It is often claimed that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. Yet, a closer analysis reveals that the Bible is rife with problems. This series will delve into the many issues with the Bible that prove it is far from being inerrant or infallible. Part one provides examples of the many missing scriptures.

Advertisements

 

Video presentation of my post from September 30th, 2017 – War and Violence in the Bible and the Koran.

Intellectually honest people tend to approach any given subject without pre-conceived notions or biases. In order to get a sound understanding of the subject, they would go directly to its source, whether it’s books or it’s scholars. They would place utmost importance upon reading things in their proper textual and historical context. And they would avoid sources that are by nature, biased against the subject they are looking into.

For example, a person genuinely interested in learning about the teachings of Judaism would approach Jewish sources and Jewish Rabbis, not Neo-Nazi or other anti-semitic sources that are inherently hostile towards Jews and Judaism.

Another example, a person genuinely interested in learning about the teachings of Christianity would approach Christian sources and Christian priests or pastors, not anti-Christian or atheistic sources that are inherently hostile towards Christians and Christianity.

When it comes to learning about Islam however, things are a little different. In the western world, people looking into Islam more often than not start off with a bias. They look upon Muslim scholars with distrust, and inevitably end up learning about Islam from sources that have one goal: to misrepresent Islam as an inherently violent religion whose followers have a religious mandate to inflict violence on non-Muslims.

This post will address the one thing that anti-Islamic polemicists seem to be perpetually fixated upon: the war verses in the Koran, and their alleged connection to so called Islamic terrorism. While anti-Muslims come from many backgrounds and affiliations, this post is directed towards religious polemicists, and more specifically Christian polemicists, who in our opinion, are the most vocal in their opposition to Islam. It is not our purpose to debate or argue with them because their views on Islam have no bearing on the truths. But, for the sake of truth, and for the seeker of the truth, we have taken the effort to present an objective analysis of the Koran’s war verses.

In this regard, we will touch upon the following questions:

What are the historical contexts surrounding the Koran’s war verses?

Are they really timeless commands for Muslims to follow to this day?

How do the war verses in the Koran compare to the ones in the Bible?

(Please bear in mind that this post gives only a basic introduction to lay persons looking into this subject. There is no shortage of Islamic resources online and we encourage viewers to conduct their own research with an open mind.)

To begin with, it is no secret that wars and armed conflicts were part of the early history of Islam. No Muslim denies that the Koran contains several verses pertaining to armed conflicts that took place during the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammad. But what is of importance to us is the context surrounding those verses, as that dictates how a given verse is meant to be understood.

We will now briefly go over a small sampling of the Koran’s oft misquoted and misunderstood war verses:

Lets start with this verse, Surah 9 verse 5,
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

or this one, Surah 47 verse 4
So when you meet those who disbelieve in battle, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom them until the war lays down its burdens.

or this one, Surah 8 verse 60
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah, and your enemy.

Christians quote these verses out of context to misconstrue them as being timeless commands for Muslims to follow to this day. This is hypocritical of them because they understand the importance of studying verses in their proper context. When they read the Bible, they are careful enough not to take verses in isolation. Instead, they read them in light of the surrounding texts, while also taking historical and socio-cultural contexts into account. Yet, when it comes to the Koran, they habitually misrepresent it’s message by quoting it’s verses out of context. Their double standard should be obvious.

Either way, reading passages in their proper historical and socio-cultural context is a sound methodology. If it works for the Bible, it should work for the Koran as well.
We will now review the three examples mentioned earlier in their right context:

The first example, Surah 9 verse 5, is in actuality, a snippet of a larger passage consisting of 14 verses. When the full passage is read within its historical context, the real picture emerges: A specific group of pagan Arabs had violated a treaty by re-starting hostilities against Muslims. These pagans were given an ultimatum of four months to rethink their position on Islam; they had the choice to either convert and enjoy the rights of Muslims, or leave Arabia. During that period, the Muslim forces were commanded by God to protect pagans who sought peace and teach them about Islam. But once the four month period was over, the Muslims were permitted to finish the war that the pagans started.

