“Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian god Mithras?called the son of god and the light of the world?was born on December 25, died, was buried in rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days.? (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code p.232)
Did Christianity borrow the story?
45 Comments
Feed for this entry
Trackback Address
March 24th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Leah,
I don’t know if Jesus’ history is similar to others’, but I know some people who might. We can send this blog around and I bet we get some good insights and info. I found the book thought-provoking. It is good to get a challenge sometimes that forces us to re-confirm our faith. I also found it very sad…some of the conceptions held by the characters. I bet the Lord does too.
Laurie
March 24th, 2006 at 9:43 am
I agree this movie will definately sharpen and strengthen everyone in their faith so that they can confidently defend their faith and point of view. I know that God is not surprised by Dan Brown’s book and the concepts in the book and I am certain that he will use it for his glory.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am
I wonder if this is another thing that Dan Brown made up? Making up a god that died and was resurrected?
As far as I know, Jesus death and resurrection is the only one that affected all of history…after all, today is Friday, March 24, 2006 AD…anno domini, in the year of our Lord.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
In pointing to the similarities between Mithraism, a religion adopted from the Persians, and Christianity, Brown has fallen into the trap of assuming that similarity implies common origins. Mithraism got its start in the 2nd century BC and died out around the 5th century AD. There may be a connection but surface similarities, even remarkable similarities, do not prove anything.
Similarities between Mithraism and Christianity:
* Mithras was born of a virgin.
* Mithras remained celibate. (This is interesting since the foundation of The Da Vinci Code is that Jesus got married and fathered children.
* They held Sundays sacred.
* They used bread and wine in their worship.
* They called each other brother and their religious leaders Pater (father). These leaders carried a staff and wore a special hat and ring.
* Deity’s birthday is celebrated on 25 Dec. (Christianity actually took this from the Romans who took it from Mithraism.)
There may be some similarities between Mithraism and Christianity, but there are also differences:
* Its followers, for example, practiced a form of astrology borrowed from the Mesopotamia.
* According to Brown Mithraism referred to their deity as the son of god. This is incorrect, they called him the sun god, something quite different.
* Although they used bread and wine in their worship, there is no indication that I could find that they believed that the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Mithras. During the time that Mithraism and Christianity co-existed, all Christians held that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus.
* Mithraism does not have a triune deity.
Brown also claims that Mithras was buried in a rock tomb and rose from the dead three days later. I could not find any independent verification of these claims.
What conclusion can we draw from all of this? It seems to me that, if Christianity did set out to copy Mithraism, there would have been a lot more similarities and a lot fewer differences. We certainly would not have had a triune God.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
The argument that there is an older religion that Christianity borrowed from is no argument against the divinity of Christ. Man can not prove or disprove this to any other. The proof is in the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is He who leades us in to all Truth. With out God’s Spirit bearing witness in us there is no knollege of God. Then all our humanity can see is foolishness.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:58 am
The early founders of Christianity and writers about Christ did not borrow only from Mithraism. They incorporated much more from other sources so long as they fitted in with the Old Testament prophecies, for example, most of the sermon on the mount can be found in ancient Egypt written in temple hyroglyphics.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
All of the miracles of Jesus Christ, His raising from the dead, which was seen by more than 500 people, His divine claims, which He backed up, and many watched as He ascended into heaven. These are not borrowed. To incinuate that Christianity is some cut and paste religion is simply ignoring the facts.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the world.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
>> most of the sermon on the mount can be found in ancient Egypt written in temple hyroglyphics.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Part of my post got dropped. Apparently you can’t leave a blank space.
.
Kwesi, I’d really appreciate a source on your comment that the text of the Sermon on the Mount appears in hieroglyphics in Egypt. I’ve never heard such a thing. What was the date on the texts? Are they similar or exact quotes? There are similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hamurabi but that doesn’t mean that one was copied from the other.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
All I can say is that Dan Brown was writing a novel, we can’t take everything he’s putting across and saying in it as a belief of his.
His intention wasn’t to let people know about Jesus’ life, Christianity etc. His intention was to write a good story for people to read. Maybe he used religion and such to gain an audience?
Why do many complain only about Dan Browns book and what he has said? How about Holy Blood Grail? Its basically the same thing…. isn’t it?
March 30th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I haven’t read Holy Blood Grail so I can’t comment on it but I know that it’s not being made into a movie and therefore won’t have the exposure as The Da Vinic Code.
March 30th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Yes, a Jesus Christ did exist. There’s no questioning that. However, we must understand that Christianity was founded about 300 years after his passage. A lot of the Christianity as we know it today has had extreme influence from the Syrian regions and the Mithrais belief system aswell.
How reliable are the accounts of Jesus written from second and third person view? This is the problem.
Do not let this book cuase your flames of faith to weaver. Jesus was real, and he taught compassion and love. This is the foundation. However from accounts of Jesus, it is hard to tell as to what is real and what is not.
Jesus didn’t decend to form a new religion. But to correct those who had gone astray from the most important truths. A lot of reference exists telling us that Peter, after Jesus’ passing, spent a lot of time in the Synagogue. This either tells us that Peter lost faith in Jesus after his passing OR there really was no new religion established..but instead a more insightful and powerful thinking!
God Bless!
MohanKrishna
March 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
People can be depended on to have speculations and to beleive in the very thing that makes the lease amount of sense. Jesus was born of the flesh and lived in the flesh and I believe that he lived a manly life in order to show men how to live.
