesus Exist?
“The sayings in which Jesus talks about himself as the Son of Man cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity. But the sayings in which Jesus seems to be talking about someone else do pass the criterion: surely Christians who thought Jesus was the Son of Man would not make up sayings that appear to differentiate between him and the Son of Man.” (p. 306)
Apostles’ Creed
So, what made Christians start to believe that Jesus was the Son of Man? Look at the following two gospel verses:
“Jesus said unto them [his apostles], ‘Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration [new world order] when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’” (Matthew 19:28, KJV, emphasis mine)
The ‘new world order’ corresponds to the ‘kingdom of God/heaven’—a kingdom of justice, sharing, and love—as we have seen in the last posted article by the same title.
“That ye [apostles] may eat and drink at my [Jesus’s] table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:30, KJV)
Now, if the apostles were going to judge the tribes of Israel, it stands to reason that Jesus (as their master) would judge the whole world. In fact, in the Apostles creed, which can probably be traced back to the first century CE, we still pray,
“From there [heaven] He [Jesus] will come to judge the living and the dead.” (Catholic Online: “The Apostles’ Creed,” accessed April 11, 2022)
Now, look at this verse from Matthew’s gospel:
“As therefore the tares [weeds] are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:40–42, KJV, emphasis mine)
In this passage, again it is uncertain whether Jesus is referring to himself: but the “Son of Man” seems to be a ‘cosmic’ character sent by God to judge the whole world at the ‘end-times’; that is, prior to the inauguration of the ‘kingdom of God’ (or ‘kingdom of heaven’). In fact, it hardly seems that Jesus is referring to himself here: throughout his life, he always tried to convert, not eliminate, sinners. It sounds more like a warning than a threat.
Let me start our discussion of this subject by first quoting New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? Regarding the kingdom of God, he writes,
“The future kingdom [of God] would be brought by a cosmic judge whom Jesus called the Son of Man.” (p. 305)
In other words, according to a biblical scholar, the phrase ‘Son of Man’ does not seem to refer to Jesus himself. I must admit I was quite astonished when I first read about this concept: I always thought that Jesus simply referred to himself by the phrase ‘Son of Man.’
Book of Daniel
But who could this cosmic judge be if not Jesus? We find the answer in the Old Testament book of Daniel. The protagonist of the book had the following vision:
“I [Daniel] saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [God], and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13–14, KJV, emphasis mine)
So, according to Daniel, a world-wide kingdom of God was transferred to this “Son of Man” to rule it indefinitely. Jesus, of course, never questioned scriptures; so, he assumed the existence of this cosmic ruler, the Son of Man, in his speeches and teachings.
It seems, therefore, that Daniel’s vision was a future one: the Son of Man was supposed to come in the ‘end-times’ to judge everyone prior to establishing God’s kingdom on earth. So, it’s not clear whether the Son of Man, in fact, existed during Daniel’s vision. Notice also that there is absolutely no indication that this Son of Man was supposed to suffer at all, nor die as the gospels suggest above. Have a look at this verse, which is much clearer:
“For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.” (Luke 17:24–25, KJV)
Of course, such verses are made-up nonsense by the evangelists: it doesn’t jibe with Daniel’s portrayal of the Son of Man.
Now, Daniel was written around 165 BCE (although its author claims he wrote it around 600 BCE); but in any case, there is no doubt that Jesus, as a human being, was inexistent when this book was written.
However, because of the many gospel verses identifying Jesus with the Son of Man, and assuming that the Son of Man existed in heaven at the time of Daniel’s vision, Christians reasoned that it was Jesus who appeared in Daniel’s vision. Indeed, they believe Jesus existed prior to his birth, from the beginning of the universe, as God’s “Word.” In fact, in John’s gospel, we read,
“In the beginning [of creation] was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14 KJV)
Some Christian denominations, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel in human form. (Reed, accessed April 12, 2022) So, Jesus is supposedly ‘God’s Word,’ the ‘Son of Man,’ and Michael the Archangel; not to mention also ‘Son of God’ and even ‘God.’ All this confusion clearly shows that from the Bible one cannot tell who Jesus really is. I like to keep things simple: I do believe Jesus was born of a sperm donated directly by the Holy Spirit to his mother, Mary; but I also believe that he was inexistent before his birth (i.e., around 5 BCE) like all of us.
Again, in his book Did Jesus Exist? New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman continues,
“The sayings that make this differentiation [between Jesus and the Son of Man] are always ones that predict what will happen in the future, when the Son of Man comes in judgement on the earth. These sayings are also multiply attested in early sources …. Conclusion: Jesus appears to have talked about a future Son of Man who would bring God’s kingdom.” (pp. 306–7, emphasis mine)
The ambiguous references to the ‘Son of Man,’ therefore, always relate to his coming in judgement in the end-times. Notice that Ehrman adds, “These sayings are also multiply attested in early sources”; so, it is probably the case.
It follows, therefore, that we have another contradiction in the Bible (a subtle one, perhaps): that is, passages that say that Jesus is the “Son of Man” and passages that say (or at least imply) that the “Son of Man” is someone else.
So much also for the Apostles’ Creed where it says, “from there [heaven] he [Jesus] will come to judge the living and the dead.” Although that is what Christians believe, Jesus himself did not seem to think that he was going to be the judge of all of humanity: as far as he was concerned, the Son of Man was given that responsibility. So, oddly enough, our most ancient Christian creed is not even authentically Christian.