The second example, Surah 47, verse 4, is another snippet from a larger passage consisting of 4 verses. When the full passage is read in it’s proper context, it becomes clear that the quoted verse is not a blunt order for Muslims to smite any one they wanted to at any time. Rather, it was targeted specifically at pagan combatants during an ongoing battle, and was in response to the oppression of Muslims.

The third example, Surah 8, verse 60, is yet another routinely misquoted snippet from a larger passage comprising of 5 verses. And when read in its proper context, it is simply about Muslim preparedness for war if their pagan enemies sought war. And peace, if their pagan enemies sought peace.

We thus see that the war verses refer to very specific wartime situations during the life of the Prophet Mohammad. We also see that polemicist have been misquoting the Koran’s war verses to distort it’s intended meanings.

Furthermore, three things become clear regarding the nature of the Koran’s war verses.

  • First. These conflicts were defensive or reactionary in nature. It is a historical fact that the early Muslims were persecuted physically, mentally and economically at the hands of the pagans. Things reached a point where Muslims were allowed to take up arms and fight back.
  • Second. The commands to wage war allowed for ceasefires and truces. So not only was fighting to take place only if the Muslims were attacked first, but fighting was also to cease if the enemy sought peace
  • Third. They war verses were specifically directed at enemy combatants, all of whom were male.

Please bear these three points in mind because we will revisit them later in the post.

War verses in the Bible.
Let us now shift our attention to the war verses contained in the Bible. Just how violent are they? How do they compare against the war verses in the Koran? And how do Christians explain and understand them?

Anybody who has read the Bible would know that the Bible contains numerous passages in which God commands the massacres of civilians in genocidal wars of conquest and revenge. The Bible’s war verses have not only provided modern day atheists with ammunition to use in their tirades against God and religion, but have also shaken the faith of many Christians, to the extent that they actually end up leaving Christianity.
The Bible’s war verses appear in the early parts of the Old Testament. Since there are so

many of them, we will only be going a few examples. Again, this is just to provide the viewer with a starting point from which he or she can perform their own research.

Our first example is taken from Deuteronomy chapter 20.
Verses 11 through 14, contains instructions for the Israelites, on dealing with the inhabitants of certain cities in the Promised land. Depending on the response of those people, the Israelites were to either enslave the residents of those cities, or kill all the men, and take their women, children and livestock and wealth.

If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

Our second example, is also from Deuteronomy chapter 20. In verses 16 and 17, we read that certain ethnic groups that were indigenous to the Holy Land, were marked for extermination.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

In the civilized world, this would be tantmount to genocide.

Our third example is from 1Samuel chapter 15 verse 3, where the Israelites are ordered to kill men, women, children, infants and even livestock.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Bear in mind that these are only three instances in the Bible where God commanded the indiscriminate killings of entire populations; there are many others.

Christian theologians have always struggled with the Bible’s many horrific war verses. This is because the verses are not only morally problematic, but also completely contradict their narrative of God’s unconditional love, which is the foundation on which their theology rests upon. After all, how can they preach “For God so loved the world…” from the Bible, when that same Bible also contains God’s commands to massacre women, children and babies? Christian theologians have thus found it necessary to rationalize the killing of civilians, women and children. They have done so by contriving a variety of explanations:

  • Some play down the war verses by claiming their writers simply used hyperbolic language.
  • Some say that the foreign tribes had to be destroyed because they were simply too sinful to be redeemed; or because they posed a threat to the racial and cultural identity of the Biblical Israelites;
  • With regard to the killing of babies, some say that it was actually a mercy killing, because without their parents they would have died slowly out of hunger and thirst. Another explanation that has been given is that the children had to be killed, because they would have grown up resenting the Israelites, and would have one day waged a war of retaliation.
  • And some concede that they do not fully understand why God ordered those massacres, but nonetheless maintain that they fully trust God in everything He did.

