The Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus was an Addition to Christianity c. 80-100 C.E.

Now, for this round, we will be going over two other vital points in the argument for or against Jesus' divinity. I will be arguing the following: C) Divinity is incompatible with Judaism in the first century or today D) The New Testament, primarily, does not proclaim the divinity of Jesus We will begin with C, arguing that the Second Temple YHWH cult does not allow for Jesus' divinity. For this, I will use three arguments: C) Divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism in the first century or today 1) The Shema and other passages on Unity 2) Verbal forms and personal pronouns 3) The impossibility of a virgin-born Messiah1) The Shema and Other Passages on Unity The Shema is the most important creed in Judaism. It is the foundation of Jewish thought and is quoted in Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Here is a translation of verse 4 (personal translation): "Listen, Yisral! Adonai, our God, Adonai is one. " Now, that Hebrew word for one is pronounced "ehad"(1) and spelled אֶחָד. It's not just a statement that there's one God. That doesn't even make sense as a translation. Adonai is a euphemism for the name Yahweh. Of course there is only one being named YHWH! That's kind of dumb to say otherwise. YHWH was only worshipped by the Hebrews, and He was only god by that name. Instead, ehad is being used as a unifying singular term. It certainly does not mean a cut up individual with different parts, like having a son and a father and a spirit. YHWH is one. 2) Verbal forms and personal pronouns Now, here's something interesting that should drive home the point of God being one. .. how He is addressed? Is He addressed as a unit? Or as a singular. As it turns out, YHWH is always referred to in the singular person both in verb and pronoun. He, as an individual, performs actions. Now, I know that many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists point to Genesis 1 where Elohim says things like "Let us make man in Our image" as evidence otherwise. So let me address this and show how it actually is evidence for the unity of God. First, the word בָּרָא is used in the word "create. " That word is a Third Masculine Singular Qal Perfect. (2) You don't really need to know any of what that means except singular. Even when God creates and says "let us," God creates using a singular, instead of plural, verb. This could indicate God was speaking to a divine realm of beings, angels perhaps, but not to Himself. And God, as a solo, independent being, performed creation. I hope this sums it up: the Old Testament says God is a singular, complete being. This is the foundation of the Second Temple Judaism that Jesus was born into. A second, separated portion of Divinity is simply not compatible with God as depicted in the Old Testament. 3) Something many fundamentalists do not realize is that Jesus could not have been born of a virgin and the Messiah. Jeremiah 23:5 and 33:15 make it clear that Jesus comes from the line of David. Not only could Jesus not have been God, He could not have been the Messiah. .. if He was born of a virgin. Why? Because the genealogies passed down relate Joseph's lineage. .. but he was not Jesus' father. .. so Jesus was not truly of the seed of David. (It's notable that there was no prophecy of a virgin born Messiah) So you have to pick. Virgin birth? Or Messiah? Either way. .. you lose. D) The New Testament, primarily, does not proclaim the divinity of Jesus Now, obviously Johannine literature portrays Jesus as God, but what about the rest of the New Testament? In the Synoptics, Acts, and Hebrews. I will address the claims made of Jesus and what they are saying. We will readdress Pauline theology and Petrine literature in the rebuttals. Matthew- Jesus as Messiah Matthew is filled with prophecies about being the Messiah. .. most of which are bunk. For instance, Matthew 2:23 claims the Messiah was claimed to be called from Nazareth, but there is no prophet in the Hebrew Old Testament that says so. This is important as we roll ahead. Who was the Messiah supposed to be? Was he supposed to be God? Well, first it's important to point out that there is no passage in the Old Testament where the Messiah is claimed to be the incarnation of God. On the contrary, he is a very human being. Well, according to Jeremiah 23 he is supposed to be a King that is directly of the line of David. Isaiah 11:1-5 describes the Messiah as very human. .. so human, in fact, that the spirit of the Lord was not with the Messiah until God gives him the spirit. "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. " So wait, Jesus did not have might, knowledge, fear of YHWH, wisdom, or understanding? He needed God to give it to Him? Odd if you are God. In Matthew, where Jesus is most shown as the Messiah. .. he is obviously not God. In fact, to be the Messiah, He had to not be God. Mark - The Son of Man The Son of Man was a mysterious apocalyptic figure for the Jews. He comes out of the Book of Daniel and was sometimes thought to be the Messiah. .. but he too, was not God. Now, the "Son of Man" is not a title for this person. He is like a son of a man. Daniel is called this same title in Daniel 8:17. Here's the Daniel 7:13-14 passage “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. " In fact, the Son of Man cannot be God. First, God is already addressed here. He is "The Ancient of Days. " The Ancient of Days is not equated with the one like the son of a man. In fact, question here, again, why does God have to give God glory and dominion? How is this man-being God. .. without glory? If he is God, then why did God have to give God glory and dominion? As a final hitter that the son of man described is not human, let's look at Numbers 23:19 and Psalm 8:4 "God is not man, that he should lie, or son of man, that he should change his mind. " "When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? " This is the same term used to describe the figure of Daniel 7. God is not the son of man. Why? Because man is so far below God. By calling the Daniel 7 figure a "son of man," Daniel is negating any possible Divinity. Therefore, Mark is also negating Divinity Gospel of Luke and Acts - Adoptionism and the Son of God In the Gospel of Luke and Acts, which are essentially one work, the author has a very specific Christology: Adoptionism. Now, Adoptionism was the idea that Jesus was not always a divine figure, but was "adopted" by God and given rights like God's son. He was "exalted" above who He was before by God. .. but not God. (3)But first, what does "Son of God mean? " Son of God was not a term of divinity. Lots of people were called the son of God in the Old Testament. Israel is the "Son of God" Hosea 11:1"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. "David is called the "Son of God" and God is called his father Psalm 89:26-27 "He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation. And I will make him (David) the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. "Any righteous man is called the "son of God" Wisdom 2:18 "For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes" This term was more of a special standing with God, an honor. It is not a term of divinity. But, what of Adoptionism? Is Jesus claimed to be the pre-existent Son of God in this book? A logos of kinds? Far from it. Here's a few quotes from Luke-Acts where it is clear that Jesus was "adopted" as God's son. Acts has far more adoptionist theology than Luke. The reason is that Luke is much more of an action based narrative, while Acts is made up of several long speeches explaining what Jesus' life meant. Luke 3:23 as testified by the Codex Bezae and the Ebionites " and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you. ”Acts 2:36" Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. ” Jesus was MADE Lord. He was not eternally Lord. Acts 3:13" the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus,Acts 4:17" for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed" Acts 10:38" how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. " Wait. .. so God was WITH Jesus? Jesus was not God. God GAVE Jesus power and He was only capable of miracles because God was with Him? Hebrews - Much like Luke Hebrews 1:5 contains adoptionist theology from Luke. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son,today I have begotten you”? ConclusionI hope I have made it fairly clear: a God-man is impossible in Jewish theology and the NT primarily does not show Jesus as God incarnate. Thank you. Sources:1). http://biblehub.com...2)http://biblehub.com...3)http://www.britannica.com...