"Jesus" - Myth & Message

by Lisa Spray

INTRODUCTION

Most people growing up in the West have a pretty definite idea of who Jesus Christ was and what he taught. Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin, grew up in Palestine and spent the later years of his rather short life teaching of the coming of the Kingdom of God. He began a new religion which was to become one of the driving forces in Western civilization. For those who worship him, he is the son of God, part of the Godhead, or God Himself. To millions of people, this is the truth. But is it?

Well, partially. Many of the major tenets of Christianity developed centuries after the death of Christ. Some of them are contrary to his actual teachings. We will examine some of these using the Bible itself as our main reference.

Then we will look at some revolutionary new developments in scriptural study. This new information is so comprehensive and conclusive that it offers us a new yardstick for evaluating and comparing traditional Christian understanding.

This is a big claim, and will necessarily be received with healthy skepticism, as any such claim should be. As detailed in Chapters 9 and 10, this evidence is an extremely intricate, computer decoded numerical structure which was discovered pervading ancient documents. The vastness and intricacy of this numerical structure is clearly super-human.

The first known report of this comprehensive mathematical coding was presented more than 900 years ago by a Hasidic Jewish rabbi, Judah the Pious. He put forth the theory "that the words and letters of the scripture are not accidental, but their order, and especially their numbers, reflect a mystical harmony."

Recent developments expand and demonstrate his theory to the extent that many researchers consider them to be proof not only of Judah the Pious' theory, but of the existence of God as well.

The references in this book cover a wide range of documents, including the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, numerous pieces of Apocryphal Christian literature, and the Quran, as well as the views of numerous Christian scholars.

Unless otherwise specified, the biblical quotes are from THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources, Catholic Biblical Association of America, Catholic Press, 1970. Sometimes known as the Catholic Bible, this version was chosen only because it is readily available and, unlike the King James version, it is translated from the oldest available sources rather than from previous biblical translations.

Most of the Quranic quotations are taken from QURAN: THE FINAL TESTAMENT, Authorized English Version, Translated from the Original Arabic, translated by Rashad Khalifa, Islamic Productions, 1989. Several quotations were translated by him specifically for this book before his manuscript had been published.

The truths which Jesus taught are an integral and critical part of human spiritual development, and of the development of Western civilization in general. Those who truly wish to follow the religion of this man, and wish to worship God as he taught, will find many questions raised, and, I hope, many more answered in this volume.

Lisa Spray June, 1992

Chapter One

FAITH IN CRISIS

The Need For Re-examination

We live in a time of great change.

Our individual lives are often in great flux. Many people find themselves changing jobs, moving from one place to another, often from one profession to another. Even the nuclear family is unstable. The divorce rate is astounding-in 1990, almost half that of new marriages. Family ties no longer have the strength of former times.

This great instability is reflected in our society. The old patterns are breaking down, and great political and social change is taking place. On the one hand, communism is rapidly dissolving in the face of growing economic and social pressure. On the other hand, democratic societies face a myriad of seemingly overwhelming problems. There is an onslaught of violent crime, growing drug problems, increasing homelessness, spiraling environmental contamination, unrest in our inner cities, and epidemics of `modern' diseases-most notably AIDS and cancer.

The depths of these problems is difficult to comprehend. In the United States alone, up to 3 million people are homeless on any given night. Unemployment among certain segments of our population is 25%. In May of 1992 our major cities erupted once again in violent response to social conditions. Sparked by the decision in the Rodney King case, the breadth and violence of the rioting and looting which took place in the next few days stunned the nation and the world.

The situation with AIDS is just as sobering. What we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg, and already by the end of 1990, in major US cities, AIDS was the main cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 40. There are estimates of 10 to 20 million people infected with HIV, the precursor to AIDS, world wide.

These are just samples of the great problems facing our society today. We could go on reciting them for volumes. These problems, in and of themselves, force dramatic changes within the lives of individuals, and society as a whole. And that change necessitates further changes.

CHANGE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY

Churches find themselves caught in the middle of this great whirlwind of change. Uncertain how to react to the drastic modifications in needs and attitudes of their members, they themselves must respond to the issues at hand. This internal conflict is vividly expressed by L. Howard in his article in the July 15, 1991 issue of Christianity & Crisis. He had been present at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Baltimore when it voted on the report of its committee on human sexuality, which urged greater acceptance of homosexuals by the Church:

What is perhaps most clear in Baltimore was that the crisis in human sexuality in our society and our churches is not limited. As the pastoral letter says, "We are being torn apart by issues of teenage sexuality and practice, sexual violence, clergy sexual misconduct, new reproductive technologies, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and the sexual needs of gay and lesbian persons, the disabled, and older adults."

The report may not have been received officially. But the Presbyterian Church is forever changed by the debate it engendered.

Out of necessity, there is great change within most denominations. Views are changing regarding birth control, homosexuality, divorce and a myriad of other social and religious issues.

In response to all of this personal, social and religious upheaval, many people have found themselves re-evaluating their own faith. Some have come to reject the concept of a deity outright. Others now have serious doubts about some of the doctrines of their religion.

CURRENT PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS

At the core of those doctrines is the identity of Jesus Christ. For most Protestant denominations, Jesus is part of the Trinity and might be defined as God's manifestation or revelation of Himself in human form. Catholics also accept the Trinity and bestow upon Mary the title of the `Mother of God,' thus asserting that Jesus is, for them, truly man and truly God.

Some of the more recently formed denominations have quite a different view. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the Trinity and see Jesus as the ransom sacrifice to redeem humanity, not God Himself. And Unitarians generally see Jesus as a great teacher and example, but fully human and God's son only in the same sense that all humans are His children.

On the scholarly front, there has long been a wide range of understandings of Jesus. He has been seen as an Essene scholar, a member of a radical Jewish political movement, a witty rabbi, and many other things. For years a number of scholars have worked to discern the historical figure of Jesus Christ from the background of the scriptural narrations and whatever other sources they could find. That interest continues today, as is witnessed by the recent paper back reprinting of Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, and the new release of John Crossan (The Historical Jesus, Harper Collins, 1991).

For some scholars, like John Bowden, the search has ended in serious questioning and skepticism. For others the skepticism goes farther. As an example, G. A. Wells poses the following question about Jesus: "Can we really be sure that a person described in these terms ever had any earthly existence?" His answer is summed up by the last thought in his book: "is it not time to look elsewhere than in the Scriptures for guidance in our living, and to stop basing our decisions and choices on ancient fantasies?" (Who Was Jesus? G. A. Wells, Open Court Publishing, La Salle, IL, 1989.)

The popular press also reflects a reassessment of our moral and religious values. Such reassessment is natural given the relatively recent surfacing of television evangelist scandals, the fresh memory of the Jonestown horror, and the realization that even Hitler used the banner of Christianity to try to help justify the abomination of genocide.

With all these factors, it seems almost imperative that thinking people re-examine their own beliefs. Thus, the writing of this book.

Such reassessment is essentially a personal task. Within this examination, a great deal can be learned from the excellent work done by many scholars. I have referred to such work often in the following pages. But the essence of faith is very personal. No one else can tell you exactly what your personal relationship should be with your Creator.You must find that for yourself. And no one else can tell you who Jesus is for you. This is a totally personal issue, between you and God.

Christianity is a religion of great diversity. The brief inventory of different denominational views of Jesus given above and a quick perusal of the church listings in any phone book leaves no doubt of that fact. The variability in beliefs and practices is matched only by the variability of human beings.

It is not the intention of this book to address the beliefs of any specific denomination. Nor is it the intent to attack any of them, nor Christianity as a whole.

Rather, in this first portion of the book, I hope to give you some insight into certain Christian beliefs in relation to the teachings of Christ as they are recorded in the scriptures. Later in the book I hope to introduce some new information that you may find useful in the assessment of your own beliefs.

My hope in doing this is that you will find your own personal way to go about following the most important commandment for all humanity, the commandment which Jesus himself called the Great Commandment:

You shall worship God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind and all your strength.

[Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27]

Chapter Two

GARBLED TRANSMISSION?

Role of the Scripture Writers and Translators

At first, Christians gave little thought to their own history. The Lord would return soon, they believed, and put an end to all history. When men give up their jobs, gaze into the heavens, and look for the end of the world, they write no history. Why record the past if there will be no one to remember it? -Robert Wilken (Myth of Christian Beginnings, 1971)

We tend to think of the early Christians as pious men who knew that they were helping to form and spread a religion which would become the great force that it is today. We assume that the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels as tools to be used in the early spread of that religion. It comes as a surprise to most people that the first writings to circulate among early Christians were Paul's letters.

In face, much of what we recognize today as the basic teachings of Christianity came to us through Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus. Though he never met Jesus, he was the major missionary to the gentiles in the years immediately following the crucifixion.

His letters were written to various different congregations, often trying to solve localized problems, or to consolidate the faithful into one cohesive congregation, rather than to document and spread the teachings of Jesus. For the early Christians, the Kingdom of God was veryclose at hand. They expected it at any time. These expectations undoubtedly changed the nature of the transmission of Jesus' teachings.

Any study of Christian doctrines must deal with the issues involved in that transmission, for it is only through the transmission process that we have any idea what Jesus taught.

TEACHINGS COME SECONDHAND

Frank W. Beare in the Introduction of his book THE EARLIEST RECORDS OF JESUS (Abingdon Press, 1962, pp. 16, 18) gives us a glimpse of the problems faced right from the beginning by anybody researching in the field:

In any serious study of the Gospels, we have always to keep in mind that Jesus himself left nothing in writing, and that the earliest records of his career which have come down to us were not put into writing until about forty years after his death. All our knowledge of him is drawn from the deposit of a tradition which was transmitted for several decades by word of mouth. We are therefore obliged to raise the question of the relationship between the documents as we have them and the events and sayings which they report. For it must be realized that in a generation or more of oral transmission, sayings and stories do not remain unchanged. Once they have been committed to writing, they are to some degree stabilized, as it were; though even at this stage, we have to observe that Luke and Matthew do not shrink from altering the Marcan record which they are both using....

We cannot too lightly assume that what the earliest Christians thought worth preserving would be identical with what we ourselves would regard as most important, or even that it would reflect essentially what Jesus himself regarded as central to his message. It must be regarded as possible that `Jesus was over the heads of his reporters,' and we shall indeed find indications in the Gospels themselves that he from time to time manifested keen disappointment and even a certain impatience with the lack of understanding shown by his immediate disciples...it is not at all unlikely that the...people who followed him may not have been capable of taking in all the range of his thought, and communicating it clearly to others.