Not convinced yet? Here is another interesting passage from Matthew’s gospel; it portrays Jesus saying,
“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat [food]: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.’ Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?’ And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.’ Then shall they also answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?’ Then shall he answer them, saying, ‘Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.’ And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” (Matthew 25:31–46, KJV)
First, notice that in this passage, there is absolutely no mention of Jesus: the only reference is to the “Son of Man.” Second, according to this passage, all one must do to enter the “kingdom” of the “Father” (the ‘kingdom of God’ or the ‘kingdom of heaven’) and gain “life everlasting” is to do good deeds to others in need. So basically, all one must do is to observe the core of the Mosaic Law.
Probably needless to mention, this is contrary to Christian theology because one of the tenets of Christianity is to believe in Jesus’s death, resurrection, and his being the Son of God and our Savior to enter the kingdom of God (or heaven). In the above passage, the “righteous” had no clue who the “Son of Man” was, and they still entered God’s kingdom! So, the title “Son of Man,” here could not have originally referred to Jesus: because according to early (and even modern) Christian teaching, one could not possibly enter the kingdom of God (or heaven) unless one knew and acknowledged Jesus as God’s Son and one’s Savior. Consequently, the evangelist Matthew seems to have slipped here. The above gospel passage, therefore, passes the criterion of dissimilarity and, consequently, it’s most probably authentic: that is, what Jesus actually said.
Biblical Scholars
Let me now quote New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman to confirm what I just wrote here: this way, I will be more convincing. He comments as follows on the last passage from Matthew’s gospel:
“The future [last] judgement is based, not on belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection, but on doing good things to those in need. Later Christians—including … Paul … [and] other writers of the Gospel—maintained that it was belief in Jesus that would bring a person into the coming kingdom. But nothing in this passage even hints at the need to believe in Jesus per se: these people didn’t even know him. … The conclusion? The sayings of the passage probably go back to Jesus.” (pp. 312–13, emphasis mine)
Let me reiterate Ehrman’s conclusion here: “The sayings of the passage probably go back to Jesus.” This means they bear much more weight, for us Christians, than any other passages in the New Testament, including those by Paul. Consequently, belief in Jesus as well as ‘substitutional atonement’ (Savior) seem to be false doctrines. In fact, in his book God and Empire, John Dominic Crossan states,
“It is certainly correct … to call Jesus’ death—or in fact the death of a martyr—a sacrifice, but substitution and suffering are not the point of a sacrifice. Substitutionary atonement is bad as theoretical Christian theology just as suicidal terrorism is bad as practical Islamic theology. Jesus died because of our sins, or from our sins, but that should never be misread as for our sins. In Jesus, the [non-violent] radicality of God became incarnate, and the normalcy of civilization’s brutal violence (our sins, or better, Our Sin) executed him. Jesus’ execution asks us to face the truth that, across human evolution, injustice has been created and maintained by violence while justice has been opposed and avoided by violence. That warning, if heeded, can be salvation [well-being].” (pp. 140–41, emphasis in original)
Apparently, the apostles lost Jesus (a great miracle worker) so abruptly that the only way they could make sense of it was assuming it was all part of God’s plan and that Jesus had to die to deliver us from our sins. And that’s what they taught Paul when he converted to Christianity. Paul, being new to Christianity, regurgitated their then-current ‘creed’:
“I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” (First Corinthians 15:3, KJV)
But, in fact, there are no Old Testament scriptures saying that the ‘Messiah’ (Jewish for ‘Christ’) must suffer. The Messiah was supposed to be a great Israelite king (the calibre of David and Solomon) who would rule the whole world with God’s help.
It goes without saying, that despite what Christians believe, the above theological concepts are false; they rob God of his impartiality: God gives rain to everyone—good or bad. Since modern Christians equate the kingdom of God to heaven, these doctrines condemn the majority (about 5.5 billion) of humanity to hell, possibly leaving only (about 2.4 billion) Christians who can go to heaven. If this were truly the case, then Satan has defeated God—hands down—throughout the ages.
Although, throughout the gospels, Jesus seems to refer to himself as the Son of Man, in his book God and Empire, also biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan makes it clear that he does not think Jesus adopted the title himself; he believes that the evangelists assigned it to him (p.127): basically agreeing with Ehrman that Jesus is not the Son of Man.
Purgatory
So, it seems Catholics are right in this respect: we probably all have to pay a fair price for our sins in purgatory before we can enter heaven. In other words, Jesus did not pay for our sins, as Protestants believe. Here’s another quote from Matthew’s gospel confirming this:
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27–28, KJV, emphasis mine)
In other words, Jesus thought that the coming of the kingdom of God (in which God ‘rules’ in our heart) was imminent—within his generation; he was wrong, of course, by two millennia and counting: showing that he was only human: it shows he didn’t know everything, so he couldn’t possibly also be divine (God).
Of course, I don’t believe the punishment for our sins will be eternal. (Refer to my article on “Hell” to see why.) Recall also that, in Jesus’s mind, the ‘kingdom of God’ was a kingdom on earth: in fact, in the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ we still pray “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth” (Catholic Online: “The Our Father,” accessed April 13, 2022, emphasis mine). See my last article on the “Kingdom of God/Heaven.”
In short, most of the time in the gospels, the phrase ‘Son of Man’ refers to Jesus because later Christians assigned this ‘title’ to him; however, in fact, the Son of Man should not refer to Jesus. Jesus himself probably believed that there would be a universal judge inaugurating the beginning of the kingdom of God.
Matthew’s gospel portrays Jesus thinking that the Son of Man will accomplish his task in one fell swoop: like lightning flashes across the sky from east to west.