March 30th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Mohan-Krishna,
I have to say I don’t personally agree with your logic. I wouldn’t come to your two conclusions of why Peter went to the Synagogue. Also, I believe that Jesus was not just a good man or a prophet, I believe that Jesus is the Son of Man sent to this world for the forgiveness of my sins. Not only does history confirm my beliefs but I have experience the love of God in a very personal way. So much so that I can without a doubt claim that Jesus is God. You can check out http://www.jesusanddavinci.com it has some great articles that gives some historical evidence on this topic.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:44 am
Dear Leah,
I hope I wasn’t misunderstood. Yes Jesus wasn’t just a man - I agree, he WAS divine. However he wasn’t God either. He never claims to be God. Any such claim by anyone is simple misunderstanding.
I’m not trying to make you loose faith in Jesus by anymeans! In fact I encourage you to believe in him. However, you must understand that Jesus never wrote down his teachings. It was written by some others, not endowed with divine power. Hence the chinese-whisper effect.
What can you tell me about Peter then?
MohanKrishna
March 31st, 2006 at 5:10 am
MohanKrishna,
Just curious…you say Jesus is not God but encourage Leah to believe in Him anyway.
What is it that you’re encouraging Leah to believe?
March 31st, 2006 at 8:38 am
MohanKrishna,
Peter could have been in the Synagogue to pray, there is more options than what you suggest.
Also, in no way can a comment on a blog make me loose my faith in God. I am simply replying to your comment.
Even though Jesus didn’t write in the bible but many of the disciples did write about Jesus and this is what they said about Jesus:
“Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.”(Matthew 27:11) I may note that the Jews would not have wanted to stone Jesus for claiming He was the Son of God, since they all claimed that, but they did want to stone Him, because He claimed to *be* God
“I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
“Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” Matthew 14:33
Mohanakrishna, just wondering how you came to your conclusion about Jesus not being God?
March 31st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Leah,
I have read all blogs on this comment and in no way does MohanKrishna try to make you lose faith in God.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Sarah, I agree with you and he hasn’t .My faith is not shaken at all, in fact, my faith is more solid then ever before. I am simply replying to what Mohankrishna said, “I?m not trying to make you loose faith in Jesus by anymeans!” and I responded by assuring him that he hasn’t :-)
April 1st, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Mohan-Krishna wrote >> we must understand that Christianity was founded about 300 years after his passage. A lot of the Christianity as we know it today has had extreme influence from the Syrian regions and the Mithrais belief system aswell. > A lot of reference exists telling us that Peter, after Jesus? passing, spent a lot of time in the Synagogue. This either tells us that Peter lost faith in Jesus after his passing OR there really was no new religion established..but instead a more insightful and powerful thinking! > Yes Jesus wasn?t just a man - I agree, he WAS divine. However he wasn?t God either. He never claims to be God. Any such claim by anyone is simple misunderstanding.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Mohan-Krishna wrote >> we must understand that Christianity was founded about 300 years after his passage. A lot of the Christianity as we know it today has had extreme influence from the Syrian regions and the Mithrais belief system aswell.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Mohan-Krishna wrote: we must understand that Christianity was founded about 300 years after his passage. A lot of the Christianity as we know it today has had extreme influence from the Syrian regions and the Mithrais belief system aswell.
.
This idea is, of course, what Brown claims and he is neither the first nor will he be the last to do so. It always amazes me when someone makes this claim and does not see the necessity to offer any proof. Personally, I don’t see how anyone can seriously make this claim. You have evidently never taken the time to examine any of the ante-Nicaean writings of the Church Fathers. Although there are some differences in practice, all of the essential doctrines of Christianity are laid out well before Constantine was born. I suggest you get a copy of the Didache, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, The Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. All of these were written in the period between 75 and 125 AD and you will find not only that early Christians not only believed in the deity of Jesus but the rest of the major truths as well.
.
Although the decision as to which books were to be included in the Bible was not made until the end of the fourth century, all of the books that were eventually included in the biblical canon were written by the end of the first century. Fragments of these writings which pre-date Constantine show that the text of Scripture has not changed except for portions of Mark 16 and John 8 which may have been added but the evidence for this is inconclusive. Even if these passages were added, they do not change anything about Christianity and were added well before the birth of Constantine.
.
You have also made a very common logical error in your statement: you have assumed that similarity implies common origin. I won’t go into this in great detail because I addressed the issues of the similarities and differences between Christianity and Mithraism elsewhere on this forum.
.
Mohan-Krishna wrote: A lot of reference exists telling us that Peter, after Jesus? passing, spent a lot of time in the Synagogue. This either tells us that Peter lost faith in Jesus after his passing OR there really was no new religion established..but instead a more insightful and powerful thinking!
.
There is no indication that St. Peter spent a alot of time in synagogues. Perhaps you are thinking of St. Paul. When Paul entered a new town on his missionary journies, he went to the synagogues to preach Christianity. He was usually thrown out. Had he abandoned Christianity, this would be unlikely. In addition, both Sts. Peter and Paul died a martyr’s death; neither lost their faith.
.
Mohan-Krishna wrote: Yes Jesus wasn?t just a man - I agree, he WAS divine. However he wasn?t God either. He never claims to be God. Any such claim by anyone is simple misunderstanding.
.
On the contrary, when Jesus stood before His accusers on Good Friday, the High Priest tore his garments and said that Jesus had blasphemed - called Himself God. Jesus did not dispute this. (Matt 26:63-66) There are other passages that show this but one is enough.
.