Beare's first point is that sayings and stories change as they are passed by word of mouth from person to person and generation to generation. To illustrate, do you remember the children's game "Telephone"? Everyone sits in a circle and one person whispers something into the ear of the next person. The message is passed from ear to ear until it comes back to the person who first whispered it. By the time it gets back to the original source, it is totally different from the original message, causing much amazement and laughter.

We know from the above short history of the Gospels that most, if not all, of the initial transmission was oral, and that the Gospels were not written down until several years (perhaps as many as forty or fifty years for the earliest-the Gospel of Matthew) had passed after Jesus' departure. In that period of time, many human errors could have entered the transmission, and indeed did.

To make things more difficult, there are variations among ancient manuscripts of the same material. Sometimes these variations are minor, but sometimes they are substantial. Thus, even committing the transmission to writing did not solve all the problems.

Beare's second point is that we do not know that the apostles always understood Jesus and correctly and clearly transmitted his teachings. To expand that, the process of attempting to communicate clearly to others did not stop with the initial writing of the gospels. The revising and `clarifying' continues even to this day. On almost every page of any annotated English version of the New Testament, there are variant readings from ancient texts for one or more verses.

Once the Gospels were committed to writing, they were still fragmented and difficult to come by, as the following quote from Dr. George Lamsa demonstrates (NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, Aramaic Bible Society, Inc., no date given, p.65):

Even today in Turkey and Persia complete manuscripts of the Scriptures are very rare. Scrolls containing portions of the Bible are found in the possession of various families. In some districts one portion may be found in one village and the other completing portions perhaps in towns many miles away. When family ties are broken, the scrolls books are divided among the members. The student of the Bible must remember that in Jesus' day libraries, printing presses, and paper were unknown and that sacred writings were available only to the priests, rich men, and rulers.

This continued unavailability of written scripture would have caused oral transmission to be an important factor in the developing doctrines and attitudes of Christianity, even after the Gospels were recorded. This fact may also help explain some of the differences among manuscripts.

In any case, it is certain that there is a great variability among manuscripts of the Gospels.

AUTHENTICITY NEVER KNOWN

With so much variation among manuscripts, the absolute authenticity of any text, even the most venerable manuscripts, is always in question. The Codex Vaticanus is a prime example of this. The facsimile reproductions edited by the Vatican City in 1965 include an accompanying editorial note with the following information:

Several centuries after it was copied, a scribe inked over all the letters except those he thought were a mistake.... The different hands that corrected and annotated the manuscript over the centuries have not yet been definitely discerned; a certain number of corrections were undoubtedly made when the text was inked over.

Sir Frederic Kenyon lists some of the important variations in the manuscripts of the Gospels (OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS, Harper and Brothers, 1958, pp. 48-49):

The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer is omitted in the oldest copies of Matt. vi. 13; several copies omit Matt. xvi. 2, 3 altogether; a long additional passage is sometimes found after Matt. xx 28; the last twelve verses of St. Mark are omitted altogether by the two oldest copies of the original Greek; one very ancient authority inserts an additional incident after Luke vi. 4, while it alters the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper in Luke xxii. 19, 20, and omits altogether Peter's visit to the sepulcher in xxiv. 12, and several other details of the Resurrection; the version of the Lord's Prayer in Luke xi. 2-4 is much abbreviated in many copies; the incident of the Bloody Sweat is omitted in xxii. 43, 44, as also is the word from the Cross, "Father, forgive them", in xxiii. 34; the mention of the descent of an angel to cause the moving of the waters of Bethesda is entirely absent from the oldest copies of John v. 4, and all the best authorities omit the incident of the woman taken in adultery in vii. 53-viii. 11. Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference.

These variations and possible distortions are not "matters of mere indifference" because many Christian beliefs are based on a small portion of the Bible. If those portions have been distorted or misunderstood, then the beliefs themselves may actually go against the teachings of Jesus.

If we are trying to worship God with all our heart, all our mind, all our soul, and all our strength,then some traditional Christian beliefs may be getting in our way, without our even being aware of it.

HUMAN ERRORS

Why are there so many variations in the manuscripts? As one possible answer, Kenyon goes on to describe the types of errors introduced into manuscripts of the Gospels by the copyists. He divides them into three basic types. The first type of error has to do with the mechanics of hand copying long documents. Words with similar sounds or spellings are easily confused, letters and words can easily be skipped and abbreviations or contractions can be misunderstood. We must remember that hand copying, unlike touch typing, requires constant looking from the original to the new copy. When the same words are used in different lines, the copyist may pick up again at the wrong occurrence of the words, thus omitting intervening text.

Given the fact that there were no spaces between words, little punctuation, and no difference between capital and lower case letters in ancient manuscripts, it is easy to see how marginal notes might have been mistaken for part of the scripture, and included as such. Poor lighting, adverse working conditions and poor nutrition undoubtedly plagued the copyists, making their task more difficult and prone to error.

Kenyon describes a second type of error that he calls `Errors of the Mind.' This is the intentional or unintentional harmonizing of two similar passages. This happens especially easily when two passages contain the same words, but in a different order. If one is more familiar with one order, it is easy to use that order on both passages without even realizing one is doing so.

The final type of textual alteration that Kenyon discusses is the deliberate type. These are the most dangerous, and most likely to affect doctrinal issues.

In spite of Kenyon's assertion that none of the fundamental Christian doctrines is dependent on a disputed reading, he states (Ibid p. 52):

At times reverential and dogmatic motives have influenced the transmission of the text. Thus, e.g., the incident of the ministering Angel and the Bloody Sweat in Gethsemane, Luke xxii:43-44, is omitted by a number of MSS (including Vaticanus) and representatives of the version because, it might seem, these verses were inconsistent with the divinity of Christ.

Clearly, in some cases, important doctrines are affected by disputed readings.

Then, not only were the original documents subject to corruption in copying, but there were also the inevitable changes introduced as they were translated from language to language. Every person working on a translation, or the revision of one, naturally introduces changes as they try to make it more correct or clearer. The changes introduced depend on that person's body of knowledge, viewpoint and grasp of the languages involved.

KING JAMES AS A CASE IN POINT

There are always major difficulties in translating from one language to another. Often idioms and even individual words are colored by the culture which produced them. This makes direct translation impossible, and unless the translator is very familiar with the cultural context, the attempted translation may be far from the original flavor and intent. Communicating Hebrew/Aramaic ideas and outlook in such a culturally alien language as Greek poses special problems, of which the early translators may not have always been aware. All of these problems are compounded when translations are again translated, as was the case for the gospels.

The majority of English speaking Protestants use the King James translation in one of its many revisions. It is often considered the standard translation. George Lamsa has a nice look at the history of the King James version in the introduction to his own 1957 translation of the Bible (THE HOLY BIBLE, FROM ANCIENT EASTERN MANUSCRIPTS. A.J. Holman Co, 1957):

When the King James translation was made, western scholars had no access to the East as we have today. In the 16th century, A.D., the Turkish empire had extended its borders as far as Vienna...the Scriptures in Aramaic were unknown in Europe. The only resource scholars had was to Latin and to a few portions of Greek manuscripts.... It is a miracle that the King James' translators were able to produce such a remarkable translation from sources available in this dark period of European history. Even fifty years ago, the knowledge of Western scholars relative to the Eastern Scriptures in Aramaic and the Christian Church in the East was conjectural. Moreover, these scholars knew very little of the Eastern customs and manners in which the Biblical literature was nurtured.

All of these factors have led to some definite problems in the translation. Johannes Lehmann gives a very good example of the lack of understanding that can occur in trying to translate from culturally different languages. (See his Rabbi J. Stein and Day, New York, 1971.)He refers to the following verse: On the third day there was a wedding at Canna in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. [John 2:1]

What is this third day? The third day after what? Some translators have omitted the reference to the day at all, others have tried to make it the third day after the wedding. But there is a very simple explanation. Except for the Sabbath, Jewish days do not have names. They are numbered from the Sabbath. Thus the third day is our Tuesday.

In the above example, the effect of the translation is unimportant. But in some cases, the whole meaning of the passage has been changed. Lamsa cites a good example of the dramatic reversal of meaning:

In the King James version, we read in Numbers 25:4:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, `Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel."

The Aramaic reads:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, `Take all the chiefs of the people and expose them before the Lord in the daylight that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from the children of Israel.' "

The difference between exposing the corruption of a group's chiefs, and hanging them or their heads before God is quite dramatic.

There is yet another example of dramatic translational distortion in the King James version. This time it has contributed to the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. It has to do with the crucial word worship. Here is the King James version of Matthew 2:1-2 and 2:7-8: Now when Jesus was born in Beth-lehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. [Matthew 2:1-2] Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Beth-lehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. [Matthew 2:7-8]

Let us now compare these same verses as translated in the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, which is a recent translation drawing from the oldest documents available to the translators, rather than being a revision of earlier translations as the King James version is: After Jesus' birth in Bethlehem of Judea during the reign of King Herod, astrologers from the east arrived one day in Jerusalem inquiring, "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We observed his star at its rising and have come to pay him homage." [Matthew 2:1-2] Herod called the astrologers aside and found out from them the exact time of the star's appearance. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, after having instructed them: "Go and get detailed information about the child. When you have found him, report your findings to me so that I may go and offer him homage too." [Matthew 2:7-8]

Notice that the King James version tells us that the Magi and Herod spoke of `worshiping' the Christ child, while the New American Bible says they wanted to `pay homage' to him. How do we know that "pay homage" is more correct than "worship," or vice versa?

First, we know that in general the New American Bible is a more current and scholarly translation than the King James version. This is not to belittle the effort put into the King James version, but to simply reiterate Lamsa's point that there have been great strides in Bible scholarship in the four centuries which have passed since it was produced.

Furthermore, it makes more sense that Herod would say he wished to pay homage to the one he calls "king of the Jews," rather than wanting to worship him. Homage is due to a king; worship is due to one you consider divine.

TRANSLATION OF `WORSHIP' AS AN EXAMPLE

The human tendency is to introduce one's own understanding into a translation. This constitutes a major pitfall in any translation, but in scriptural translation it has wide-ranging consequences, since it affects the religious doctrine upheld by millions of people.