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:27, KJV)
This verse is repeated, almost word for word, in Luke’s gospel. (Luke 17:24)
End Times
According to the gospels, following the coming of the Son of Man, the end of the earth as we know it will ensue. In Matthew’s gospel, the above verse is immediately followed by these words of Jesus:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. … Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:29–31, 34, KJV, emphasis mine)
So, Matthew portrays Jesus predicting the end of the earth as we know it prior to the establishment of a brand new one within the then-living generation. The same concept of the ‘end-times’ is also found in Mark’s and Luke’s gospels. (See Mark 13:24–27 & Luke 21:24–28, 31–32, 36)
Notice also that Jesus did not seem to realize that if a single star (like the sun) were to fall upon the earth, it would disintegrate the earth—the earth would not survive the conflagration. However, in those days, people taught that stars were small—the size of a fig, say. This means that, even according to gospel texts, Jesus did not know everything, especially scientific facts: which implies that he was only human; thus showing he cannot be God.
Note, however, that Jesus seems to keep himself distanced from this ‘cleansing’ action: the task is delegated to the Son of Man. Naturally, this conforms with Jesus’s totally-non-violent character.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Incidentally, Jehovah’s Witnesses (and other Christian denominations) believe there are no humans in heaven, except Jesus, because of the following verse in John’s gospel portraying Jesus telling Pharisee Nicodemus:
“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which [who] is in heaven.” (John 3:13, KJV)
Of course, their belief crumbles all to dust if Jesus is not the Son of Man himself: in other words, if this is truly the case, not even Jesus is in heaven—by their own teaching.
Still, the Son of Man possibly only existed in Jesus’s imagination: the way he understood Scriptures as written in Daniel; it does not even follow that he really exists. For all we know, it was only a vision or a dream Daniel had: we don’t really know whether what he saw was factual. So the very existence of the Son of Man, even biblically, is questionable. The introduction to Daniel’s dream or vision goes,
“Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream.” (Daniel 7:1, KJV)
Remember also that Jesus was only human, and keep in mind that the Bible is not a truth factory, either.
Incidentally, Jesus could not possibly have said the last clause “who is in heaven” if he was referring to himself. In writing the last clause “who is in heaven,” the evangelist John seems to have forgotten, momentarily, that Jesus was supposed to be speaking in this account—not the evangelist himself: Jesus could not possibly be in heaven while speaking to Nicodemus. It may be worth clarifying what the evangelist means here. At the time his gospel was being written (i.e., some 70 years after Jesus’s death and resurrection), Jesus had presumably ascended into heaven. Since Jesus was referring to himself in the text, he could not possibly have uttered this clause while speaking to Nicodemus (i.e., while he was still alive); naturally, he only went to heaven after he died and was resurrected. Talk about ‘gospel truth’!
References
Catholic Online: “The Apostles’ Creed,” https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=220.
Catholic Online: “The Our Father,” https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=216.
Crossan, John Dominic. God and Empire: Jesus against Rome, Then and Now. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008. (ISBN: 9780060858315)
Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York, NY: Harper One, 2012. (ISBN: 9780062204608)
Reed, David and Penni Reed. “I Was a JW Elder.” In Investigator 10, 1990 January: http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/JwElderDavidReed10.htm.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769.
Faith, Science & Reason 
Did you read the books of Osho on Jesus? Is it not beautiful that God is both man and divine? That there is the bridge between mundane and divine? Between the flesh and the spiritual? To live in the world but not of it? That’s why Jesus had to incarnate, to show us that one can be both, one can live in both spheres and unify the seeming opposites. The same in Yoga, one can by stilling the modifications of the mind realize the unity. Is that not the state that Jesus proclaims with the trinity? He is both man and God and the link between. He is the Yod He Vaw He. A loving man, eating, drinking, having fun, being loving, kind, forgiving, living at the same time on the higher and lower plane. Making divine the mundane and thus transcending both. Because without the one, the other is not. It collapses. That is the meaning of the trinity, of the state of oneness that e.g. Hinduism also refers to. Jesus is as fully divine as he is human. Our humanity at its peak is divinity. That is what all the Christians seem not to believe. For them he is God. For you, he is only a great human. But if we take the word of Jesus, he is both. And we can be both, too.
LikeLike
Hi David,
Unfortunately, I haven’t read any of Osho’s books. I must admit I don’t really know who he is. Is he an Indian philosopher?
I’m sorry we disagree on Jesus’s divinity. In my opinion, a stone cannot be a frog at the same time. Much less, I think, can a man be God at the same time.
I don’t quite understand what you mean exactly by the phrase “word of Jesus.” In the gospels Jesus never claimed to be God. He only proclaimed himself to be the “Son of Man”: meaning a ‘special’ human being.
If by the “word of Jesus” you mean the four gospels, they all proclaim that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’; it is only the last-written (and therefore the least reliable) gospel (John’s) that claims he is God:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14 KJV)
In the first century CE, the concept of God/god was not the same as today’s concept: also the Roman emperor was considered a god; the evangelist John only wanted to make Jesus greater than the emperor.
Moreover, there are New Testament scriptures stating that Jesus was “exalted” by God after his resurrection. If Jesus were God in the first place, he couldn’t possibly have been exalted further, right? Here are the quotes:
(1) “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him [Jesus], and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Philippians 2:9–10, KJV)
(2) “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” (Acts 2:32–33, KJV)
Finally, if you read my article on “The Trinity,” you will see that it was the Roman emperors who pushed the Christian leaders to pronounce the doctrine of the Trinity. It was more of a political move than a consensual religious decision; and we got stuck with this nonsensical ‘dogma.’
Regards,
Carmel.
LikeLike
Hello Carmel,
thanks for your reply.
I have written your texts already that you recommend me to read.