Now, regardless of how Christians try to explain away the Bible’s brutal war verses, the bottom line is that they exist. There is simply no escaping the fact that God ordered the killings of non-combatants, including women, children and babies. Given this, it simply cannot be denied that the war verses in the Bible are markedly more extreme and savage than anything in the Koran.

The way Christians understand the Bibles war verses is quite interesting. They explain Biblical war verses as being meant for particular times and circumstances in the past, and no longer applicable today. Yet, when Muslims point out that its the same thing with the war verses in the Koran, Christians refuse to accept it for some reason or the other. Some might recognize this as a chronic case of special pleading.

As the old proverb goes, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If the explanation that certain violent verses were meant for a different time and situation applies to one scripture, there’s no real reason for it not to apply to another. To still insist that the Bibles genocidal violence can be validly explained in this way but not the war verses in the Koran is a laughable double standard. Any Christian who makes this argument in a professional debate setting would be laughed out of the hall.

Difference between the Biblical and Koranic war verses.
Now, upon contrasting the war passages in the Bible with those of the Koran, we see 3 major differences.

The first difference is with regard to the conditions under which wars were to be fought.

As has been explained earlier, in the Koran, the overall pattern is that fighting was purely defensive and in reaction to the persecution by pagans. It is a historical fact that the early Muslims were persecuted physically, mentally and economically by their stronger pagan enemies. Things reached a point where Muslims were allowed to take up arms and fight back.

This is seen in verses like
Surah 2 verse 190, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you”
Surah 2 verse 191, “if they fight you, then kill them”
Surah 22 verse 39 , “Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought”

In contrast, most wars sanctioned by God in the Bible were offensive wars. Usually, these wars served no purpose other than the conquest of land. The Israelite persecution had ended by the time they entered the promised land. Following this, they waged genocidal wars of conquest sometimes wiping out entire tribes. The Israelites literally went from town to town killing all their inhabitants. Examples can be found in the books of Deuteronomy chapters 2, 3, 7 and 20; the book of Joshua chapters 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and many other places.

The second difference is with regard to the conditions under which wars were to be ended.

The war verses in the Koran actually allowed for ceasefires and truces. Not only was fighting to take place only if the Muslims were attacked first, but fighting was also to cease if the enemy sought peace.

This is seen in verses like
Surah 8 verse 60 “if they incline to peace, then incline to it”
Surah 2 verse 193 “…if they cease, then there is to be no aggression”
and Surah 4 verse 90 “if they…do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them”

In contrast, the war verses in the Bible were unforgiving. They offered no conditions for peace, but were instead blunt orders for the complete annihilation of the enemy, and in many cases their women and children.

The third difference is with regard to the targets of military action.

We see that all war verses in the Koran were applied solely to male combatants. There is not a single verse in the Koran that advocates the killing of non-combatants, let alone women and children. In fact, Islam’s code of war that was based on Mohammad’s teachings categorically forbade the killings of non-combatants, women, children, the elderly, the infirm and monks. Evidence for this is found in numerous hadiths.
In this connection, prophet Mohammad’s close companion Abu Bakr said the following:

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well!
Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

In contrast, the Bible very plainly states that under divine command, the Israelites targeted non-combatants, including women, children and babies. Examples of this have been provided earlier in the post, so there is no need to repeat them once again.

Thus, unlike the Bible’s binding commands for the Israelites to wipe out entire populations, the Koran’s war verses were directed towards combatants only, and were solely retaliatory in nature; and unlike the Bible’s final and binding commands to kill without mercy, the Koran’s war verses offered Mohammad’s enemies a way out by setting conditions for peace and truces. Thus, in every way, the war verses in the Koran are morally superior to those in the Bible. Christians probably know they can never win the debate through comparisons of the Bible against the Koran. So they take a different approach.