I assume from your statement that you are a monist. You will not find support for this belief in the pages of Scripture. The clear teaching of the Bible is that there is a God who is separate from His creation. The universe is not a manifestation of the godhead.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Sorry about the problems posting replies. I think I’ve figured out my problem.
April 4th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Rob,
When I wrote that I was meaning this: if Jesus isn’t God then God is God.
Gary,
I humbly step down inadequately armed. However I’m sure you agree that John’s gospel was the last to be written down. Leah here referred to:-
?I and the Father are one.? John 10:30
Are there such claims in the Synoptic Gospels? But what about:-
“My Father is greater than I” John 14:28
If I say there is someone greater than I, surely I am not the greatest!
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
Mark 10:8 and Luke 18:19
Surely, this is clearly saying that Jesus is not God.
MohanKrishna
April 4th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Dear MohanKrishna
I can understand how all this seems so confusing but there comes a point with our relationship with God that requires blind faith. We can’t depend entirely on our own logic but have to simply believe. At the time of Jesus’s baptism God said “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”(Matthew 3:16-17)
April 4th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Hey,
I just wanted to add that scripture that strongly pinpoints Jesus as God is found in John chapter 1 verses 1 through 14
1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God
2 He was in the beginning with God
…..
14 And the Word (God) became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us.
Jesus is the Word. Jesus is God in human flesh. Jesus/God is a He and not a she.
The Trinity is God in Three Persons/Forms: The Father in Heaven, the Son in flesh, and the Holy Spirit inside us.
Jesus was a man and He is God. God is better than man because He does not sin; He is perfect. Jesus was a man and He did not sin despite temptation; He is perfect.
April 8th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
What Dan Brown or other authors like Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have claimed is nothing different from what religions like Islam have been trying to say for the past 15 Centuries. That Jesus was not God, and he was not crucified. With that said, I think that everyone can agree that by knowing any of these facts will not suddenly enlighted a fellow Christian to change their mind. Nor should we expect it. We all believe in something so strong enough that no matter how many facts someone can throw at us, we won’t cave…one can call that faith or mere stubborness. And it’s really nobody’s fault. But if this ‘faith’ or ’stubborness’ drive us to do good things for humanity, then no matter how erred a religion is, you still come out a winner in the end. Religion is a very personal choice, which is why our Christian brothers and sisters might take offense if we say that Jesus is not God, as it is for a preacher to come up to me and ask me ‘Do you believe that Jesus is our Lord and savior, or a Jehovah’s Witness to come to my door and preach to me assuming that I already agree with what he’s saying. We all believe that a man came to us 2000 years ago and left to us his legacy and teaching that many religions in the world venerate and respect. That’s all that really matters…
April 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I believe Jesus is not God. God is a Spirit. John 4:24
While Jesus Christ called a man many times in scripture. John 8:40, Act 2:22, Act 17;31, 1Tim.2:5. In contrast to this the Bible says God is not a man…Num.23:19. God was not born , but is eternal. Jesus was begotten; Jesus Christ had a beginning. Matt. 1:18
Jesus, the man is the mediator between God and men. 1 Tim. 2:5
Have a blessed day!
http://truthortradition.com
April 21st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I, you believe that Jesus is not God? Then I think you may have missed a few verses…for instance Titus 2:13 says “13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”
Pretty hard to interpret that any other way. And there are other verses. The eveidence that he is God is more than compelling.
Check out Lee Stroble’s book “The Case for Christ”
April 23rd, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Actually there is more than a few.
ISAIAH 9:6 NKJ
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
MATTHEW 1:23 NKJ
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
JOHN 1:1 NKJ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
JOHN 10:33 NKJ
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
JOHN 20:28 NKJ
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
ROMANS 9:5 NKJ
5 . . . Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 NKJ
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
COLOSSIANS 2:9 New Jerusalem
9 In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness,
2 PETER 1:1 NKJ
1 . . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
HEBREWS 1:8 NKJ
8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever . . . .
April 24th, 2006 at 4:54 am
Reading the Da Vinci Code certainly causes one to think about their early teachings on religion. However, reading one book does not prove whether the teachings of Christ as we have been taught are to be false. Admittedly, the book causes many questions to be asked, some questions are just to see the reaction of the faithful and some are quite serious.
Whether or not the book hits on some truth, or is entirely fiction is not the point. The point to be gained here is that we all have a “Freedom of Speech” in most Western countries and we have a right to say anything and believe or question anything we desire.
Perhaps this is a good time to look at ones religion and how “YOU” or your religion tries to “Force” your belief upon others. I personally enjoy going to church, makes me feel good about life yet, I only like going to any particular church only “ONCE”! Why is that? Becuase I came to hear the gospel word not to have my privacy invaded by a group of “Do Gooders” from the church. I didn’t invite you to my home, I don’t need your prayers in my home, nor you dropping in on my family and I.
Merely because I choose to attend church does not mean that I want all the attention that the church wants to provide! My life is my business and not the business of the members of the church.
I think that every Christian who has read the Da Vinci Code should do the following:
1. Look deep into yourself to see what you truly beieve based on your own thinking not the brain washing from the church.
2. Look at whether or not you “Force” your thinking onto others who did not ask for your opinion.
3. Then look into your closet …. I think the biggest sinners or people who disobey the 10 Commandents are the very Christians who preach their belief’s to others.
So my thinking is to practice what you “Think” you preach, that one elects to believe in the things that they desire to believe, stop “Forcing” your beliefs on others. Who says you are right? or wrong! Your belief, no matter how strong, does not necessarily make things right.