I think other religions and the study of what enlightenment is can help in understanding the Trinity and can help to understand what Jesus is. Yes, I was pointing to John about Jesus being incarnated in flesh, but still, in essence, being one with the father. As in Yoga (to joke; state of union) one is part and whole at the same time, one is distinct in form and name, but at the same time one is identical with the divine source. Is a ray of the sun not at the samd time the sun and also apart from it? It is the same in essence, but in form it is different. Every part is both the part and must be also the whole. The sun ray can see itself distinct from the sun, the wave can view itself separate from the ocean, so to speak, but it is nonetheless part of the whole. Separations exist due to perspective, due to concepts. It is hard to understand for the logical mind, but Jesus was incarnated divinity, that is why he came here. To show that God is not only transcendent, but also immanent as John has shown. That is a paradox that God is God and God is flesh, the rain drop is ocean and the ocean is in the raindrop. This might be hard to comprehend, but that is way we had to be shown that it is nonetheless true.
To go deeper into the understsnding of trinity, I reccommend https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/tertullian-and-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
Also, I would point to sources of Jinduism which talk about the same paradox that Jesus exemplified and considering it true, but that would maybe not interest you, as you seem to study only Christianity (I don’t know if you have a bias due to your upbringing or maybe just not enough time, as you spend your time to go really deep into your bible studies).
Greetings and Blessings
David
LikeLike
Also, not only in Jon Jesus’ Godly (and fully human) Nature is shown, but there are many other verses that implicitly show that Jesus is Son of God and fully human. The father is still distinct, but Jesus is one in essence with the father (I and the father are one). This is what is meant with “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9).
Maybe, the Enneads of Plotinus could be interesting for you. I fully believe by my study of sources from many religions, eastern and western as well as my studies about what enligtenment or liberation is (including states of altered consciousness and near death experiemces) that all information point to the highest state for human beings to be the state that Jesus exemplified. He showed us that it is true what other religions also show, that one can reach the “paradoxical” state of being a distinct human being, while at the same time being an individual (=indivisible) whole, being one with everything in essence. And we know from various religions and also from Christianity, that the way to erase these borders (also called circumsise the heart in the Torah) and come to God, is the way of love. As God is Love. When you claim Jesus is only man, you are losing half the beauty and missing the Essence of the teachings of the bible.
LikeLike
I have just read Hebrews again and God is also praying to the Son and calling the Son God: But about the Son he says,
But of the Son he says:
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Kind regards,
David
LikeLike
Hi David:
You wrote, “I have just read Hebrews again and God is also praying to the Son and calling the Son God: ‘But of the Son he says: “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.”’” (Hebrews 1:8)
Unlike what many Christians believe/think, most biblical scholars agree that the author of Hebrews is not Saint Paul. Hebrews is here quoting from Psalm 45:
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” (Psalms 45:6, KJV)
The New American Bible comments on the phrase “O God” in this verse as follows:
“The king, in courtly language, is called ‘god,’ i.e., more than human, representing God to the people.” (NAB, Psalms 45:7n)
This psalm is about a royal wedding of an Israelite king to a gentile princess from Tyre in Phoenicia (see vv. 12–13). How or why Hebrews applies this verse to Jesus’s divinity is mindboggling to me: in my opinion, it’s quoted out of context, to say the least.
I hate to say this, but biblical authors are often dishonest: they’ll throw all kinds of things at you hoping that some of it will stick. They are known to use the name of a prominent figure in their writings, rather than their own; they put words in Jesus’s mouth, after the fact, so that he appears to have prophesied; you name it: all in the interest of making God ‘look better’ than he actually ‘reveals’ himself—as if he needs it.
Best regards,
Carmel.
LikeLike
Hi David,
Thank you for your interest in my website, and I apologize for the delay in replying.
(1) You wrote, “Jesus being incarnated in flesh, but still, in essence, being one with the father.”
I think the word “essence” has no real meaning: it’s a redundant word. A dog possesses ‘dogness’ (or dog’s DNA), a cat possesses ‘catness’ (or cat’s DNA), and so on. According to philosopher and theologian Duns Scotus (c.1265–1308), “Being is no different from essence”; and according to philosopher, mathematician, and scientist Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716), “An ordinary person or thing, it is held, on the one hand exists, and on the other hand has certain qualities, which make up his or its essence.” (‘History of Western Philosophy’ by Bertrand Russel, pp. 431 & 535 respectively)
Now what are the “qualities” of God? I would say he is a ‘spirit.’ And what are the “qualities” of Jesus? Human DNA, I suppose, like any other human being. If you insist that Jesus is also a ‘spirit,’ then Jesus has two ‘essences’ or two ‘natures’; and this is where we disagree. My reason tells me, unequivocally, that a stone (silicon) cannot be a frog ( have a frog’s DNA) at the same time; much less can a human being be God at the same time.
(2) What happens, in most cases (as in Tertullian’s text you attached) is that apologists shy away from reason and start quoting biblical verses instead. They close their eyes to the fact that three persons cannot be one person, or that two natures cannot coexist. We have no evidence that the Bible is infallible: that it was written or inspired by God. If it were so, there would be (i) no contradictions in its own texts, (ii) its prophecies would ALL transpire, and (iii) its Science as well as (iv) its History would be 100% accurate. Well, the Bible fails ALL these four ‘litmus’ tests. (Read my articles on “Bible Contradictions (New/Old Testament),” “Bible Prophecies (Textual/Claimed),” and “Science in/NOT-in the Bible.”)
(3) If all of this doesn’t convince you, perhaps a couple of biblical quotes will convince you since you (like Tertullian) have so much faith in the Bible. You see, I don’t downplay the Bible altogether; I admit that, like any good book, there’s a lot of wisdom in it, but I allow my reason to guide me through it. Consider the following two quotes.