They argue that the war verses in the Koran are somehow different from the ones in the Bible, in that they serve as instructions for Muslims to follow to this day. But this is nothing more than a display of their own lack of integrity and willingness to sacrifice honesty to misquote the Koran. Claims built on foundations of dishonesty are feeble and collapse when subjected to academic scrutiny. And the claims Christian polemicists make against Islam are no exception.

Terrorism
At this point, Christian polemicists might shift their focus to the real world issue of terrorism. They may point out that it is the Koran, not the Bible, that happens to be the Holy Scriptures of most terrorists; and that it’s Islam and not Christianity that happens to be the religion of most terrorists.

Our response would be that it’s irrelevant because so called Muslim terrorists who shed innocent blood act contrary to Islam and the Koran. And since it has been demonstrably proven that the Korans war verses simply are about wars fought during the prophet Mohammad’s time and not commands to be followed for all ages, no so called Muslim terrorist can claim to be endorsed by the Koran.

This connects to the illogical argument that so called Muslim terrorists are somehow real Muslims simply obeying the Koran. Polemicists who use this argument imply that peaceful Muslims going about their lives, paying bills, raising families, enjoying sports, somehow stop short of being real Muslims. This too is easily debunked by the fact that the very nature of attacks against civilians, women and children, and even other Muslims violate the rules of war in Islam. Terrorists act on their own, and do so with a lack of regard to what the Koran actually says. Thus, Muslims can distance themselves from its extremists for the same reason that Christians and Jews distace themselves extremists among themselves. Neither terrorists nor anti-Islamic polemicists get to define Islam, or what constitutes a true Muslim.

As for terrorism, how is the word defined?

The word is broadly defined as being the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
These political aims could range from the overthrow of governments, expansion of territories, targeted killings and so on. It thus follows that any entity that uses unlawful force to achieve such aims, should be labelled terrorists. Yet, Christian polemicists, among others, associate terms like terrorism, and terrorists exclusively with Islam.

In reality, so called Islamic terrorism is a drop in the bucket compared to the terror of unlawful wars, invasions, bombings, drone attacks, military occupations, regime changes and other atrocities inflicted by the elected governments upon Muslims civilian populations. Deaths caused by actions of these governments, exceed those caused by so called Muslim terrorists by several orders of magnitude.

It would be dubious to think that terrorist attacks caused by ragtag groups of so called Muslim terrorists are somehow more grave than the destruction of entire nations by elected governments. Yet, this is the way anti-Muslim polemicists perceive the world. In their minds, the only acts of terror that should be emphasized upon are the ones carried out by so called Muslim terrorists. Their reasoning is that so called Islamic terrorism is somehow more serious because it is contains a religious element, namely, the alleged adherence of terrorists to Islam. But, as far as terrorism is concerned, words like religion and Islam are simply red herrings used to mislead and seize control of the narrative. If terrorism is defined as violence aimed at achieving political goals, then the involvement of religion, or lack thereof is irrelevant.

If “terror” can only be commited by people with a religious mindset, and if the lack of a religious element somehow justifies a crime against defenseless people, then it shouldn’t matter at all that tens of millions were killed under godless men like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Our point is that religion does not in any way set the criteria to gauge the seriousness of a crime against innocent people. The popular notion that so called Islamic terror is more serious than state sponsored terror reeks of hypocrisy and should therefore be dismissed without consideration.

To conclude, Anti-islamic resources flooding the internet have one thing in common. Their writers rely on misquotation and distortion. ‎They may be perceived by their audience as knowledgeable on Islamic history and scriptures. But when their works are subjected to a fact based analysis, the thin veneer of their scholarship cracks and falls apart and their arguments are exposed as being full of double standards, deceit and bias.

 

 

Video presentation of my post from January 18th, 2014 – “No one can take my life from me” – Was Jesus really killed?