The DA Vinci Code merely has caused people to re-evaluate what they think, and by so doing you should not condemn the people who do not believe yet, have an equal opinion.
Have a great day!
April 24th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Dear Michael
You spoke early in the post about “Freedom of Speech” as Christians are we not entitled to that same freedom? We are not pushing our religion on people we are simply giving them the knowledge and everyone has free will to belief it or not.
To your point # 3 I personally believe that I am not any different then a non-christian in regards to sin, my sin carrys the same weight in the eyes of God. I am human just like everyone else I just know who to go to get forgiveness.
Michael, it sounds like you have some anger towards Christians and maybe even been hurt by some Christians, I can’t speak for them but I am truley sorry that they treated you like that.
All I can contest to is that I love God with my whole heart and have found so much freedom and joy in being in relationship with him that I so desperately want others to experience that same joy.
The Da Vinci Code has definately been a tool that has strengthen my skills and made me digger deeper into what I believe.
Blessings,
Leah
May 14th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Quantum wave riding
Shedding light on the ambiguous implications of quantum potential: Unity vs. Separation
Was Jesus a monist or a dualist? Some say both?
By Robert S. Lockett
Genesis 1: 3-4 And God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness…
It has long been recognized that the quantum realm reveals the possibilities (duality) of light in relationship to the observer. This denotes the observer?s ability to affect reality. It is a reasonable proof that we certainly do affect reality, and in some minds it suggests that we create it. I personally do not suppose that manipulation is equal to creation. Either way, as the philosophically sound clich? says; no man is an island.
Let us explore the implications by first recognizing that a photon exists both as a wave and a particle until it interacts with other forms of energy. Once it is observed, a photon can no longer be both a particle and wave and looses it’s ‘duality’, in one sense, becoming ‘real’ in relationship to the observer. This either / or relationship bears a striking resemblance to the either / or relationship in the basic principles of logic (reason). In the same way, truth, once observed and therefore affirmed, becomes real in relationship to the observer. As a result, the opposite potential is excluded.
The first point of this observation is that we cannot have it both ways either in the case of light (particle physics) or logic in the metaphysical sense. If we choose to manipulate reality, be it physical or metaphysical, we will inherit the consequences of that decision. The consequences of manipulating physical light do not contain any discernable tragic ramifications. On the other hand, the consequences of observing truth as a light and thereby defining ?reality? in the metaphysical realm, carries some enormous implications for all of mankind. In that sense, if we conform to reality as it is, we will by definition get the ‘default’ reality. One of my assumptions is that the original purpose or design, or that ?default reality? so to speak, is the reality we all are seeking. We may only differ on ‘the way’ to get there, but either way, every assumption of justice or morality necessarily affirms an objective reality and therefore an absolute reality. If we misinterpret our absolutes, then we are on very dangerous ground.
When one ponders the concept of ‘truth’ from an ambivalent vantage point, it seems the possibilities defy observation, for once observed and affirmed, the realm of possibilities is then reduced to mere perspective. Or is it? It is true that once truth is affirmed, the observer excludes it?s opposite, effectively closing the door on other alternatives. Let there be no deception that the decisive metaphysical observer is ‘all inclusive’ in his/her affirmation. However, just because every affirmation excludes its opposite, this does not mean that such a conclusion is always subjective. For example, 1 1 only equals 2. Once we use reason to establish that objective reality, we have ourselves conformed to reality and have moved beyond open mindedness, yet we remain objective.
I would like to illustrate the second point with a more striking example. If we choose to believe that we are God, we should not deceive ourselves that we have remained open-minded. Open-mindedness would not allow such a conclusion. This works as well with any affirmation that we are not God. Neither worldview can ultimately claim an unbiased vantage point. They are both fundamentalist positions. As stated in the last paragraph, this does not necessarily mean that we are being subjective. Open-mindedness and objectivity are two distinct entities even though they do overlap at times. Objectivity and open-mindedness will lead to the conclusion that 1 1=2, but once affirmed we are rightly no longer open-minded and move forward with the objective of finding more of reality. It is a logical necessity to reject the alternative answers such as 1 1=3. The practical implication is that the truth (the objective, or default reality) precedes us, and we must conform to it. At the beginning of our journey, objectivity and open-mindedness overlap. Once the objective is reached, all opposites are excluded.
Jesus claimed to be the wholeness of the objective reality. Mathew 10: 39 “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.” John 14: 6 ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me.’
It occurs to me that the will of the individual is given enormous latitude and power to interpret the duality of the information and make an affirmation. Another way to put it is that the observer is faced with an enormous test of his heart. It does appear that this test is of the observer?s deepest intentions. It is inevitable that ?truth? is defined within the heart of the observer. The observer may perceive reality in any fashion he/she chooses (2 2=9), but to be certain, creating reality would involve more than believing he/she has the power to do so by shear subjection. One must be able to explain (logically show) why they believe that what may only begin in the heart, is indeed the objective reality. If the heart and mind do not converge into a coherent fabric, then he/she must attempt to achieve the presumed end in spite of reason. I assume we all believe that the end does not justify the means.
