Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:07:07 EDT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

John Emery suggests that:
                         God=good   (1)
                         Jesus=good (2)
Therefore, Jesus=God.            ...(3)
A good mathematical(?) logic. Bravo, John. Now, if we are to agree
with this logic, then explain to me, how the Triune gods in Trinity
still mean  monotheism? As per Athanasian creed of co-equality -
                     Father (in heaven) = 1 God
                     Son of God (Jesus) = 1 god
                     Holy Ghost         = 1 god
                    ----------------------------
                    1 God in monotheism = 3 gods (Trinity)   .... (4)

Mathematically, this equation, is absurd. If we were to agree with your
previous logic as in (3), shouldn't we also agree with the outcome of
equation (4), which suggests that Trinity means polytheism and not
monotheism?

Let's get serious. John mentions that Jesus was continually doing good.
Let me cite from John's gospel (which John Emery likes to use more often
than other gospels to defend Trinity), 2nd chapter:
"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him (Jesus),
they have no wine."
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

Is that a way to address one's mother? How could Jesus have forgotten
that this "Woman" had carried him for more than 9 months and perhaps
suckled him for two years, and had borne endless insults and injuries
on account of his 'miraculous' birth? Is there no term for mother in
his language?  All these, of course, if one has to accept John's gospel-
account of Jesus's supposed life and teachings.

This verse alone shows that Jesus was not 100% good. He violates the
very Mosaic commandment of respecting his mother (cf. Exodus 20:12).
He even insults the elders of his race by uttering -
"Ye hypocrites"
"Ye wicked and adulterous generation"
"Ye whited sepulchres"
"Ye generations of vipers".

To an old Canaanite woman, who asked for help in casting the devil out
of her daughter, Jesus even demeans her status as a human being
(by calling her nation as 'dogs'), (Matt. 15:26). Again, if one were to
accept the truth of his life account, as narrated by the gospel writers.

These few verses alone would show that Jesus was not 100% good. AS such,
according John's own logic, Jesus cannot be equal to God. (QED)

Now, if Jesus was not perfect (as I have shown above, borrowing verses
from the Gospel writers' accounts), how could the sacrifice (?) of this
'incarnation' of God on the cross, redeem all the sinners (?), since
we are continuously reminded by gospel-thumping Christians that God
needed a perfect (100%) man = son of God, to atone our supposed sin
that we inherited (?) through Adam? If Jesus did not die on the cross
as a 100% perfect God-man, then surely our supposed sins are also not
paid for by this sacrificial *lamb of God*. How come the concept of
original sin was never taught to Jews for thousands of years, until
it was invented by the NT writers, the Pauline/Hellenistic christians?

Is it not strange that an infinite is required for this ritual of
sacrifice but the Infinite is not actually sacrificed?

If the Triune gods *always* lived and co-existed with equal majesty,
was there a period when one of them was missing, and that there
were only two (Father and Holy Ghost)? If the answer is no, then
the myth of son of God dying on the cross is nothing more than a
bizzare story invented by Pauline christianity. If the answer is,
Yes, then the thesis of Trinity is false.

            - Siddiqui.

- (For those who are interested, please, read the books:
  1. A concise reply to Christianity by Gary Miller, Ordinary Press (1983).
  2. The Myth of the Cross by A. W. Azizolla.)