There is another example of this translation error found in both the King James and NEW AMERICAN BIBLE versions of John 9:38. When Jesus heard of his expulsion, he sought him out and asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered, "Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?" "You have seen him," Jesus replied. "He is speaking to you now." "I do believe, Lord," he said, and he bowed down to worship him. [John 9:35-38]

An authority on the Bible and its original language, George Lamsa, explains the crucial word "worship" as it occurs specifically here in John 9:38. In his book GOSPEL LIGHT (1936 edition, p. 353), Lamsa writes:

The Aramaic word sagad, worship, also means to bend or to kneel down. Easterners in greeting each other generally bow the head or bend down. When a ruler or holy man is greeted, the people kneel before him. "He worshipped him" does not imply that he worshipped Jesus as one who worshipped God. Such an act would have been regarded as sacrilegious and a breach of the first commandment in the eyes of the Jews and the man might have been stoned. But he knelt before him in token of homage and gratitude. This is also a sign of self-surrender and loyalty. The blind man worshipped Jesus in acknowledgment of his divine power and in appreciation of his compassion on him in opening his eyes. He had no knowledge of the claims of Jesus nor was he interested in his teachings, but he was convinced by the miracle performed that he must be a holy man and one empowered by God.

It is noteworthy that, in addition to the translation error discussed above, a footnote in the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE points out another problem with this verse:

9:38 This verse, omitted in important MSS, may be an addition for a baptismal liturgy. In other words, John 9:38, stating that the man "bowed down to worship Jesus" was probably added to the scriptural text. The indication is that it was added as part of the passage's use in the liturgy used for a baptism. EXAMPLE OF `RACIAL' BIAS There are many other instances of human introduced bias throughout the Bible. In Genesis, for example, there is a clear illustration of `racial' bias as shown in these verses from the King James version:

And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram. [Genesis 16:15-16]

For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him. [Genesis 21:2-5]

This means that Ishmael was fourteen years old when Isaac was born.

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee unto the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. [Genesis 22:1-2]

But we know that Isaac was never the only son of Abraham; Ishmael was Abraham's only son for 14 years until Isaac was born. Thus, we see here that the Jewish writer wanted to bestow the honor upon Isaac, his ancestor. Some have raised the possibility that Ishmael might not be considered a son of Abraham, since his mother, Hagar, was an Egyptian slave. However, we find that the scripture has considered Ishmael to be a son of Abraham, up until Abraham's death: And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years. Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years: and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah.... [Genesis 25:7-9]

The above illustration, though it is not from the New Testament, shows how easily human prejudices can enter into the scripture and become accepted as the truth, even when they are contradictory. This is very important for us to examine. While we certainly do not want to discard the Bible, with all its great wisdom and comfort, we must be aware of the ways in which it may have been changed.

HISTORY OF THE GOSPELS

A review of the general history of the Gospels may help us understand the inconsistencies we observe.

As mentioned before, it comes as a surprise to most people that the first religious writings of the early Christians were Paul's letters. These letters occupied a prevalent position long before the Gospels. It was not until late in the second century that the four Gospels were officially accepted by the Church as genuine, thus becoming part of the canon.

Each of these four canonic Gospels went through its own vicissitudes. For example, in its "Introduction to the Books of the New Testament," THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (Ibid, p. xxxiv) notes that there were probably several Greek translations of the early collection attributed to Matthew. The introduction to the Gospel according to John is even more telling:

...It should be remembered that for the ancients authorship was a much broader concept than it is today. In their time a man could be called the "author" of a work if he was the authority behind it, even though he did not write it. Modern critical analysis makes it difficult to accept that the fourth gospel as it now stands was written by one man. Chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from the rest of the work....Within the gospel itself there are signs of some disorder; e.g., there are two endings to Jesus' discourse at the Last Supper. [NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, p. xxxvii]

The footnote goes on to state a widely accepted theory that the Gospel of John was actually written by someone other than John, probably his disciple, and then later edited by another disciple. How much, if any, direct input actually came from John is impossible to know.

Frank Beare goes even further and declares all the gospels to be anonymous, with their traditional names being "second-century guesses."

During the period in which the church was organized there was an abundance of literature with widely divergent views of Jesus. Church officials set about deciding on the officially acceptable materials. As many as one hundred gospels were excluded, and only the four we have today were retained to make up the "Canon." Needless to say, only gospels that agreed with the Church's views at that time were canonized. This is especially significant when we recall that the Church had become a political, not just a religious, establishment during the second century. The canonization of four Gospels, rather than just one, indicates that there were some compromises to satisfy the wide range of divergent views that must have been in the scores of gospels that existed at that time. If the church authorities had agreed on everything, we would have ended up with only one authorized Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus.

Marcion of Sinope founded a Gnostic movement around 140 A.D. He acknowledged the Gospel of Luke as the only authentic Gospel. He believed that Luke, who was almost certainly a non-Jew, was the spokesman for Paul. Marcion exerted tremendous pressure upon the ecclesiastic authorities to accept only Luke. Since he was an ardent enemy of the Jews, he rejected the whole of the Old Testament. The Church, however, declared Marcion a heretic and put in its canon all the Epistles of Paul. In addition, they included the other canonized Gospels, Luke's Acts of the Apostles, and other works.

It was not until the councils of Hippo Regius (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397) that the contents of the New Testament were solidified. Up until that time, what was accepted by the Church as authentic scripture varied. Some works that were then excluded are now accepted as part of the New Testament, and vice versa.

For almost four centuries after Jesus, the Christian scripture was not put into any definite order. The oldest available manuscripts of the gospels date from the fourth century. Older documents (e.g., papyri from the First to Third Century) contain no more than small fragments of the gospels.

The two oldest parchment manuscripts are not even in the language of Jesus; they are in Fourth century Greek. They are the Codex Vaticanus, now preserved in the Vatican library, and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai and is now preserved in the British Museum, London. This second manu script contains two apocryphal works. The place of discovery of Codex Vaticanus is unknown.

INCONSISTENCIES LEAD TO DOUBT

Many critical readers of the Bible find borrowing, inconsistency and contradiction among the scriptures. A typical example of this general disillusionment is found in Carl Sagan's best selling novel of the 1980's, entitled CONTACT (Simon and Schuster, 1985, p. 30). Sagan's heroine points out serious contradictions in the New Testament which led her to question its divine inspiration:

When they came to the New Testament, Ellie's agitation increased. Matthew and Luke traced the ancestral line of Jesus back to King David. But for Matthew there were twenty-eight generations between David and Jesus; for Luke forty-three. There were almost no names common to the two lists. How could both Matthew and Luke be the Word of God? The contradictory genealogies seemed to Ellie a transparent attempt to fit the Isianic prophecy after the event-cooking the data, it was called in chemistry lab.

The problem of Jesus' genealogy and its inconsistencies was also evidently noted by the scribe working on the fifth or sixth century Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge University Library. This enterprising cleric put Matthew's genealogy into Luke, padding it where necessary!

With such discrepancies among manuscripts of the Gospels, and among the accepted Gospels themselves, it is impossible to decide which versions are the closest to the original truth. Perhaps in the future, discoveries of new manuscripts will give us a closer approximation.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we have discussed several sources of error in the Bible as it exists today:

1.The natural changes that take place over an extended period of oral transmission;

2.Errors in the original transmission due to the lack of understanding of Jesus' intent;

3.Copying errors resulting from the tedious process of hand copying, which was the only means of reproduction for the centuries before the invention of the printing press;

4.Translation errors resulting from the lack of understanding of linguistic rules, grammar and idioms, and of the culture;

5.Errors resulting from the translator's unconscious bias toward personal convictions, i.e., human bias;

6.Intentional innovation: conscious additions to the scripture for prejudicial, political or other reasons.

The importance of these errors lies in their effect on the basic doctrines of Christianity. As we have seen in this chapter, and will see even more clearly in future chapters, verses that seem to support some of the fundamental doctrines of today's Christianity may well be mistranslated or taken out of their cultural and temporal context, thus giving a distorted picture of the original teachings of Jesus.

This may be discouraging to searching Christians. It should not be. Though humans may have introduced distortion, none of this possible distortion affects the fact that two thousand years ago a man walked on earth, delivering a message of hope and strength. He spoke of the coming Kingdom of God, and how to gain admission to it. He taught us how to love and worship God with our whole beings, and thus win the prize of redemption.

No human interference can ever change the essential truth of Christ's message, but clearly decerning it from our human concepts may seem almost impossible. A look at some of the basic doctrines of Christianity may help clarify the issue.

Chapter Three

WHERE DID THE CONCEPT COME FROM?

...The source of your unity and election is genuine suffering which you undergo by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God. Hence you deserve to be considered happy....you are imitators of God; and it was God's blood that stirred you up once more to do the sort of thing you do naturally and have now done to perfection.

-Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch

Within a hundred years, the concept of Jesus as God was already well established. Bishop Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch. He was killed around 100 A.D.The above excerpt is from his letter to the Ephesians (EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS, C. C. Richardson, ed., Macmillan, 1970, pp. 87-88).

It is important to examine how and why the concept of Jesus as God developed and became accepted. That understanding helps us to assess our own beliefs. For that reason, this chapter will give you some historical and theological perspective on the development of this idea of Jesus as God incarnate. The concept developed very early, but it was not universally accepted among the vanguard of Christianity. There was great diversity among early Christians.

EARLY DIVERSITY

Even in the newborn church, immediately after Jesus' death, there were major differences among the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. These are indicated in the New Testament book of Acts. During his journeys, Paul went to Jerusalem, where he met with James and the elders of the early church. In the next verses they are addressing him: "You see brother, how many thousands of Jews have come to believe, all of them staunch defenders of the law. Yet they have been informed that you teach the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children, and to renounce their customs. What are we to do about your coming, of which they are sure to hear? Please do as we tell you. There are four men among us who made a vow. Take them along with you and join with them in their rite of purification; pay the fee for the shaving of their heads. In that way, everyone will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, and that you follow the law yourself with due observance. As for the Gentile converts, we sent them a letter with our decision that they were merely to avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, the flesh of strangled animals, and illicit sexual union." Accordingly, Paul gathered the men together and went through the rite of purification with them the next day. Then he entered the temple precincts to give notice of the day when the period of purification would be over, at which time the offering was to be made for each of them. [Acts 21:20-26]

This passage shows that the early Jewish Christians continued to follow Jewish law, circumcising their sons and keeping the traditions of their fathers. Some of them even continued to take the Nazarite vow, as the four men whose heads were being shaved. This Mosaic practice was one of dedicating oneself to God and following strict rules of purity and sacrifice for a specified length of time. (See Numbers 6:1-21.)

Gentile converts, on the other hand, often did not follow the same set of rules. It is apparent from the above verses that in the Jerusalem church they had only to abstain from forbidden meats and adultery.