Assuming the power to create reality ultimately involves changing the cosmological constants and laws of physics. In the very least, such power should demonstrate mastery over them by essentially manifesting God Himself. Jesus is reliably documented to have done just this when He demonstrated the miraculous and these feats ended with the grandest of all conceivable miracles, when He ultimately rose from the dead. If we are God (as some claim), then it is true that we should lay hold of our destiny even without the ability to reasonably explain our position and vigorously pursue our ends. If we are not God, then we are underestimating the consequences of our actions in the most dangerous and subjective fashion. We should have no ambivalence about making or denying such an utterly profound affirmation. Jesus made it plain when He said, “I came into this world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37-38) His bold affirmation makes a black and white claim that if we are honest in our hearts, we will listen to Him and that our search is inevitably found in Him. The Bible says that in Him, all of reality consists. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
To be more specific, when contemplating the nature of divinity, only two possibilities exist. One of these is the possibility that ?all is one?, the classic pantheist philosophy of monism in which we and all of creation are God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, etc.). The other is a very different divinity in the form of the Biblical all powerful and infinite God and His sovereignty over all his creatures and creation. One view defines man as divine, and the other acknowledges a separation from divinity as a result of man seeking divine power for himself (pride/ego). The attitude of the observer to the either / or decision in this regard, most assuredly hinges on the moral implications of the two views.
They are not compatible. Notice that the monistic worldview exists to separate itself from the ?narrow? Christian orthodoxy, whereas the Christian exists to unite Himself with God within the narrow framework of truth. For the ‘monistic’ worldview to survive, they will inevitably have to argue against a part ‘of the all’ (Christians) who disagree. This is self defeating and exposes a contradiction in their presupposition that ‘all is one’. The Christian is consistent, acknowledging the necessity of exclusivity in the nature of an objective reality. Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
It is a difficult concept to differentiate by any measure. It is like an optical illusion that shifts perspective as we look longer at its qualities. The temptations of Monism are intense and easy to believe; yet, the veracity and logic of Dualism demands consideration by the honest thinker because of its overwhelming conviction and the shear power of its coherence.
It is interesting that the classical concept of ?free will?, in the Biblical sense, is confirmed by the discovery of potential in quantum physics. As a follower of Christ, my observation of this connection is given as a means of illustrating the incredible coherence of a Biblical worldview. It is my opinion that such a connection is no mere coincidence. It is simply true. Conscious free will potential = God given dignity. Have it your way or God’s way. God does not impose Himself on us. For Him to do so would be to create a perfect world containing nothing but unthinking, uncaring, yet undeniably perfect nonliving robots. In a Monistic reality, we would have no power at all and would only do what is inevitable. Ironically, it is the Monist that claims to create reality, which is the most powerful position one could have.
Truth remains undefined and unobserved until the potential observer makes a conscious decision to seek and observe it. Not seeking truth is inevitably a conscious decision as well. In this arena, remaining open-minded is really a decision to not make a decision and is therefore illogical. In regard to the two contradictory views of divinity, once defined by an act of the will, the implications of the affirmation into reality (even if only subjective) become immediate and apparent. One can choose to believe all is well and thereby attempt to keep his life by interpreting it as ?already part of the all?, or conform to the implication of his separation from divinity by seeking the help of the divine in order to become one with Him and excluding the nonsense.
We are manipulating reality in a sense, as the quantum sciences prove, or rather, making real by way of consequences in the material, our decision to observe reality the way we choose. One should not confuse the reality that is perceived within, thereby confined to perception, with the reality that exists before and after the observer exists. Individually, we are not the only observers. Self can only define reality by the self?s DNA and experience. But by the rejection of self and a repositioning into relationship with the divine, one can experience a new birth that transcends DNA and experience (subjection). Only the latter allows the self to exist in both states; as an individual (’ I ‘), in relationship with the divine who is also a distinct being. Though some suggest that to call ones self ‘ I ‘ is an egoist response to the dilemma, it is interesting to note, that this negative view is held as a way of avoiding conformity for the sake of the divine, and maintains the ego. It is the acknowledgement of the ‘ I ‘ that reveals the individuals responsibility to the whole and recognizes the power to alter reality. This sheds light on the need for individual rehabilitation if one is out of sorts with the objective (reality).
Stating fact or arguing with reason is not, by any means, necessarily egoic or fear based in nature. However, the denial of fact, or the inability to accept a reasonable and logical argument is always motivated by ego and fear. Some claims demand serious attention because the implications are so inescapably enormous.
That being said, the most offensive thing anyone could say to the fear and ego driven heart is, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.”
That is the ultimate, staggering, and exclusive claim to sovereignty. It is also a completely reasonable statement. Even so, such a statement is either motivated by the purest form of ego, and/or, it intends to manipulate by the most blatant use of fear, or such a statement is the most selfless expression and profound truth that any man will ever hear. It is a claim that only God can make consistently.
I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:
?I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ?I?m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don?t accept His claim to be God.? That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic?on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg?or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.?
The monistic worldview is nothing more than an attempt to escape from individual responsibility. The only way to maintain such a position consistently, albeit an obstinate and rebellious posture, is to declare ‘one?s self’ as God. For most monists, it is far less confrontational to speak without such clarity. They like to avoid the necessity and inevitability of the conflict. The monist prefers to say that we are evolving into the divine. But by implication this is by default, which is equivalent to being divine. As in the disagreement over Jesus Christ?s claims, this claim either the greatest blasphemy, or the greatest truth. The stakes are enormous.
Since much of the quantum?s incredible insight involves light and the difficulty of putting a finger on it?s true nature, it is exceptionally noteworthy, that Jesus said, ‘I am the light of the world’ (John 9; 5) ?I have come into the world as a light? (John 12; 46). ?This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (John 3; 19).