(i) “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” (Genesis 1:26, KJV) Now, I hope you agree that we are not made like God in our physical nature, we are not ‘spirits’; we are made like God in the way we think, our reason. We don’t know that Holy Scripture was written or inspired by God, but we know for sure that our reason was given to us by God. So why not rely on our reason rather than the Bible where there’s conflict between the two? The biblical authors honestly ‘searched’ for God (as we too are searching for God) but they didn’t always get things right.
(ii) “This commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” (Deuteronomy 30:11–14, KJV) In this passage (the Bible itself) agrees with what I just wrote above. We don’t really need any Scriptures to follow like a template; we’ve got all it takes in our ‘inner being’—especially where there’s conflict with our reasoning. Indeed, Jesus never wrote a word of Scripture; not to mention that about 5.5 billion non-Christians deny that the Bible is God’s revelation: only about 2.5 billion Christians worldwide believe in the Bible one way or another.
(4) You also wrote, “Is a ray of the sun not at the samd time the sun and also apart from it? … The rain drop is ocean and the ocean is in the raindrop.”
Sorry, I can’t agree with you that a sun’s ray is the same as the sun; nor that a drop of water is the ocean—big difference! I agree (with reservations) they might have similar characteristics. I do believe that Jesus is God’s ‘Word,’ that he thinks and acts as God would, and that he is God’s best expression of himself in human terms. But that’s a far cry from saying that he is God.
(5) You also wrote, “Jesus is Son of God and fully human.”
We aptly say, “the son of a dog is a dog,” and “the son of a cat is a cat,” and “the son of a human is a human”; but does it follow that “the Son of God is God”? For one thing, God is eternal. By definition a son is born/exists after his father. But you still contend that Jesus is eternal. Doesn’t that strike you unreasonable, despite what Tertullian derives from Scriptures?
(6) When a man conceives a son, he donates his sperm (DNA) to the mother. Isn’t that what the Holy Spirit did to Jesus’s mother, Mary?
“The angel [Gabriel] answered and said unto her [Mary], The Holy Ghost [Spirit] shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing [child] which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35, KJV)
Doesn’t this mean that God created a special sperm, and that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with it (like any other human conceived through the donor’s sperm); and therefore, Jesus was to be called the ‘Son of God’? If this is not the case, why would God have used Mary to make Jesus his ‘Son’?
However, Tertullian seems to deny this; he writes, “The Spirit of God in this passage must be the same as the Word [i.e., Jesus].” Apparently, therefore, he thought that the ‘pre-existing spirit-Jesus’ entered Mary’s body: in other words, there was no sperm donation. Nowadays, we know that if there is no sperm donation, no (human) child could be born. So, according to Tertullian, Jesus wasn’t “fully human,” as you write in item (5) above.
(7) You also wrote, “I don’t know if you have a bias due to your upbringing or maybe just not enough time, as you spend your time to go really deep into your bible studies.”
I’m mainly interested in finding the roots of my ‘faith.’ Besides the Bible and Christianity, I concentrate on Judaism (Christianity’s roots), Jewish history, ancient history (especially Rome & Greece), mythology, science (physics, chemistry & biology), and philosophy. Not much time is left for anything else.
(8) Finally you wrote, “When you claim Jesus is only man, you are losing half the beauty and missing the Essence of the teachings of the bible.”
For about half a century I believed exactly what you believe. One day, a couple of decades ago, I decided to find the roots of my faith. To my consternation, much of what I found in the Bible was cobwebs. As my website states, “Faith that is unsupported by reason, science, experience, or empirical evidence is in fact superstition.”
(9) Paul’s seven original letters, which are uncontested by most biblical scholars, were written in the 50s CE (except one); in none of them does Paul claim that Jesus was divine, but he calls him the ‘Son of God.’ Likewise, Mark’s gospel, written around 70 CE, claims that Jesus was the ‘Son of God,’ but stops short of declaring him divine. Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels, written around 80 CE and 90 CE respectively, not only tell us that Jesus was the ‘Son of God,’ but also how: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit through Mary, his mother. That far I believed. But when John’s gospel, written around 100 CE said he was also God, I encountered a contradiction I couldn’t reconcile. I concluded that Jesus’s followers (and the evangelists) were gradually mythologizing Jesus (like Robin Hood or Zorro) over time, until there were no more witnesses left alive who could challenge them (I mean, in the latest written gospel, John’s). So, I try to believe as much as I can of the Bible because it’s my heritage—as much as my reason allows me to—and I also believe in miracles, but not contradictions like two and two make five (or one equals 3).
(10) I’ve read Tertullian’s entire treatise, as you suggested. Despite what Tertullian tries to prove, the Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible. He writes, “If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, ‘Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness’; (Genesis 1:26) whereas He ought to have said, ‘Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,’ as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, ‘Behold the man has become as one of us,’ (Genesis 3:22) He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular.” The fact is the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and the word “Elohim,” meaning “God,” is grammatically plural: like the royal “we,” it denotes something more than a simple person, “A plural of majesty,” according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense”: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elohim. The translators of the Bible into English decided to stick to the original wording rather than use common sense.
(11) Tertullian also writes, “You are my Son, today have I begotten You; even before the morning star did I beget You.” He mixes Psalm 2 with Psalm 110 for his convenience. Psalm 2 refers to the inauguration of a new Israelite king. That’s why God says to him “today have I begotten you”; “today” refers to the day of coronation: it doesn’t refer to Jesus at all. An Israelite king was considered to be God’s son.