Besides differing practices, there were also many different understandings within the early church concerning the true identity of Jesus. In fact, these differences were very marked, and are eloquently expressed by Robert L. Wilken in THE MYTH OF CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS (Doubleday, 1971, pp. 165-166):

There were no set beliefs agreed on by all; nor were there any ground rules on how to determine what to say or think or do; nor was there any acknowledged authority for deciding such question (sic). Let us suppose that in the year A.D. 35 two men, Michael and Ephraim, became Christians in Jerusalem; Michael went to the town of Edessa in Syria to live, and Ephraim went to Alexandria in Egypt. On arrival in their respective cities, each told others about the remarkable man Jesus. After telling their friends about Jesus, let us say Michael and Ephraim organized Christian congregations. Almost immediately, problems would arise. What should we do about the Jewish law? What should we do when we gather for worship?... The questions were endless, and the Christians in Edessa and the Christians in Alexandria would not answer all in the same way-the traditions Michael and Ephraim brought with them were too embryonic, too undefined, to answer every new question or settle every dispute. They had to make up their own minds as they understood their own situation and the memories they brought with them.

Now let us change the scene to A.D. 75. Forty years have passed. In the meantime the Jews have been defeated by the Romans, and Jerusalem has been destroyed. Also, the Christian movement has spread widely and solidified its traditions. Let us now suppose that someone from Edessa travels to Alexandria and learns that there is a Christian community there.... To his surprise, he learns that they have little in common except a common loyalty to Jesus, and the fragments of his words that have been handed on orally. And even the fragments of his sayings are not in quite the form they are in Edessa. The visitor from Edessa discovers that the Christians in Alexandria do not keep the Jewish law, whereas his congregation keeps it exactly, admitting no one to the Christian community without circumcision. The Alexandrians pray to Jesus, whereas in Edessa all prayers are addressed solely to God the Father.... Both are shocked at the practices and beliefs of the others.

Given this great diversity among early Christians, at what point did the doctrine of Jesus' divinity actually develop? And what were the factors contributing to the spread and eventual formalization of this doctrine?

Searching for the answers to these questions is especially difficult because there are no known surviving documents from the `Mother Church', the original Christian community in Jerusalem. For an extensive discussion of this point, see S.G.F. Brandon's book JESUS AND THE ZEALOTS (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967, pp. 148Ä159). We will review his arguments in a few pages.

But first, we need to look more closely at the differences that Paul had with other followers of Christ. Remember that Paul never met Jesus, nor did he study with the original apostles. His knowledge of Jesus and his teachings came mostly through personal inspiration. Hyam Maccoby states (THE MYTHMAKER. Harper and Row, 1987, pp. 3-4):

Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Such acquaintance, he claimed, gained through visions and transports, was actually superior to acquaintance with Jesus during his lifetime, when Jesus was much more reticent about his purposes.

Clearly Paul, however good his motivations, could not pass on to us the exact words or actions of Jesus during the years he taught on earth. He had no way of knowing exactly what they were.

It is inevitable that he would be in some conflict with those who were actually with Jesus during those years. Their experiences and their memories of a flesh and blood man would necessarily be different from the Jesus he knew from his visions.

PAUL vs THE SUPER-APOSTLES

There are many indications in Paul's letters that there were powerful and authoritative opponents to his teachings. Paul wrote that these opponents were teaching a "gospel other than the gospel you accepted" and preaching about "another Jesus:"

My fear is that, just as the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted and you may fall away from your sincere and complete devotion to Christ. I say this because when someone comes preaching another Jesus than the one we preached, or when you receive a different spirit than the one you have received, or a gospel other than the gospel you accepted, you seem to endure it quite well. I consider myself inferior to the "super-apostles" in nothing. [2 Corinthians 11:3-5]

As Paul continues, it is clear that those whom he refers to above as the `super-apostles' are Hebrews whose authority he does not question, but he tries to match their qualifications with his own: "Since many are bragging about their human distinctions, I too will boast" (2 Cor. 11:18).

Brandon argues that Paul's `super-apostles' are indeed the original Apostles of Jesus (Ibid., pp. 152-153):

Paul, curiously, despite his exceeding agitation over their activity, never names them. Whoever they were, they were obviously Christians of great authority or representative of leaders of great authority; for they were able to go among Paul's own converts and successfully present a rival interpretation of the faith. Moreover, although he is so profoundly disturbed by their action, Paul never questions their authority as they did his. These facts, taken together with Paul's very evident embarrassment about his relations with the leading Apostles at Jerusalem, point irresistibly to one conclusion only: that the `other gospel', which opposes Paul's own, was the interpretation of the nature and mission of Jesus propounded by the Jerusalem Church, which comprised the original Apostles of Jesus and eyewitnesses of his life.

Not all Biblical scholars agree that the `super apostles' were the original apostles, and that the `other gospel' was that of the Jerusalem Church, but there is a very good case for their being so. In fact, the very name `super apostles' is evidence. Who else would fit such a name?

The passage we quoted earlier from Acts 21:20-26 demonstrates that the original apostles had differing views from Paul, and they had the authority to enforce those views, at least by writing to the Gentile converts to "avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, the flesh of strangled animals, and illicit sexual union."

This is important because since Paul never met Jesus, he had no first hand knowledge of Christ's teachings. Yet most of what we know about the very early years of Christianity comes from Paul's letters. And the Gospel of Christ which has survived has come through the Pauline tradition. All of this means that we do not know for certain what the original followers of Jesus taught. And more importantly, we do not know how much of Christ's own teaching has reached us unflavored by Paul's understanding.

One thing we do know is that the differences among the early members of the church were deep and divisive. Paul's letter to the Galatians makes that clear. Scathingly, Paul exhorts his readers to stick to the gospel he had delivered to them:

"I am amazed that you are so soon deserting him who called you in accord with his gracious design in Christ, and are going over to another gospel.... For if even we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him!" [Galatians 1:6-8]

Obviously, whoever Paul's opponents were, they had authority that Paul felt he needed to counteract. This is shown by the fact that he goes on by defending his own authority, and then attacking those who apparently were preaching a return to Mosaic law:

"All who depend on observance of the law, on the other hand, are under a curse." [Galatians 3:10]

In fact, the above verse shows that Paul actively fought against those who observed Mosaic law. This is reinforced by the following verses:

"I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from God's favor!" [Galatians 5:3-4]

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that Paul's opponents were the original apostles comes in Galatians 2:6-14:

Those who were regarded as important, however (and it makes no difference to me how prominent they were-God plays no favorites), made me add nothing. On the contrary, recognizing that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised...those who were the acknowledged pillars, James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp of fellowship, signifying that we should go to the Gentiles as they to the Jews.... When Cephas came to Antioch I directly withstood him, because he was clearly in the wrong. He had been taking his meals with the Gentiles before others came who were from James. But when they arrived he drew back to avoid trouble with those who were circumcised. The rest of the Jews joined in his dissembling, till even Barnabas was swept away by their pretense. As soon as I observed that they were not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I had this to say to Cephas in the presence of all: "If you who are a Jew are living according to Gentile ways rather than Jewish, by what logic do you force the Gentiles to adopt Jewish ways?" [Galatians 2:6-14]

We see here that initially it was James, Cephas and John who recognized Paul's authority. What about the other Jerusalem apostles? Were they the important and prominent ones who wanted Paul to add to his teachings? If not, why were they not mentioned? And what was he supposed to add? It is logical that these opponents were original apostles, and that they wanted him to preach the following of Mosaic law.

Later, in Antioch, even Cephas had a run-in with Paul over the practice of Mosaic law. Paul accuses him and the other Jews of dissembling, and not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel and of wanting to force the Gentiles to accept Mosaic law. If Paul attacked even his supporters among the Jerusalem apostles, it is inevitable that he was at odds with them as a group.

Given the extremely strong prohibition of idol worship in any form, which is at the base of Mosaic law, it is almost certain that any tendency to deify Jesus would have been strongly resisted by the Jerusalem apostles. This could well have been the basic cause of the rift between Paul and the original apostles.

Brandon argues (Ibid., p. 154):

According to Paul's own testimony, his `gospel' was repudiated and his authority as apostle was rejected by his opponents. This the leaders of the Jerusalem Church could effectively do, because Paul had never been an original disciple of Jesus, nor had he learned the faith from them. However, the irony of the situation, from our point of view, is that it is Paul's `gospel' that has survived and is known to us from his own writings, whereas the `gospel' of the Jerusalem Christians can only be reconstructed from what may be inferred from Paul's references to it and what may be culled, also by inference from the Gospels and Acts. This apparent triumph of Paul's version of the faith is surely to be traced to the Jewish overthrow in A.D. 70....

That final sentence is of great importance. Brandon draws a parallel between the esoteric Jewish community at Qumran whose books were hidden before the community was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 68. Those documents are now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the community which authored them is known almost solely through them. Recently those very scrolls have been made available to scholars at large, stirring great hopes for break throughs in our understanding of Judaism at the time of Christ and thus, early Christian development.

Brandon proposes that the Christian community in Jerusalem, which strongly maintained its ties to Judaism, was also wiped out by the Romans in A.D. 70, and its documents lost, as a repercussion of the Jewish uprising there.

The annihilation of the Mother Church of Jerusalem meant that the original leaders of Jewish-Christianity were killed or dispersed. Also, there must have been a strong political force encouraging the moving away from Judaism and any traditions which identified a community as being tied to Judaism. These factors would have greatly aided in the strengthening and spread of non-Jewish concepts among early Christians. They would have especially helped the spread of the concept of Jesus' deification.

THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE: THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

Let us diverge now from the historical aspects of this discussion and examine some of the theological aspects. The whole doctrine of Jesus' divinity has been thoroughly examined in THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (Ed. J. Hick, Westminister Press, 1977). This important books is not readily available now. Therefore, I have quoted extensively from it.

One look at the list of Christian scholars who contributed to this collection shows that it is not a radical fringe among today's theologians who reject this doctrine of incarnation, rather it is a growing number of careful and highly qualified theologians:

Don Cupitt: University Lecturer in Divinity and Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (UK).Michael Goulder: Staff Tutor in Theology in the Department of Extramural Studies at Birmingham University.John Hick: H. G. Wood Professor of Theology at Birmingham University.Leslie Houlden: Principal of Ripon College, Cuddesdon.Dennis Nineham: Warden of Keble College, Oxford.Maurice Wiles: Regius Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church of England's Doctrine Commission.Frances Young: Lecturer in New Testament Studies at Birmingham University.

From the Preface of THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (Ibid., p. ix):

The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twentieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of Christian origins, and involves a recognition that Jesus was (as he is presented in Acts 2.21) `a man approved by God' for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us. This recognition is called for in the interests of truth....For Christianity can only remain honestly believable by being continuously open to the truth.

In the same book (Ibid., p. 4), Maurice Wiles writes:

Negative generalizations are notoriously dangerous claims to make. Nevertheless, it seems to me that throughout the long history of attempts to present a reasoned account of Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the church has never succeeded in offering a consistent or convincing picture.