Monism can explain our unity but not our diversity. Evolution can explain our diversity but not our unity. We seek unity in diversity (University, Quintessence, E Pluribus Unum), and the only way to have unity in diversity in the effect (creation) is to have unity in diversity in the first cause (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Only Christianity offers that. The Creator, the triune God, is a being that is also an eternal relationship. He is one though making up three distinct forms of Himself. With God?s plan, we are allowed to become sons of God, by denying ourselves as God, and accepting the wisdom of the only God. It is there that we awake and begin to understand the hymnist when he wrote, ?I once was lost, but now I?m found, was blind, but now I see?.
According to Christ, there is unity in Him and Him alone. All is not unity, only that which is in Christ. Christ forces us to either accept Him, or reject Him. If we accept, then that begins with careful consideration of his words and their implications. He did not ask us to jump in blindly. Rather He warns us to weigh the issue with intensity. Luke 14: 27-33 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
If we reject Him, the only alternative is for man to claim himself and all of his conflicting and chaotic ambitions to be his and his life alone. Christ is either God, or we are. Matthew 12; 30 ” He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me, scatters abroad.” A monist cannot say this either because there is no against, there are only different sides of the same one, and therefore Jesus was not a monist.
Look at the following verse and see how Jesus describes the Spirit that created all things coming to make His home in the heart of a mortal, thereby making known to him the immortal and eternal God. This is the ‘real’, personal, and daily relationship with divinity (Christ). John 14; 23 “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My words; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.”
He often expands on the depth of the spiritual rebirth. John 14;17-20 ” The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. A little while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. At that day you will know that I Am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”
The monist proclaims that we cannot ‘know’ that these things are true lest we risk being controlled by the ego (because all is individually subjective); but, if you did not notice in these verses before, see that Jesus proclaims that ?you will know, or see?. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8; 32) It is just the same way as mentioned in the beginning of this article, that we may close our minds to alternatives while remaining objective, since what we have found is the objective reality.
The monist is forced to accept all that is, as part of the evolving divine oneness. This allows them to see themselves as divine yet in a state not yet fully realized. Genesis 3; 5 Then Satan said, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God?”
Only God can be God by logical necessity, even if we disagree as to who He is. That is one reason I put my life and faith in Jesus Christ, for He spoke plainly and in truth. Even the monist knows and is forced to say that God is one, they just misunderstand the implications of their philosophy. Many of them do so intentionally.
Mark 12: 28-34 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ?Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.? The second is this: ?Love your neighbor as yourself.? There is no commandment greater than these.” “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Christ spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1 1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 and etc. To attempt it is to eat the fruit of ?the tree of knowledge of good and evil?. Jesus said, ?Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division? (Luke 12:51). A monist cannot say this for their concept of deity only works to unite. The truth always divides, which is why Monism cannot be true.
John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?” So they were divided.
Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.
Matthew 25: 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
In conclusion, I wish to point out that in the Biblical sense, Jesus was most assuredly not a monist. Now, many claim and make an interesting point now and then that Jesus? words were manipulated and mistranslated. I disagree, and believe that He did in fact say all of these outrageous and incredible things. That is why He was crucified and tortured more than any man who ever lived. You can believe all you want that He was a monist. You can even believe that he was a form of both. I am not the type who will tell you what you should believe. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I suppose I can agree with anyone that Jesus was a dualist, but more importantly, He is God. That is either true, or it isn?t. But we can?t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)
roblocketteka@aol.com
Thank you to Ravi Zacharius for many lessons in this arena.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Dude, you lost me. Got any cliff notes of your comment?
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:18 am
How do I recieve apocyphal texts such as the recent Judas Gospel?
I discount them for the same reasons they have never been included in the cannon: Their late date of writing (specifically) by comparison to the canonized 4 gospels. Their strange character; for example, Gospel of Thomas saying 114:
Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Any questions, feminists?)
There is a contradiction between the Gnostics and the Cannon. The Gnostic defines divinity as ?the all?. The cannon holds that there is good and evil and that they are separate; Monism vs. Dualism. Separation of the two is a theme present throughout the Bible, so when a completely foreign philosophy is brought in, it is easily recognized as contradicting the Cannon.
We all strive for peace albeit from different starting points. I think you will agree that this is irrelevant, as it is our differences causing the problems (conflict).
Furthermore, the Gnostic gospels present an all inclusive element illogically (both/and logic)… ‘all is one’. The Gnostic both/and stance is very problematic in my mind. Contradictory starting points are just that; they are contradictory!
In order for all of the diverse worldviews (my own included) to merge into the ancient both/and system, they will have to be willing to moderate their truth claims.
I agree, that if there is to be peace, this is absolutely necessary for all, but one, of the differing worldviews. We may all be wrong, but we can’t all be right. All must moderate into the ‘real’ one. This is the inescapable exclusivity of truth.
In promoting ‘the one’ (both/and, as many interpret it) are you saying that we EITHER use the both/and system, OR nothing else?
As an American Hindu philosopher said to Ravi Zacharius in response to this point, “The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn’t it?” To which Ravi said, “Not only does it emerge, but let me give you some shocking news. Even in India we look both ways before crossing the road; it’s either the bus, or me!”
The idea that God is ‘all inclusive’ fails to include the alternative (that He is not), so Gnosticism becomes just another truth claim, excluding it’s opposite yet contradicting itself? The Bible does not contradict itself so where do the Gnostics belong? Along side the other incoherent philosophers?
