Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:19:06 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In response to Sam Wiggins's assertion that Jesus claimed to be God:

There is not a single verse in the so-called canonical gospels where
Jesus explicitly stated that he is God or a God-incarnate. Your assertion
can only be accepted if one extrapolates the meanings of certain verses,
which are too subtle. Those verses are open to interpretation. Trinitarians
like to interpret them to prove the divinity of Jesus, others reject it.

The most serious problem as to what Jesus really said or did not say arises
from the very fact that the New Testament books are nothing more than
pseudopigraphical books. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E,
the books or writings of the original disciples, who were based around the
Jerusalem Mother Church and were interested in propagating the teachings
of Jesus among the Jews only, were lost or destroyed. What survived was the
teachings of Paul, a self-appointed disciple who wanted to spread his version
of christianity among the goyims. Since with the persecution of the original
disciples nothing was left to propagate their version of christianity which
they learned firsthand from their teacher, Jesus, it fell on the new coverts
to preach the Pauline version of christianity, with which they became familiar.
When the so-called canonical gospels were written (all after the failed Revolt
of 66-70 C.E.) by people (not by the people to whom they are now ascribed)
they made sure that the Pauline version is kept intact. It is possible that
some of the accounts might have been passed on by original disciples like Matt-
hew and John, but we cannot pinpoint such verses with any degree of confidence.
Additions, deletions and copying errors between the entire period (from the
fall of the Temple in 70 c.e to mid-4th century when the gospels were
canonized) resulted in a collection of books, which now form the New Testament.
As a result of this corruption in the hands of scribes of Pauline christianity
we simply don't have any clear cut idea as to what Jesus had said and what
he did not say. We also find that these pseudopigraphic books don't always
agree with each other on several accounts, e.g., genealogy of Jesus (Christians
try to discount this anomaly by suggesting that one is based on Mary and
the other based on Joseph the Carpenter. But the NT does not say that. It says
that it is for Joseph, whose father in one is mentioned as Jacob, and in the
other as Heli.), the names of the twelve original disciples (compare Mark
with Luke's listing. Don't equate Thaddeus with Judas.), the crucifixion
account, what happened later to Judas Iscariot (compare Matt. 27:1-5 with
Acts 1:18-19), and many others. This brings us to question the authenticity
of the accounts regarding the portrayal of Jesus, what he taught and what
he claimed. If the writers (as is commonly understood by believing christians)
were all divinely inspired (by Holy Ghost) why these disagreements between
the various books of the NT? The conclusion is quite obvious that the present
form of the NT is NOT divinely inspired, and as such, it is possible that
Jesus, the son of Mary, was nothing more than a prophet, the likes of whom
had passed by before him, and that he never claimed Godhood.

-
Siddiqui.