Mr. Wiles, who is canon of Christ Church, goes on to urge that "Christianity without incarnation&"; should be regarded as a positive and constructive idea, rather than negative and destructive. He points out that the worship of Christ, ";traditional throughout the whole of Christian history," is "idolatrous in character."

Some three centuries after Jesus' death, culminating with the Nicene Conferences of 325 A.D., a politically motivated church solidified the doctrine of `God Incarnate.' In THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (Ibid., p. 17), Francis Young makes an interesting and critical observation, pointing out that the focus of the Gospels is quite different from that of Jesus' own teachings:

The epistles of Paul-and indeed the speeches of Acts-reveal that the early Christian gospel was about Jesus Christ. This makes it the more likely that the gospels correctly report that the message of Jesus was different-it was about the kingdom of God.... There are difficulties in tracing explicit Messianic claims back to Jesus himself. Apart from John where interpretative material is clearly placed upon the lips of Jesus, the gospels invariably portray not Jesus but others as using phrases like the `Holy One of God', or `Son of David', or `Son of God'.... Furthermore, Mark's gospel conveys the impression that Jesus attempted to keep his identity as Messiah a secret divulged only to his inner circle. This `Messianic secret' motif in Mark remains an unsolved problem, especially since it appears sometimes to be introduced rather artificially; yet it adds to the impression that Jesus may well have preferred to remain enigmatic, in the interests of directing his hearers away from false enthusiasm for himself, to the consequences of the coming of God's kingdom for their lives here and now.

Young goes farther, arguing that Paul never claimed Jesus was God (Ibid., p. 20-22). Whether Paul himself believed Jesus to be God, or not, it was the Pauline tradition which eventually developed the doctrine of God incarnate, culminating with its formal doctrinal statement in the Nicene Creed.

In THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE Michael Goulder and Frances Young present a number of plausible theories dealing with the development of incarnational belief in the early church. They both agree that the roots of incarnation and of the divinity of men extend to the pre-Christian and pagan cultures.

We know that the concept of `son of God' was quite different for Jews following Mosaic law and Romans whose religious mythology specifically referred to divine children of the gods. Young points out that both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions have the idea of the ascent of exceptional men into heaven, and of heavenly beings-either angels or gods-coming to earth to help men. It is not an impossible step from those traditions to the belief that God Himself had to come to earth to save mankind.

Don Cupitt, Dean of Emmanuel College at Cambridge concluded that the incarnational doctrine no longer belongs to the essence of Christianity, "but only to a certain period of church history, now ended" (Ibid., p. 134). Cupitt also narrates that the Eastern theologian John of Damascus (about A.D. 675-749), in defending iconolatry, admitted the fact that neither the Trinity nor the homoousion [identifying Jesus as God] nor the two natures of Christ can be found in the scriptures. John of Damascus then continued, "but we know those doctrines are true."

After he acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John of Damascus went on to urge his readers to hold fast to them "as venerable traditions delivered to us by the fathers." Thus, at least 14 centuries ago, he recognized that the incarnation doctrine is not a divinely revealed doctrine, delivered to us by Jesus, but a human idea passed down to us "by the fathers."

Don Cupitt adds that John of Damascus was not the only theologian to use this argument. Theodore the Studite (about A.D. 795-826) adopted it too. Cupitt then states that this "brings out an odd feature of Christianity, its mutability and the speed with which innovations [such as the incarnational doctrine] come to be vested with religious solemnity to such an extent that anyone who questions them finds himself regarded as the dangerous innovator and heretic."

Cupitt emphasizes that the idea of God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ is in direct contradiction with the teachings of Jesus. He points out (Ibid., p. 138):

...The Bible contains (Ex. 20.4) a categorical prohibition, not merely of any kind of image of God, but of any naturalistic or representational art, a prohibition which has influenced Jews and Muslims to this day. Nothing other than God can be an adequate image of God, and God himself, being transcendent, cannot be delineated. Early Christianity inherited and followed this rule. Old Testament arguments against idolatry, pagan arguments and early Christian arguments ran closely parallel.

The distortion the doctrine of God incarnate causes is well stated in Cupitt's conclusion (Ibid., p. 140):

The assertion that deity itself and humanity are permanently united in the one person of the incarnate Lord suggests an ultimate synthesis, a conjunction and continuity between things divine and things of this world.... This idea distorts Jesus' ironical perception of disjunction between the things of God and the things of men, a disjunction particularly enforced in the parables.... Whether he is seen as an apocalyptic prophet or as a witty rabbi (or, as I think, both), what matters in Jesus' message is his sense of the abrupt juxtaposition of two opposed orders of things.... But the doctrine of the incarnation unified things which Jesus had kept in ironic contrast with each other, and so weakened the ability to appreciate his way of speaking, and the distinctive values he stood for.

John Hick, H. G. Wood Professor of Theology at Birmingham University, compares the exaltation of Jesus to the status of God with the deification of Buddha in Buddhism. He blames the innovation of the incarnation doctrine on a human tendency to elevate the founder of any given religion. He states (Ibid., p.170):

Buddhology and christology developed in comparable ways. The human Gautama came to be thought of as the incarnation of a transcendent, pre-existent Buddha as the human Jesus came to be thought of as the incarnation of the pre-existent Logos or divine Son. And in the Mahayana the transcendent Buddha is one with the Absolute as in Christianity the eternal Son is one with God the Father.... We are seeing at work a tendency of the religious mind which is also to be seen within the history of Christianity. The exaltation of the founder has of course taken characteristically different forms in the two religions. But in each case it led the developing traditions to speak of him in terms which he himself did not use, and to understand him by means of a complex of beliefs which was only gradually formed by later generations of his followers. Each essay in THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE is a careful piece of honest scholarship and soul searching commentary. Such work requires the moral courage to step out of one's upbringing, indeed, out of one's culture, and allow the objective examination of one's own faith. The unanimous conclusion of these courageous theologians is that the concept of God incarnate is indeed innovation and not part of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The results of this innovation are clearly and eloquently summarized by Don Cupitt (Ibid,. pp. 142, 143, 145):

If in Jesus the fullness of God himself is permanently incarnate, Jesus can be directly worshipped as God without risk of error or blasphemy. A cult of Christ as distinct from a cult of God then becomes defensible, and did in fact develop. The practice of praying direct to Christ in the Liturgy, as distinct from praying to God through Christ...slowly spread, against a good deal of opposition, eventually to produce Christocentric piety and theology. An example of the consequent paganization of Christianity was the agreement to constitute the World Council of Churches upon the doctrinal basis of `acknowledgement of our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour'-and nothing else. Perhaps it was only when Christocentric religion finally toppled over into the absurdity of `Christian Atheism' that some Christians began to realize that Feuerbach might have been right after all; a Chalcedonian christology could be a remote ancestor of modern unbelief, by beginning the process of shifting the focus of devotion from God to man.... Similarly, it could not resist the giving of the title Theotokos, Mother of God, to Mary. The phrase `Mother of God' is prima facie blasphemous, but it has had a very long run, and the orthodox have actively promoted its use, fatally attracted by its very provocativeness.

....It is my contention that the doctrine of Christ as God's divine son has here humanized deity to an intolerable degree. The strangeness of it is seldom noticed even to this day. A sensitive theologian like Austin Farrer can dwell eloquently upon a medieval icon of the Trinity, and a philosopher as gifted as Wittgensten can discuss Michelangelo's painting of God in the Sistine Chapel, and in neither case is it noticed that there could be people to whom such pagan anthropomorphism is abhorrent, because it signifies a `decline of religion' in the only sense that really matters, namely, a serious corruption of faith in God.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that there was great diversity in the beliefs of early Christians. The understanding that Jesus was God comes to us from one line of those early believers, those who followed Paul. Paul himself never met Jesus, and his views differed radically from the original apostles who did know Jesus and followed his example directly. The destruction of the original Christian community in Jerusalem allowed Paul's understanding to overshadow that of the original followers of Jesus.

From a theological point of view we have seen that there were many possible factors contributing to the development of the doctrine of God incarnate. The influence of pagan belief undoubtedly played a part, as did the natural human tendency to exalt the founder of any religion. We also see that there are highly qualified Christian scholars who reject the concept outright, and offer very convincing arguments for doing so.

Chapter Four

WAS JESUS GOD?

At one time or another we have all asked ourselves: Who is God? Having been raised in a Christian society I had been told that Jesus was God. I wasn't certain. Was Jesus God?

Who was Jesus?

In trying to answer this question we will be drawing on many sources of information, a few of which most Christians have not explored.

Again, our goal with this book is simply to try to come closer to God. To do that we must internalize Christ's teaching to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength" (Mark 12:30 & Luke 10:27).

Back to our question: Was Jesus God? The answer may come as a shock to many Christians, as it did to me. Jesus never said he was God. Actually, he said over and over, and in many ways, that he was not God.

Jesus was a practicing Jew, and such a concept is now, and would have been then, totally against the law of Moses (Mosaic law).

JESUS FOLLOWED MOSAIC LAW

The next few quotes from the Bible show us that Jesus was a devout and learned Jew, a rabbi:

Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and his reputation spread throughout the region. He was teaching in their synagogues, and all were loud in his praise. He came to Nazareth where he had been reared, and entering the synagogue on the sabbath as he was in the habit of doing, he stood up to do the reading. [Luke 4:14-16]

The worship of God was always focal in his life, even as a child. The second chapter of Luke tells us a very touching story of Jesus as a precociously wise child of twelve, sitting for days among the scholars. His family had accidentally left him in Jerusalem after their annual visit for the Passover. Nearly frantic, they searched for him:

On the third day they came upon him in the temple sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. All who heard him were amazed at his intelligence and his answers. When his parents saw him they were astonished, and his mother said to him: "Son, why have you done this to us? You see that ] your father and I have been searching for you in sorrow." He said to them: "Why did you search for me? Did you not know I had to be in my Father's house?" [Luke 2:46-49]

As he grew, "Jesus...progressed steadily in wisdom and age and grace before God and men" (Luke 2:52). After he had matured, his opinion was sought, though perhaps not always respectfully, by traditional Jews. An example of this is John's narration of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus for judgment.

Though they addressed him as "Teacher," they tried to trap him into saying something which they could use against him. As he straightened up from where he had been writing on the ground, he issued his famous judgement: "Let him without sin cast the first stone." Though they had come to trap him, the scribes and Pharisees could not argue and drifted away, leaving the woman without harming her. Even those who were hostile to his teachings respected him.