(12) Tertullian also writes, “But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says: ‘Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.’ (Romans 9:5)”
The New American Bible (NAB) translates this verse as, “Theirs (The Jews’) [are] the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah [Christ]. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” It also comments on this verse, “Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, ‘Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.’ However Paul’s point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach of the entire world through the Messiah.” You see how biased Tertullian is?
I’d like to point out that the New American Bible translation is backed by 1200 biblical scholars.
[Note: According to ‘Wikipedia,’ the ‘New American Bible’ (NAB) translation “was carried out in stages by members of the ‘Catholic Biblical Association of America’ (CBA)”: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible, last edited November 4, 2023). “[CBA] Membership now numbers more than 1,200. Those who hold an advanced degree in biblical studies are eligible to be elected to membership, irrespective of any religious affiliation”: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Biblical_Association, last edited September 10, 2023). So, the ‘New American Bible’ isn’t just the opinion of a single or a handful of biblical scholars.]
(13) Tertullian also writes, “This for certain is He ‘who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.’ (Philippians 2:6)”
According to the New American Bible, Philippians 2:6–11 was probably “an early Christian hymn quoted here by Paul” and it comments on verse 6, “Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though … in the form [likeness] of God (Genesis 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5–6.” Again, Tertullian like many others misunderstood Paul.
(14) Tertullian also quotes, for example, Colossians 1:15; but Colossians was not written by Paul himself: it was one of his followers who wrote it in his name posthumously probably “around AD 80–100” according to the New American Bible. For all we know it could have been written around 100 CE: by then, Jesus’s followers had lost touch with him. I don’t give much credence to anything written towards (or after) the end of the first century CE. As I mentioned above, only Paul’s seven authentic letters (written in the 50s CE), and Mark’s gospel (written around 70 CE) are somewhat reliable.
(15) I could go on about Tertullian’s treatise, but I think, I’ve said enough: whatever I say isn’t going to change your mind about anything. You have to research things for yourself (as I did) if you’re really interested. I started with the New American Bible (ISBN 9780899429519) and read it cover to cover (twice), including all its introductions and footnotes. Also check what other biblical scholars (like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Denton Ehrman) have to say about the Bible, especially the New Testament.
Best Regards,
Carmel.
LikeLike
Thank your for your elaborate answer. I will continue to study everything for myself.
Do I understand you correctly: I always understood Mark 14:62 that Jesus revealed his true identity as Messiah and as God. But, if I understand you correctly for you he only showed that he is the Son of God (and the Son of Man), but not God (the father). For me this was the riddle that Jesus always wanted everyone to solve, namely that he is God. And in John it is made very clear – but I read what you wrote and you don’t accept John’s writings. You say he added his own understanding or mythologized Jesus etc. Also, I am from Germany and while I read the bible in German and in English, I did not read the New American Bible that you mentioned. I have to see how reliable its translation is and I can only do that with listening to the scholars, because I do not speak Koin Greek (or Hebrew).
Another question: Actually, your opinion is identical to what is written in the Quran, which Muslims say “updated” and corrected the Bible. In the Quran Jesus is just a prophet of God. Quran claims that the Christian God is One and the same with Allah – but the mistake of the “wrong Christians” is that they elevated Jesus’s status to being God. So, my question is, folliwing your belief, do you see yourself as a Muslim?
Best greetings,
And I wish you a Merry Christmas (soon) 🙂
David
LikeLike
Hi David:
(1) You wrote, “I always understood Mark 14:62 that Jesus revealed his true identity as Messiah and as God. But, if I understand you correctly for you he only showed that he is the Son of God (and the Son of Man), but not God (the father).”
It’s good that you quote Mark’s gospel because it’s the most reliable of the four canonical gospels. However, still, it was written forty-odd years after the death of Jesus. So even in Mark’s gospel concepts foreign to the original Christian movement started to creep in. The most reliable canonical Scriptures we have are the seven ‘uncontested Pauline letters’: considered, by most biblical scholars, to be written by Paul himself in the 50s CE. It’s a fact that we never find the phrase ‘Son of Man’ in any of these seven letters. The other six letters bearing Paul’s name were written by his followers posthumously.
I think you are reading what your mind is conditioned to read in Mark 14:62. The evangelist never says that Jesus is God; here’s what he says exactly:
“Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, ‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’” (Mark 14:61–62, KJV)
Jesus here replies that he is indeed the Davidic Messiah (Christ in Greek) and that he is the ‘Son of God’ conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. But if you read the verse carefully, the evangelist doesn’t claim that Jesus is also God or divine.
The claim that he is also the ‘Son of Man’ (referring to Daniel 7:13–14) was a later title given Jesus by the evangelists, including Mark. Indeed, biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan confirms this in his book ‘God and Empire’; he writes, “The main discussion has been about whether Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of Man or whether it was placed on his lips by the later tradition. … I think it was from the evangelists.” (pp. 126–27) So, in my opinion also, despite what we read many times in the gospels, Jesus never considered himself to be this ‘Son of Man.’
It seems, however, that by the 70s CE it was a common Christian belief that Jesus was the ‘Son of Man’ who would come back to earth to judge the living and the dead (as we still profess in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds).
On the other hand, occasionally, even the evangelists slipped inadvertently and dissociated Jesus from the Son of Man. For example, in one instance, Matthew portrays Jesus saying, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory ….” (Matthew 25:31, KJV)
If you read the entire passage (Matthew 25:31–46), Jesus doesn’t seem to be talking about himself, here (he never mentions himself), but about someone else: specifically, the personality portrayed in Daniel 7:13–14, of whom Jesus most probably believed in from Scripture.