We cannot escape this… truth is unavoidable and exclusive by nature. God is reasonable. We cannot make ’sense’ out of ‘non-sense’ by definition. The law of non-contradiction reflects reality and is essential to ‘reason’. That is why Jesus’ words are so powerful… because they are irrefutable! To deny them is to deny ‘reason’ itself!
By contrast, if we say there is no truth, then, what have we said? Certainly not truth by our own admission.
Jesus said, “You shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
You can know Him. Knowing God begins with acknowledging the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit). The logical (reasonable) Spirit of God and following His voice so He can lead us to himself.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.”
Interesting! Telling the truth, by saying He is. He left us only two possible interpretations.
He made it plain that He will come and dwell inside us. I testify to this truth. Don’t just take my word for it, I am not God. I ask you to consider my testimony and think about it for yourself. Read the Gospel of John with an open mind.
We are sinners and that is why there is no peace. If this is not so, then the fundamentalist Christian is guilty of nothing! No sin = no crime.
We should not strive for peace with evil. It cannot be! To do so is the deception of ancient humanism. We must stop worshipping all of the spiritual host (ideas and philosophies) of heaven, and only worship God, the Holy Spirit, lest we risk claiming to be God ourselves.
Genesis 2:17
??but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of ?good and evil?, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
Humanism is the oldest religion in the world. It is both/and, trying to reconcile both good and evil. The ‘prince of the air’ (Ephesians 2:2) tells us we can ‘have it all’. We must beware of that clever spirit of the age. He/she (whatever the case may be) is spiritual, but not of God.
In the beginning, we were freely given Christ’s Spirit (the tree of life) for food, and given only one rule; we were commanded not to eat of Satan’s false wisdom (the tree of knowledge of good and evil).
We can’t have peace? AND our sin.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Nice site. Thank to work…
June 13th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Gary :
Regarding Chrisitaniy copying Mitraism.
Brown also claims that Mithras was buried in a rock tomb and rose from the dead three days later. I could not find any independent verification of these claims.
What conclusion can we draw from all of this? It seems to me that, if Christianity did set out to copy Mithraism, there would have been a lot more similarities and a lot fewer differences. We certainly would not have had a triune God.
Ok here is another senario. Could it be that Mithraism copied Christianity. Remember the Wise men or magi weren’t they from the east, could they have got it wrong? That seems quite possible to me.
August 16th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Honestly guys, stop looking at the bible like a book of truth.
What is told in the bible are stories, metaphors, and symbols. They are ideas we have to LIVE BY.
I do not believe that jesus was the son of god and I do not believe that he came back from the dead but I still believe that he was a great man (a MAN) with a great message. And that’s the problem I have with the Catholic church. Instead of focusing on the message he sent to the people, they focus on him, as the “son of god”.
Instead of simply saying : be good, be nice to the people around you, be a decent human being bcause it is the right thing to do, they go around saying “believe in god or you’ll go to hell” and I wish I’d be exagerating.
What kind of religion gets you into believing by threatening you!
And here is my point : I do not believe in god, nor in jesus as his son but I do believe in his message and I try to be as good as I can be with the people around me not because some guy told I’d burn in hell for eternity if I don’t, but because it is simply the right thing to do. That was the message of Jesus of Nasareth.
Why being scared about the fact that he would not have been the son of god ? Think about it, his message takes even more sense if he says it as a man. His message, his kindness is in all a of us.
I’m not trying to take anyone away from their faith. I have faith…in mankind.
Most of you are probably outraged by what and I apologise if you felt offended by anything I wrote.
To concude I’d say that it’s time to make our own heaven here instead of waiting to get there and I truly believe that is what Jesus meant.
Take care of yourself and of each other.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Ben There is so much more I would like to say, but I’ll toss this at you…
—————————
Stating fact or arguing with reason is not, by any means, necessarily egoic or fear based in nature. However, the denial of fact, or the inability to accept a reasonable and logical argument is always motivated by ego and fear. Some claims demand serious attention because the implications are so inescapably enormous.
That being said, the most offensive thing anyone could say to the fear and ego driven heart is, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.”
That is the ultimate, staggering, and exclusive claim to sovereignty. It is also a completely reasonable statement. Even so, such a statement is either motivated by the purest form of ego, and/or, it intends to manipulate by the most blatant use of fear, or such a statement is the most selfless expression and profound truth that any man will ever hear. It is a claim that only God can make consistently.
I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:
?I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ?I?m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don?t accept His claim to be God.? That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic?on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg?or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.?
———————————
Also Ben, the idea of creating heaven on earth and mankind taking the reigns began in the garden.
The serpent said to Eve that if she ate of the fruit, “you shall become as God”.
The anti-christ is in the sea of mankind…
August 17th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Ben, I appreciate your position. It’s actually fairly common today to say that Jesus was a great man, but not God. However, I must disagree. Here’s why.
The New Testament contains symbolism of course, such as in Jesus’ parables (although there is always a literal point to those parables) and in the book of Revelation. But the New Testament is primarily historical in nature, not symbolic.
“I do not believe that jesus was the son of god and I do not believe that he came back from the dead but I still believe that he was a great man (a MAN) with a great message.”
Look at what Paul says regarding Jesus rising from the dead: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor 15:17) Clearly Paul didn’t believe that the most important thing about Jesus was His message about being nice. Robert’s quote of CS Lewis above is quite appropriate; Jesus did not intend to leave the option of “just a good man” open to us; a merely good man (but non-God, non-savior) would not have made the claims He did. And really, if Jesus’ only message was “be nice to eachother”, well, why would anyone care about Him? That’s hardly an original message.