OTHER SCRIPTURAL SOURCES

While religious scholars of most faiths would agree that Jesus was a wonderful model for humanity, the scriptures of almost all the major religions predate Christ, and therefore give us no new information about him. The one exception to this is the Quran, the scripture of Islam.

Unfortunately, what the world recognizes as the religion of Islam is really the cultural tradition of the Muslim world. Most Muslims have not studied the Quran, and they do not really follow it. Comparing what they do in the name of Islam with the teachings of the Quran is like comparing the Spanish Inquisition with the teachings of the Bible. The practice is almost in total opposition to the scripture.

The basic message of the Quran and the Bible are the same. If we look at just the Quran itself, and leave the culture and tradition behind, we find a great deal of valuable information about Jesus and what he taught.

According to the Quran, not only was Jesus a young scholar, but he was a prophet from birth, delivering divine revelations, even shortly after birth :

She came with him to her family, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have committed something gross. O descendant of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother unchaste." She pointed to him. They said, "How can we talk with an infant in the crib?" (The infant spoke and) said, "I am a servant of God. He has given me the scripture, and made me a prophet. He made me blessed wherever I go, and enjoined me to observe the contact prayers (Salat) and the obligatory charity (Zakat) for as long as I live. I am to obey my mother; He did not make me a disobedient rebel. And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I get resurrected." Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. This is the truth of this matter, about which they have a lot of doubt. [Quran 19:27-34]

We see from this and the following quote that Jesus taught even as a newborn infant.

(On the Day of Resurrection) God will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My blessings upon you and your mother. I supported you with the Holy Spirit; you thus spoke to the people from the crib, as well as an adult..." [Quran 5:110]

In the above verse, it is useful to understand the Quranic definition of the Holy Spirit as the angel who brings divine revelation from God, the angel Gabriel. The Quran teaches that Gabriel brought the revelation from God to Jesus, who then delivered it to the people, and this process began even while Jesus was an infant.

This Quranic concept of revelation from God is fully supported by the first two verses in the biblical Book of Revelation:

This is the revelation God gave to Jesus Christ, that he might show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who in reporting all he saw bears witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. [Revelation 1:1-2]

BASIC TEACHINGS

As a rabbi, what did Jesus teach? Throughout the New Testament, Jesus exhorted us to worship God alone and keep the Mosaic commandments. The first and best known commandment in both the Old Testament and the New Testament advocates total and absolute devotion to God alone:

The Lord our God is Lord alone! Therefore, you shall adore the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. [Deuteronomy 6:4-5] [Mark 12:29-30]

Jesus especially stressed this First Commandment:

The scribe said to him: "Excellent, Teacher! You are right in saying, `He is the One, there is no other than He.' Yes, `to love him with all our heart, with all our thoughts and with all our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves' is worth more than any burnt offering or sacrifice." Jesus approved the insight of his answer and told him, "You are not far from the reign of God." [Mark 12:32-34]

THE GREAT COMMANDMENT

Again, Jesus' straightforward injunctions to follow the commandments in general, and the First Commandment in particular, are throughout the New Testament. Significantly, he described the First Commandment as "The Great Commandment" (Mark 12:29). The statement of this injunction is very strong:

I, the Lord, am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have any other gods beside me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God.... [Deuteronomy 5:6-9]

For Jesus, this commandment meant more than just an injunction against physically worshiping idols. Often people use phrases like `he worships the ground she walks on,' or `he's my idol.' These phrases show the subtle idol worship that pervades our daily lives. Jesus taught the absolute devotion to God alone:

On one occasion a lawyer stood up to pose him this problem: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said: "You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live." [Luke 10:25-28]

If you do love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength and all your mind-literally with your whole being-there is not room for anything else. That is the definition of devotion.

Jesus taught that this devotion to God must be more than lip service:

"Yet an hour is coming, and is already here, when authentic worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth. Indeed, it is just such worshipers the Father seeks. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." [John 4:23-24]

We see that Jesus stressed pure worship of the Father, in spirit and truth. It is not possible that Jesus could have so strongly taught total devotion to God, and then advocated his own worship.

EARLY CHRISTIAN JEWS

It is also very clear that the early Christians still considered themselves to be Jews, and thus subject to the Mosaic laws revealed in the Torah. Dr. George M. Lamsa, in his book NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN (Aramaic Bible Society, Inc., p. 9), makes a point of the Jewish origins of Christianity, and his quote from Matthew stresses Jesus' adherence to Mosaic law:

...Christians for some time continued to worship in the Jewish temple and in the synagogues, to observe Jewish customs and traditions, and to keep the Mosaic law and the Sabbath. For nearly two centuries the bishops of Jerusalem were Semites. In other words, the followers of Jesus were loyal to the teachings of the prophets as expounded by their Master, who had told them that he had not come to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoso shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17-19).

Evidently Jesus left no doubt in the mind of his disciples in regard to his loyalty to the commandments and the teachings of the prophets.

ON HIS OWN IDENTITY Jesus' statements throughout the Bible suggest that any idea of exalting him to divinity was unthinkable. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus denounces in the strongest terms those who exalt him by calling him `Lord':

"None of those who cry out, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. When the day comes, many will plead with me, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? Have we not exorcised demons by its power? Did we not do many miracles in your name as well?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, `I never knew you. Out of my sight, you evil doers!' " [Matthew 7:21-23]

Jesus would not even accept the praise of a man who called him good:

"Good teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?" Jesus answered: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." [Mark 10:17-18]

If Jesus would not even allow himself to be called good, he certainly would not claim divine qualities.

Perhaps some of the difficulty that humans have is that we do not really recognize the qualities of God. When we say that He is omnipotent and omniscient, we do not fully realize what that means-that God can do anything and that He knows everything, including our innermost secrets, and those we are not even aware of yet. Unless we do realize the full meaning of these qualities, it is possible to think of Jesus as having had them. But the next section shows clearly that he did not.

ONLY GOD HAS DIVINE QUALITIES

Matthew 24:36, quoted below, demonstrates that Jesus was not omniscient:

(In relation to the end of the world Jesus said to them:) "As for the exact day or hour, no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven nor the son, but the Father only." [Matthew 24:36]

One divine quality is the ability to assign the souls their positions in the Hereafter. Jesus tells us that only God can do this. When he speaks to the mother of his disciples James and John, she asks him to promise that her sons will be on either side of him in the Hereafter:

"...But sitting at my right hand or my left is not mine to give. That is for those to whom it has been reserved by my Father." [Matthew 20:23]

Surely, when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane he demonstrated that he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient:

"Father, if it is your will, take this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done." [Luke 22:42]

Jesus made it clear in many, many ways that he was not God, that God is greater. Nowhere is this more definitely stated than when he spoke to his disciples about his imminent departure:

If you truly loved me you would rejoice to have me go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [John 14:28]

JESUS' PRAYERAs demonstrated above, and throughout the Gospels, Jesus prayed to God. This certainly argues against his being God. God would not pray to Himself.

Like Luke 22:42, the Gospel of Matthew reports that a very human Jesus became distressed in Gethsemane and turned to God for solace:

He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer. "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Still, let it be as you would have it, not as I" [Matthew 26:39]

There were times when Jesus felt the need to pray with special urgency. Luke reports that, on one occasion, Jesus prayed very hard:

In his anguish, Jesus prayed with all the greater intensity, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground. [Luke 22:44]

Jesus also prayed to God that the people might believe in him as God's messenger. This specifically defines the role of Jesus as deliverer of God's message:

...Jesus looked upward and said, "Father, I thank you for having heard me. I know that you always hear me but I have said this for the sake of the crowd, that they may believe that you sent me." [John 11:41-42]

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Jesus was not God is in the way that he taught the disciples to pray:

One day he was praying in a certain place. When he had finished, one of his disciples asked him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." He said to them, "When you pray, say: `Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us the wrong we have done as we forgive those who wrong us. Subject us not to the trial but deliver us from the evil one.' " [Luke 11:1-4] [Matthew 6:9-13]

Note that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, our Creator, not to himself. In fact, he did not mention himself in any way, nor did he indicate that we should pray in his name. His instructions were very specific-we are to pray to God alone.

This would not be the case if Jesus himself were God.

REPORTED DYING WORDS

Even in the narration of his death, in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, there is an incident that contradicts the concept of Jesus' divinity. According to these two references, Jesus was put on the cross and left to die, then:

At that time Jesus cried in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachtani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" [Matthew 27:46] & [Mark 15:34]

It is not logical that God would ever say: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This utterance was recorded in both Gospels in Jesus' mother tongue, Hebrew/Aramaic, to emphasize the accuracy of transmission. Thus, according to this Christian narration, Jesus could not have been God.

RECENT SCHOLARLY DEVELOPMENTS

There has long been a great deal of debate among Christian theologians and scholars regarding the divinity of Jesus. This debate has intensified in recent years, and there seems to be an increasingly open concern over the truth of this doctrine. For example, the authors of THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (The Westminster Press, 1977, p. ix) concluded, as already quoted, that:

"Jesus was (as he is presented in Acts 2:21) `a man approved by God' for a special role within the divine purpose, and...the later conception of him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us."

Other Christian scholars have questioned not only the claims that Jesus is God, but even that he publicly proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. On October 17, 1987, the Associated Press released the following news release:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A group of biblical scholars known as the Jesus Seminar has decided that Jesus did not publicly proclaim himself the messiah.

The scholars say the belief that he did, held by many Christian denominations, was added to biblical texts by early church officials.

The group is meeting at Luther Northwestern Seminary in St. Paul this weekend as part of a five-year effort to reach a consensus on which sayings attributed to Jesus are historically accurate and which were added by others.

Individual scholarly efforts to determine the historical nature of the Gospels, and of Jesus himself, are not new. What is unusual about this group is its effort to reach voting consensus, after study and debate.

The group includes about 125 Roman Catholic, Protestant and non-Christian scholars.

Seminar leaders admit the findings are not to be taken as truth, but rather as a scholarly "theory of uncertainty." One example of the biblical phrases that the group claims are not authentic is in John 11:25, where Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will...never die."

In concluding that Jesus did not make such messianic claims, the group cites non-canonical and highly controversial sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical "Q document." (ARIZONA DAILY STAR, October 18, 1987)

Significantly, the Jesus Seminar leaders have admitted that their scholarly findings "are not to be taken as truth, but rather as a scholarly theory of uncertainty." In other words, even the leading scholars are still uncertain. One of the most important outcomes of the 1987 meeting of the Jesus Seminar the biblical statements in John 11:25-26 are "not authentic." This is relevant to this chapter, since many Christians have stretched the interpretation of these particular verses to mean that Jesus is God:

Jesus told her: "I am the resurrection and the life: Whoever believes in me, though he should die, will come to life; and whoever is alive and believes in me will never die." [John 11:25-26]

THE OPPOSING VIEW:

EXAMINATION OF VERSES

We have seen that there is significant scriptural evidence that Jesus was not God. On the other hand, there are numerous other verses understood by many Christians to mean that he was divine. The rest of this chapter examines those verses.