As New Testament scholar Bart Denton Ehrman states in his book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ “The sayings in which Jesus talks about himself as the Son of Man cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity. But the sayings in which Jesus seems to be talking about someone else do pass the criterion: surely Christians who thought Jesus was the Son of Man would not make up sayings that appear to differentiate between him and the Son of Man.” (p. 306)
So Matthew’s passage (25:31–46) must have been an authentic, original speech by Jesus: prior to Christians’ believing he was the ‘Son of Man.’ (I explain all this in detail in my article on the ‘Son of Man.’)
So, just because Mark (14:62) put these words in Jesus’s mouth, it doesn’t mean that Jesus actually said them: the evangelist is going by the then-current Christian belief.
(2) You also wrote, “I am from Germany and while I read the bible in German and in English, I did not read the New American Bible that you mentioned. I have to see how reliable its translation is.”
Unfortunately I don’t know German, so I can’t recommend a German translation of the Bible. The New American Bible is a Catholic Bible, so if you’re a Protestant, you probably don’t appreciate that very much. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any other Bible with introductions to the various books as well as explanatory footnotes. (You can just disregard our extra seven Old Testament books.)
Whenever I quote the Bible, I usually quote from the King James Version (KJV) for the benefit of my Protestant readers. Normally, I only use the New American Bible’s footnotes for further explanation.
However, I also refer to thirty-odd other English translations if I want to compare translations. For example, if I google “Matthew 25:31 Bible hub,” I get: https://biblehub.com/matthew/25-31.htm. I assure you; I hardly ever found significant discrepancies between the New American Bible (St. Joseph Edition: ISBN 9780899429519) and most other translations; not to mention that the English of the New American Bible, while still formal enough, is much more understandable.
As regards its reliability, I can only reiterate what I wrote before. According to ‘Wikipedia,’ the ‘New American Bible’ (NAB) translation “was carried out in stages by members of the ‘Catholic Biblical Association of America’ (CBA)”: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible, last edited November 4, 2023). “[CBA] membership now numbers more than 1,200. Those who hold an advanced degree in biblical studies are eligible to be elected to membership, irrespective of any religious affiliation”: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Biblical_Association, last edited September 10, 2023). So, the ‘New American Bible’ isn’t just the opinion of a single or a handful of biblical scholars. It also advertises, “This modern translation was prepared by over 50 scholars.”
But you’re welcome to try and find another Bible translation with introductions and notes; I have no interest in the matter and it’s quite cheap: US$17.00 for a hard cover—I was only trying to help.
(3) Finally, you wrote, “So, my question is, following your belief, do you see yourself as a Muslim?”
No, I don’t consider myself a Muslim, but they are right in this case! I still consider myself a Christian; Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in Jesus’s divinity or in the Trinity, but they are still Christians. I consider myself a ‘Nontrinitarian Christian,’ that is, a ‘Unitarian’; although I still attend a Catholic church on Sundays.
American founding father, third president of the United States of America, and principal author of its ‘Declaration of Independence,’ Thomas Jefferson, was a ‘Unitarian.’ In an 1822 letter to theologian James Smith, he wrote,
“I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for the revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical fact is better established than that the doctrine of one god, pure and uncompounded was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith is it’s restoration as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its eternal divorce from the civil authority [division of church and state]. The pure and simple unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States.”
Unfortunately, he was wrong, of course—it stalled. Please note especially the phrases “revival of primitive Christianity” and “early ages of Christianity”: initially, Christians believed in only one God—not a Trinity. (Read my article on ‘The Trinity’ for further details.)
Jefferson continues his letter,
“In fact the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one is so incomprehensible to the human mind that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does only deceives himself. He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3202)
Notice his phrases “absurdities the most monstrous” and “gullibility which they call faith.” I suggest you read the entire letter: incidentally, this letter is what inspired my three books and my website: ‘Faith or Reason.’
Best Regards, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year,
Carmel.
LikeLike
Hello 🙂
I have continued to study the Bible and various views about the Trinity. The view of the hypostatic union is not illogical. I still cannot see that you are right in your assessments.
Why can it not be true that Jesus is fully human and fully God? (there is no separation or partialism though). I do not see a contradiction there with the correct understanding.
See this video for clarification: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B1c_oq7JEx8&pp=ygUeVmFsbWluaXN0cmllcyBoeXBvc3RhdGljIHVuaW9u
And a longer video that I also found interesting: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xbcpN3txIuM&t=4983s&pp=ygUmVmFsbWluaXN0cmllcyBoeXBvc3RhdGljIHVuaW9uIHNoYW1vdW4%3D
Best greetings,
David
LikeLike
Hi David:
Thank you for commenting in my website: I appreciate your contribution.
As I pointed out before, we shall probably never agree: you’re going to have to continue researching things for yourself; but I suggest you read books and articles that disagree with your opinion as well.
If you really want to know how and why the dogma of the trinity was promulgated in 381 CE, I suggest you read the book ‘AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State’ by ancient Greece and Rome historian Charles P. Freeman. In his introduction to the book, he writes, “The story, as this book hopes to show, is well documented, but an alternative narrative, that the Church itself came to a consensus on the nature of the Godhead, is still the dominant one in histories of Christianity. The ‘consensus’ approach glosses over the violent antagonisms the debates over doctrine aroused and the pre-eminent role the [Roman] emperors played in their resolution.” (p. 2) Notice his phrase “well documented.” The resolution, as often happens, was politically enforced.
You wrote, “I have continued to study the Bible.” Do the words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Hypostatic Union’ appear anywhere in the Bible? No!