“Think about it, his message takes even more sense if he says it as a man. His message, his kindness is in all a of us.”
Ben, when Jesus speaks in the Gospels, He makes incredible claims about Himself. He claims to be God, to personally forgive others’ sins, to be the only way to know God, etc. He talks about Hell (in deep sadness), in fact He talks about it more than any other biblical person. He did not talk about it to threaten us, but to warn us. The “wages of sin is death”; meaning, the natural consequence of a life spent turning our back on God is seperation from Him. Jesus’ teaching was important, of course, but what seperates Christianity from other faiths is not that it teaches people to “be nice” (all good faith does that) but instead Jesus’ death & resurrection as the foundation for God’s grace.
Many take the “nice guy Jesus” view, but it is simply not there in the texts. See here for more:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/Jesus-christ.htm
What do you think? When we really examine what Jesus said and claimed, what could our possible responses be?
December 24th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Mohan, a Jesus Christ did not exist. A Jesus of Nazareth is said to to exist.
Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no authentic contemporaneous Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.
?… The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than “Christus.” The word Christ is a Greek-derived title meaning “Anointed One”. At his time, Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
It is almost impossible for Christians to disaprove that the idea of Christ was borrowed from the Pagans. You can refer to the key points on the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity from:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
It cites from Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries.”
By the way, Kersey Graves in The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors makes it clear that there are almost 200 precise matches between the events in the lives of Jesus and Horus, and the 346 “striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna (Krishna).
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap32.html
December 24th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
The evidence that Jesus is not a god is far more compelling than just this phrases from poster “I”:
I believe Jesus is not God. God is a Spirit. John 4:24
While Jesus Christ called a man many times in scripture. John 8:40, Act 2:22, Act 17;31, 1Tim.2:5. In contrast to this the Bible says God is not a man?Num.23:19. God was not born , but is eternal. Jesus was begotten; Jesus Christ had a beginning. Matt. 1:18
Jesus, the man is the mediator between God and men. 1 Tim. 2:5
====
If Jesus is to be of the Messiah mentioned in the Old Testaments, he must be born of the bloodline of David.
Virgin birth and a divine bloodline rules Jesus out of the running for this title.
December 24th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Jesus Christ did not live and die to save us all because he himself made it clear that “I was sent for the Jews.”
When he was alive. Jesus taught Paul and Matthew not to entire the homes of the Gentiles, or non-Jews, nor preach to them. Jesus’ reluctance to help the Cannaite woman is another good example.
Please note that Christianity started as a Jewish cult and Christ was raised as a Jew.
The Jewish society was very racist and the Jews were seen to be a higher class than non-Jews or Gentiles.
To preach to the Jews, Jesus would not and could not preach to non-Gentiles.
And I think it is worthy of respect that Jesus was willing to die for his beliefs to save the Jews.
However, it is erroneous to conclude that he died to save us all because Jesus’ words and actions up to the time of his death were only about bringing salvation and a new convenant to the Jews.
And not non-Jews.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
ktg, thanks for your comments. Some of your opinions seem to be approaching Jesus and the Bible from a “biblical unitarian” viewpoint. (The part before the “====” in ktg’s post was apparently originally cut’n'pasted by “I” from another website.) It seems what these verses show is that Jesus was a man; I don’t deny that. But the Bible, church fathers, and Christians throughout history have affirmed that Jesus is both God and man. No one in the 1st and 2nd century proposed that Jesus was just a man; in fact the heretical gnostics proposed that Jesus is God only, NOT a man! Ignoring the verses that go against the “just a man” hypothesis is what’s sometimes called “Bible buffet”; picking and choosing what tastes good to you from the Bible, while ignoring that which does not. A brief summary written by Greg Koukl which describes why Christians believe Jesus is God (and man) is available here:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6301
Or a more detailed list can be found on Glenn Miller’s Christian-Thinktank:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03f.html
It could be truly said that Jesus is God, and also man in every sense that we could conceive of Him being human.
Regarding the second post, that Jesus came only for the Jews, this is in my opinion plain wrong. Isaiah records regarding the Messiah that the Messiah will “be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles.” (Isaiah 42:6) Yes, Jesus came to the Jews first, because as God’s chosen people they had the history and knowledge of God to understand the significance of Jesus’ acts in the greater context of God’s acts throughout history. Of course Jesus preached mainly to the Jews: They were the ones who had read the Old Testament and had the mindset to understand his preaching. But to claim that Jesus died not for all, but only for Jews, is, to me, offensive. It suggests that Jesus’ death is not sufficient to save all who choose to accept it and that God is ultimately not powerful enough to offer the whole world a chance to be saved. That is obviously wrong and God wills all to be saved, although some will tragically not accept God’s love.
Even in the Old Testament, people from other nations were not prevented from joining God’s chosen people should they choose to do so (ex. Exodus 12:33-38). When Jesus speaks to his hometown in Luke 4:24-27, what enrages them is that He indicates that while many of them (the Jews) will reject Jesus, others (non-Jews) will not. Furthermore, how, if Jesus came only for the Jews, could we explain John 4:1-42 where Jesus speaks at length to the Samaritan woman, and later many Samaritans become believers? Jesus says that “salvation is FROM the Jews”, *not* “for Jews only”. The book of Acts answers the question at length, concluding that “God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18) No, Jesus did not come only for the Jews. Jesus came for, died for, was resurrected for, and provides eternal life to anyone (Jews and Gentiles) who chooses to accept His sacrifice.