It is appropriate at this time to quote from Michael Goulder, Staff Tutor in Theology, Birmingham University. Goulder states in THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (Ibid., p. 48):

...In my early ministry I was still a trembling believer in Chalcedonian orthodoxy-Jesus was God the Son, of one substance with the Father, who came down from heaven. Trembling beliefs do not alter themselves: they are reinforced daily by the repetition of the liturgy. When I look back, I think that the firmest plank on which my creed rested was the familiar passage in John 1, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...." This was not alone, for there were similar statements in Col. 1 and Phil. 2, and hints of the same in many of the Pauline letters, and in Hebrews. Where had St. John got the doctrine from? Not from Jesus.

In these lines we see some of the Biblical references understood by many people to mean that Jesus is God. We also see in the same lines that Goulder found those roundabout statements do not bestow divinity upon Jesus.

Since Michael Goulder, at least for a period in his life, was a typical Christian, let us look at the biblical references that led him to believe that Jesus was God:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory: the glory of an only Son coming from the Father filled with enduring love. [John 1:14]

This verse makes a clear distinction between the Word and the Father. In no way does it argue for the divinity of Jesus. The Word comes from God, and thus reflects the glory of the Creator, much as our creations reflect our skills and talents. But the Word cannot logically be considered divine anymore than our handiwork is human.

The first verse of John is more misleading in this regard:

In the beginning was the Word; The Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God. [John 1:1]

An objective reading of this verse raises the question: "If the `Word' was `in God's presence,' how could it be God?" When something is in your presence, it has to be, by definition, separate from you.

The logical understanding is that the `Word' emanates from God, or represents God. When we obey the Word of God, we obey God.

This understanding is confirmed by the fact that throughout the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes that he did not speak on his own, that God told him what to say. This clearly indicates that Jesus delivered the Word of God, not that he was God. Here is an illustration from John:

Jesus proclaimed aloud: "Whoever puts faith in me believes not so much in me as in him who sent me; and whoever looks on me is seeing him who sent me. I have come into the world as its light, to keep anyone who believes in me from remaining in the dark. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I am not the one to condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words already has his judge, namely, the word I have spoken- it is that which will condemn him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own; no, the Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to speak. Since I know that his commandment means eternal life, whatever I say is spoken just as he instructed me." [ John 12:44-50]

A distinction is made here among the Word of God, Jesus and God. Perhaps that distinction can be expressed this way: Jesus brought to the world God's Word, and thus, whoever puts faith in that Word, puts faith in God. This distinction is reinforced by the following quotes, again from the Gospel of John:

I cannot do anything of myself. I judge as I hear, and my judgment is honest because I am not seeking my own will but the will of him who sent me. [John 5:30]

"My doctrine is not my own; it comes from him who sent me. Any man who chooses to do his will will know about this doctrine- namely, whether it comes from God or is simply spoken on my own. Whoever speaks on his own is bent on self-glorification. The man who seeks glory for him who sent him is truthful; there is no dishonesty in his heart." [John 7:16-18]

In John 8:40, Jesus describes himself as ";a man who has told you the truth which I have heard from God.&"; Thus again we see that Jesus delivered the Word of God.

A significant understanding, and one whose relevance cannot be ignored here, occurs in the Quran. The Quran calls Jesus a `Word' from God. Among Quranic scholars, the prevalent understanding of this description of Jesus is that Jesus was created inside Mary's womb as the result of a `word' from God, the word `Be.' Jesus was then formed inside Mary's womb, without the need of a human father:

The angels said, "O Mary, God sends to you good news: a word from Him to be called the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary. He will be prominent in this world and, in the Hereafter, he will be among those close to God." [Quran 3:45]

The creation of Jesus, as far as God is concerned, is the same as the creation of Adam; God created him from clay then said to him, "Be," and he was. [Quran 3:59]

COL. 1-PAUL'S TEACHING

Much of what we recognize today as the basic teachings of Christianity came to us through Paul. Remember that though Paul was the major missionary to the gentiles in the years immediately following the crucifixion, he never met Jesus. All of his understanding of Jesus and what he taught came secondhand and through the visions which he had.

Most of Paul's own teachings come to us through letters which he wrote to various Christian communities. His Epistle to the Colossians is an example. It was partly from this letter that Michael Goulder originally derived the idea of Jesus' divinity:

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creatures. In him everything in heaven and on earth was created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations, principalities or powers; all were created through him, and for him. He is before all else that is. In him everything continues in being. [Col.1:15-17]

This obviously is Paul's teaching, not that of the man who said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18).

In this passage, Paul was using an old Biblical formula to describe Jesus. Wisdom personified was similarly described in Solomon's Proverbs:

"The Lord begot me, the firstborn of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; From of old I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth." [Proverbs 8:22-23]

"Happy the man who obeys me, and happy those who keep my ways, happy the man watching daily at my gates, waiting at my doorposts; for he who finds me finds life, and wins favor from the Lord; but he who misses me harms himself; all who hate me love death." [Proverbs 8:33-36]

When we look carefully at Colossians 1:15-17 and Proverbs 8:22-23 and 8:33-36, we realize that we cannot draw the conclusion that Jesus and Wisdom personified are both God. Rather, both instruct us in the means of reaching God, and thus are God's agents, not God. To paraphrase the authors of THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, these descriptions are a mythological or poetic way of expressing the significance of Jesus and Wisdom for us.

The opening statements of Colossians make a clear distinction between God and Jesus:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the holy ones at Colossae, faithful brothers in Christ. May God our Father give you grace and peace. [Col. 1:1-2]

PHILIPPIANS 2

Another biblical statement mentioned by Golder and used by many to convey divinity upon Jesus is in Philippians 2. This is one of the epistles of uncertain origin. Many scholars do not accept it as being written by Paul at all. A comparison of the King James version and the broader based NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, reveals a dramatic difference in the meanings given this statement. Here is the King James version:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. [Phil. 2:5-7]

Upon reading these straightforward verses, who can blame a believer in the scripture for believing that God was incarnated into a human being? Here we see that Jesus was "in the form of God," that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God," and that "he took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." No wonder this rendering is frequently quoted with confidence by those who believe in the divinity of Jesus.

However, when we study the original material, a totally different picture emerges. Let us look at the same verses, translated directly from the oldest available texts by the translators of the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, rather than revised from earlier translations, as is the case in the King James version:

Your attitude must be that of Christ: Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. He was known to be of human estate. [Phil. 2:5-7]

Contrary to the King James' assertion that Jesus' equality with God was acceptable to Jesus, the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE translation conveys the exact opposite; Jesus deemed it unthinkable. The same problem is observed in the King James translation that Jesus "made himself of no reputation" and "was made in the likeness of men." This is vastly different from Jesus "being born in the likeness of men. He was known to be of human estate."

Ironically, only two verses later, a clear distinction is made between God the Supreme Being, and Jesus as one who was exalted by God. Obviously, God would have no need to exalt Himself. Jesus the man was exalted by God. The complete biblical context clearly negates the idea that Jesus was God.

1 TIMOTHY 3:16

Another of the major verses used to support the concept that Jesus is divine is Verse 3:16 of 1 Timothy. However, there is now a developing conviction that this particular verse was an innovation written to conform to the principles of the Nicene Conference. Many scholars question the authenticity of all of 1 Timothy, pointing to strong evidence that Paul wrote only three epistles: Romans, Corinthians and Galatians.

In any case, examination of two different translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 shows how easily the translator's understanding of a verse can overshadow the original wording. The verse in the King James version reads as follows:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. [1 Timothy 3:16] King James version

Now let us look at this verse in the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, which you will remember is a much more recent translation, able to use a wider range of documents than were available at the time of the King James translation. This translation clearly refers to Jesus, but does not say he is God: Wonderful, indeed, is the mystery of our faith, as we say in professing it: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit; Seen by the angels; preached among the Gentiles, Believed in throughout the world, taken up into glory." [1 Timothy 3:16] New American Bible

WORD OF GOD

It seems that the representation of God by His word, as explained earlier, has contributed to occasional confusion. Nevertheless, the idea that the `Word' of God represents God is common to the three scriptures: the Torah, the New Testament and the Quran:

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and I will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. [Deut. 18:18-19]

This idea that Jesus did not speak on his own is repeated throughout the Gospels, as quoted earlier. See, for example, John 7:16-18 and 12:44-50.

In the Quran, the same principle is set forth:

Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God. [Quran 4:80]

Deuteronomy 18:15, and 18-19 (quoted above) indicate that the messenger of God does not speak on his own. Thus, the message delivered by God's messenger and contained in the scripture, stands for the messenger, and represents God ("If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it " [Deut. 18:19]).

In his book, the translated title of which is THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS SECTARIANISM (The Message Publishers, 1985, p. 23), Dr. Ahmed Mansour, Professor of Islamic History at the famous Azhar University in Cairo, states:

...since the messenger, be he Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, is dead, the commandment `to obey the messenger' must be referring to the message itself. He also notes that the scriptures consistently order us to "obey the messenger," and not to obey Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad by name.

This same idea has been expressed by other scholars on the basis of the Quran 11:1-2 and 65:10-11, where the scripture is specifically called "the messenger."

(This is) a scripture whose verses have been perfectly designed then elucidated. It comes from the most wise, the most knowledgeable. Proclaiming: "You shall not worship except God. I come to you from Him, as a preacher and a bearer of good news." [Quran 11:1-2]

...God has sent down to you the scripture, a messenger reciting for you God's profound revelations.... [Quran 65:10-11]

JOHN 14

This principle of representing God by His Word is clearly demonstrated in John 14:6-11. It appears that the problem of the deification of Jesus arose from the same kind of misunderstanding of this passage as we witnessed earlier with John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17 and Philippians 2:5-7.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father also. `From this point on you know him.... Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not spoken of myself; it is the Father who lives in me accomplishing his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works I do." [John 14:6-11]

John 14:20 sheds more light on the idea of God being represented by His words, and shows that "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" does not mean that Jesus is the same as God:

"On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." [John 14:20]

Obviously, Jesus' disciples do not become Jesus, nor are they made divine when Jesus tells them: "I am in the Father, and you in me, and I in you." Similarly, Jesus' statement that "To hate me is to hate my Father" (John 15:23) does not mean that Jesus and God are one and the same. Rather it indicates a hatred of the Father's teachings that Jesus delivered.