In his 1531 book ‘On the Errors of the Trinity,’ theologian Michael Servetus wrote, “To me not only the syllables but all the letters and the mouths of babes and sucklings, even the very stones themselves, cry out there is one God the Father and [as a separate being (Freeman p. 194)] his Christ, the Lord Jesus. … Not one word is found in the whole Bible about the Trinity nor about its persons, nor about the essence, nor the unity of substance, nor of the one nature of the several beings, nor about the rest of their ravings and logic chopping.” (MacCulloch, pp. 184–88) Regrettably, the Protestant theologian and reformer John Calvin had Servetus arrested and burnt as a heretic. (Freeman, pp. 194–95)
John’s gospel, written around 100 CE, was the latest gospel written and is therefore the least reliable: admirers of great personalities tend to mythologize them over time (like Robin Hood or Zorro) especially when there are no eyewitnesses left to question them. We practically have only the evangelist John saying that Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14, 30; 8:24, 28, 56–59; 10:30–33, 37–38; 13:19; 14:20; 17:5, 21–24; 18:5–8. 20:27–28). Admittedly, we do have other (but later) New Testament letters professing Jesus’s divinity, too (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1).
But all these quotes are only relevant if it could be proved that the Bible is infallible or that it is God’s word. Indeed, in my 800-odd-pages book ‘Is the Bible Infallible—A Rational, Scientific, and Historical Evaluation,’ I show that the Bible fails all four ‘litmus’ tests for infallibility: (1) it has contradictions in its own texts, (2) its prophecies hardly ever transpire, (3) its science is (at best) only half right, and (4) its historical accounts are inaccurate in detail. God doesn’t make mistakes: not even small ones.
Let me tell you why the evangelist John erred so drastically. His gospel was written in Greek and in the Roman Empire. Both Greeks and Romans had numerous gods: they didn’t believe in monotheism; monotheists were practically atheists for them. One of the Roman gods was their emperor. Their logic was very simple: the gods rule the earth, Caesar rules the earth, so Caesar is a god. Naturally, the evangelist wanted to make Jesus, who sat at God’s right hand, greater than the emperor, who did not.
Now, don’t you, personally, find the doctrine of the Trinity (three Gods in one God) illogical? If not, I think you’re the first such person I’ve encountered. Our reason was given to us by God, the Bible wasn’t. This is the main reason why I reject the divinity of Jesus: because I believe there’s only one God. But if you have no problem with that, I guess you’re OK!
Moreover, a frog cannot also be a stone at the same time because, for starters, a stone does not have DNA. Likewise, God cannot be human at the same time because, for starters, presumably a spirit does not have DNA.
Regarding your attached videos, I must admit that the shorter video makes a good point when it compares the so-called ‘hypostatic union’ of Jesus with the union of the soul and body in a human. However, think of a computer. There’s ‘hardware,’ which is the physical machine that you type on; and there’s ‘software,’ which is the ‘program’ that enables the machine to perform the required tasks. Without it the machine cannot do anything: it just sits there. The software can indeed be stored on a disk, too, but without some kind of machine, it doesn’t do anything either. I compare the software with the soul. Needless to mention, animals have a body as well as a program (a soul?) to function. I cannot be sure of this, but I think that, in the afterlife, the soul will need some kind of body, perhaps a resurrected body like Jesus has, or some other, makeshift ghost-like body. So, I find the comparison in the video somewhat lacking in precision.
The longer video also makes a good point when it points out that God is infinite and so we cannot totally fathom him. That’s how I held on to my faith for decades in the past. However, I think this is a cop-out. In view of my above arguments, I think the guy doing the explanations is, as Servetus says above, “logic chopping” to conform to the Trinitarian dogma. I believe that if faith is not backed by reason, science, experience, or empirical evidence, it’s superstition! Not to mention that the light we receive from the sun is not of the same ‘essence’ as the sun (as he contends). The sun consists mainly of hydrogen atoms ‘fusing’ into helium atoms—the energy released from this atomic reaction is emitted as light, a whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, as well as other energetic minute particles (positrons and neutrinos).
Best regards.
Carmel.
LikeLike
Hi David:
In the interest of fairness, lately, I came across an interesting mathematical concept that might help you hold on to your faith that I felt I must share with you. I am here to honestly discuss things, not to shove my opinion down my contributors’ or followers’ throat.
Mathematically, Infinity + Infinity + Infinity = Infinity (∞ + ∞ + ∞ = ∞), not three infinities (‘The Case for God’ by Karen Armstrong, p. 115). For example, the set of multiples of 2 (2, 4, 6, etc.) has an infinite number of elements; likewise do the set of multiples of 3 (3, 6, 9, etc.) and the set of multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15, etc.). Does any one of these sets have more elements than the other? Paradoxically, NO! They each have an infinite number of elements. Do all three sets together have more elements than each individual set alone? Unbelievably, NO! All three sets together also have an infinite number of elements—like any one of the three sets individually! I concede, therefore, that when it comes to dealing with ‘infinities,’ the human mind falls short.
However, a mathematical construct is not always necessarily a TRUE representation of reality; especially in view what I wrote above. The problem I have with the concept of the Trinity is that it relies on a few quotes from texts (the New Testament—mainly John’s gospel) ASSUMED to be absolutely true (God’s revelation) while, in fact, they’re only human books. Not to mention that the concept of divinity in the first century CE (when John’s gospel was written) was totally different from our modern concept of divinity.
Honestly, I don’t really know who the ‘Holy Spirit’ is. The ‘Nicene Creed’ states that he is the “Giver of Life”; but isn’t God presumably capable of giving life? If so, isn’t the Holy Spirit redundant? As to Jesus, despite what the New Testament says, we have no evidence that he existed before his birth—from eternity, at that. Again, another assumption! Anyway, I think I said enough.
Best regards, Carmel.
LikeLike