Thus far it is clear that the references from the New Testament we have examined, which are understood by many to confer divinity upon Jesus, are indirect and misleading. Meanwhile, the direct expression: "Jesus is God" is never found.

ISAIAH 9

Interestingly, it is in the Old Testament where we find the most critical verse for searching Christians-Isaiah 9:6. The translation of this particular verse is the most misleading of all. In the King James version, it reads:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. [Isaiah 9:6] King James version

Let's look at this same verse as translated by the Jewish Publication Society of America in its THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: According To The Masoretic Text (Philadelphia, 1917):

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; (That is: Wonderful in council is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.) [Isaiah 9:5] Torah

To be named "Wonderful in council is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace&"; is not to be God, but to be named with a name which glorifies God. The names "John," meaning "God is good," and "Joshua," meaning "God is salvation," are similar.

Note that the original Hebrew is used to ensure and emphasize the accuracy of transmittal. Also note that the verse number is five, rather than the number six of the King James translation.

The verse number five is also retained in the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE translation, along with a much more accurate rendition of the Hebrew/Aramaic of the original:

For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him wonder-counselor, God-hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. [Isaiah 9:5] New American Bible

Though this translation is not as straightforward as the Jewish rendering of the same verse, the difference between this translation and the King James version is doctrine-shaking. The difference between the phrases "the mighty God," and "God-hero" is obvious and profound. There are people today who can be considered God-heros, doing great work in the cause of God.

REVELATION 1:8

Going back to the New Testament, we see a similar pattern of misunderstanding and mistranslation in another verse often quoted to show that Jesus was God. First, the King James version:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Revelation 1:8]

Second, THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE version:

The Lord God says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty!" [Revelation 1:8]

Note that the King James version omits the critical first line: "The Lord God says..." The omission gives the impression that it is Jesus who is speaking, rather than God. This impression is strengthened by the fact that "I am the Alpha and the Omega" is repeated some verses later within the context of a mysterious and totally ambiguous story. Here the source of these words is not identified as Jesus, but as "One like a Son of Man."

Whether leaving out the crucial first line was intentional or not in the King James version, there is no doubt that its absence creates a false reading of the verse.

JOHN 8:58

There is one last verse we should examine. It also is misunderstood by many who believe that it shows Jesus was divine:

Jesus answered them: "I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM." [John 8:58]

Extracting divinity for Jesus from this verse is stretching it far beyond its context. First of all, a complete reading of the entire passage leaves a very different impression:

Jesus answered: "If I glorify myself, that glory comes to nothing. He who gives me glory is the Father, the very one you claim for your God, even though you do not know him. But I know him. Were I to say I do not know him, I would be no better than you-a liar! Yes, I know him well, and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day. He saw it and was glad." At this the Jews objected: "You are not yet fifty! How can you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered them: "I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM." [John 8:54-58]

A very clear distinction is made in this passage between Jesus and God. Also, the idea of Jesus' pre-existence is not at all unique in the Bible and does not prove his divinity. For example, we see the pre-existence of Jeremiah in the Old Testament:

The word of the Lord came to me thus: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you. [Jer. 1:4-5]

Personified Wisdom's pre-existence, in the same manner as Jesus, is reported in Proverbs:

"The Lord begot me, the firstborn of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; From of old I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains or springs of water; Before the mountains were settled into place, before the hills, I was brought forth; While as yet the earth and the fields were not made, nor the first clods of the world." [Proverbs 8:22-26]

As an interesting note, Jesus, Solomon and Jeremiah are recognized in the Quran as prophets and messengers of God. Furthermore, the Quran states that God made a special covenant with all His messengers before the creation of the heaven and the earth (Quran 3:81).

In fact, according to the Quran, the entire human race predated the heaven and the earth:

Recall that your Lord gathered all the descendants of Adam (before creation), and had them bear witness for themselves, saying: "Am I not your only Lord?" They all said, "Yes indeed,we thus bear witness." [Quran 7:172]

EXAMINATION OF THE TITLE `LORD'

Finally, we need to look at the title `Lord' as used to refer to Jesus. This word has sometimes been chosen as the translation instead of `Master' or `Rabbi.' In English it has a much more elevated meaning and, when referring to Jesus, it is understood by many readers to imply his divinity. Jesus' own understanding of this title is illustrated in the following verses from Matthew. Note that the Jews were expecting the Messiah (literally `the anointed one') to come from the family of David:

In turn Jesus put a question to the assembled Pharisees, "What is your opinion about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" "David's," they answered He said to them, "Then how is it that David under the Spirit's influence calls him `lord,' as he does: `The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, until I humble your enemies beneath your feet'?" [Matthew 22:41-44] New American Bible

Here we see a clear distinction between the Lord God who supports His Messiah, humbling his enemies and keeping him in His protection (at His right hand), and that same Messiah as a `lord' or master/rabbi.

The irony of the above scriptural quote has been masked by the translation rendered as `lord', which might also be translated as `father'. The latter translation then becomes:

..."Whose son is he?" "David's," they answered. He said to them, "Then how is it that David...calls him `father,' as he does: `The Father said to my father....'" [Matthew 22:42-44] Modified New American Bible

In the Middle East, the traditional title for the father, the head of the household or the leader is `rabb' or `lord.' This is true in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. It does not necessarily imply divinity.

CONCLUSION

Jesus followed the Mosaic law and did not claim divinity. According to the Bible, He was not omniscient nor omnipotent.

We have examined a large number of scriptural references which are often used to support the divinity of Jesus. As we have seen, there are factors in all of them which negate that conclusion, or make it very questionable. Given the fact that nowhere in the Bible do we see a direct identification of Jesus as God, and that Jesus strongly upheld all the commandments and emphasized the First Commandment, we can only conclude that the doctrine of Jesus' divinity has no foundation in the scripture nor in the life and teachings of Jesus. This concept is an innovation in Christian doctrine.

This may be a painful and radical conclusion for many. Painful because it is new and runs contrary to what we have always been taught. Radical only if we are not familiar with the historical development of the doctrine of Christ's divinity.

Chapter Five

WAS HE THE SON?

All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. [Romans 8:14]

Jesus was the son. But whose son? He has been called the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Son of Mary, and the Son of David. Whose son was he? And what does that mean for us?

SON OF MAN

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus almost always calls himself the `Son of Man.' It is the most frequently used title for him. In all cases but one it is used by Jesus to describe himself. Since he was born of a virgin, without any contribution from a man, this name which he used for himself, stresses his human nature. It stresses the fact that he was of human descent, not a descendant of God. If this were not true, the term `Son of Woman' would have been much more appropriate.

Vincent Taylor points out that in Jewish scripture and tradition the term `son of man' was used as a synonym for `man' (THE NAMES OF JESUS, St. Martin's Press, 1953, pp. 325, 330). The Psalms illustrate this:

What is man, that you should be mindful of him, or the son of man that you should care for him? [Psalm 8:5]

May your help be with the man of your right hand, with the son of man whom you yourself made strong. [Psalm 80:18]

But what about all the references Jesus makes to God as his `Father'? Do they not indicate that he was God's son? Yes, but not in the way most Christians understand. Remember, since God gave us life, we are all His children in that sense. This fact is clearly stated in the Old Testament.

OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES TO GOD'S `FATHERHOOD'About five centuries before Jesus was born, the writer of the Old Testament book of Malachi spoke of God's `Fatherhood' to mankind:

Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers? [Malachi 2:10]

Jesus' reference to God as his father was part of the idiom of his day, as it had been for those who came before him. An earlier Jesus wrote the Old Testament book of Sirach. The book of Sirach is not accepted by Protestants, but the Catholic Church has always accepted it as an inspired part of the canon. This earlier Jesus, son of Eleazar, also addressed God as `Father':

Who will set a guard over my mouth, and upon my lips an effective seal, That I may not fail through them, that my tongue may not destroy me? Lord, Father and Master of my life, permit me not to fall by them! [Sirach 22:27-23:1]

I called out: O Lord, you are my father, you are my champion and my savior.... [Sirach 51:10]

This practice of calling God `Father' is also shown by the way that Jesus taught his disciples to pray:

Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name... [Matthew 6:9] [Luke 11:2]

JESUS NOT THE ONLY ONE CALLED `SON'

This allegorical expression is used often in the Bible. Many are called sons of God-individuals as well as groups of people, like the Children of Israel:

"So you shall say to the Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: Israel is my son, my first born. Hence I tell you: Let my son go, that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, I warn you, I will kill your son, your first-born." [Exodus 4:22-23]

These verses demonstrate for us what being God's son means. Obviously God was not saying that the Children of Israel were literally his first born son. Rather, the phrase indicates that God loved the nation of Israel as if they were a first born son.

The Psalms refer to the expected Messiah as the son of God. They also call the angels the sons of God:

"He shall say of me, `You are my father, my God, the rock, my savior.' And I will make him the first-born, highest of the kings of the earth." [Psalm 89:27-28]

For who in the skies can rank with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the sons of God? [Psalm 89:7]

So far we have seen verses which refer to the Children of Israel, the expected Messiah and the angels as God's sons. This in itself makes it clear that sonship in the Bible has a different meaning from what we normally understand.

All of the examples we have looked at so far come from the Old Testament. What about in the New Testament? In the New Testament, Adam is called God's son.

Luke's genealogy of Jesus ends with Adam, whom Luke says is the "son of God:"

When Jesus began his work he was about thirty years of age, being-so it was supposed-the son of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi ...son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God. [Luke 3:23-38]

Clearly, if Adam was the son of God, then Jesus could not have been His only son.

Luke was Paul's companion, so it is not surprising that Paul also makes the point that Jesus was not God's only son:

All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. You did not receive a spirit of slavery leading you back into fear, but a spirit of adoption through which we cry out, "Abba!" (that is, "Father"). The Spirit himself gives witness with our spirit that we are children of God. But if we are children,we are heirs as well: heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so as to be glorified with him. I consider the sufferings of the present to be as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed in us. Indeed, the whole created world eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. Creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but by him who once subjected it; yet not without hope, because the world itself will be freed from its slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. [Romans 8:14-21]

Jesus was not the only son of God. The phrase itself means something other than what we understand in ordinary usage. What does it mean?

MEANING OF SONSHIP

Jesus and his followers obviously had a very different concept of what the title `Son of God' meant from the understanding which the Greeks had. In THE NAMES OF JESUS (Ibid, p. 54), Taylor gives us a good idea of what those opposing concepts were:

The significance of the phrase in Jewish thought is reasonably clear; it does not describe a divine being, but characterizes groups of individuals who stand in a particularly close religious relationship with God...

Stran