Video presentation of my post from October 13th, 2015 – 36 proofs from the New Testament that Jesus was not God

God willing, I will make more such videos.

 

 

1. The Bible tells us that Ishmael, son of Abraham through his second wife Hagar (Genesis 16:3), was sent away with his mother to the ”east” where he settled and started his own family. We also read that Abraham was distressed when he was asked to send Ishmael away(Genesis 21:11-13) and that God was ”with” Ishmael as he was growing up (Genesis 21:20).

Though the Bible mentions nothing about Ishmael’s life as an adult, it does record that Ishmael was present at Abraham’s funeral (Genesis 25:9). From this event, the following can be gathered:
a) Ishmael maintained a close bond with his father and step-brother. How else could he have heard of Abraham’s passing? And why else would he travel back to the land of his birth to attend a funeral?
b) Ishmael was most certainly worshiping the God of Abraham; he did not return to bury Abraham as a polytheist/idolater. The same cannot be said of Abraham’s other sons through Keturah, as they were not present at the funeral.
c) Ishmael would have certainly raised his children to worship the God of Abraham; he would have established a community of monotheists away from the land of Canaan where Abraham and Isaac lived.

2. Abraham did not send Ishmael away and forget about him. Rabbinic traditions and the 21st chapter of the Book of Jasher (referred to in 2Samuel 1:18 and Joshua 10:13) mention Abraham’s travels to the land where Ishmael lived. In summary:

Afterward Abraham went to see Ishmael, and, according to his promise to Sarah, stopped at his son’s tent without alighting from his camel. Ishmael was not within; his wife refused Abraham food, and beat her children and cursed her husband within Abraham’s hearing. Abraham thereupon asked her to tell Ishmael when he returned that an old man had asked that he change the peg of the tent. Ishmael understood that it was his father, took the hint, and drove away his wife. He then married another woman, named Faṭimah, who, when three years later Abraham came again to see his son, received him kindly; therefore Abraham asked her to tell Ishmael that the peg was good.
Source: Jewish encyclopedia

3. That Abraham traveled to meet Ishmael is in harmony with the Islamic belief that Abraham built the Kaaba along with Ishmael (Surah 2:127); this event implies that Abraham was physically present with Ishmael in Arabia. Thus, Abraham came to be known in Arabia during the lifetime of Ishmael. The later Arabs fell into idolatry and venerated Abraham, indicating that they had retained the memory of Abraham being their distant ancestor. According to a hadith (Bukhari volume 4, book 55, number 571) the Kaaba, upon conquest by Mohammad, was found to contain images of Abraham and Ishmael – obviously placed by pre-Islamic Arabs.

4. Abraham – through Ishmael – is thus historically linked to the the Kaaba, the Arabs and Islam. There is no denying that the Arabs, like the Israelites, had fallen into idolatry and polytheism; that changed in the 7th century AD when Mohammad conquered Mecca and restored to Arabia the monotheistic worship of the God of Abraham.

Christianity has its roots in the monotheistic religion of the Israelites, that we read about in the Old Testament. Christians consider the Old Testament as the foundation of their faith, and include it as part of their own scriptures. But in spite of the Old Testament’s unequivocal teaching that God is One and not a man or a son of man, Christians have made the rather strange assertion that the God of the Israelites is a “trinity” and that Jesus – a man born of a woman – is the second person of that “trinity” as “God the son”.

Trinitarian Christians often utilize the Old Testament to argue that God is, in fact, a “trinity”. This is strange considering the Jews, from whom they inherited the Old Testament, never understood God as being “triune” in all their history. If the Bible has Jewish roots, and if the Jews never believed that God is a “trinity” or that He walked the earth in the form of a man, it raises the question: Where did these ideas come from? In numerous passages in the Old Testament, God explicitly declares He alone is God and that He cannot be likened to anything. God explicitly and unequivocally warns against being represented by images, even that of humans. In this regard, there is simply no room for the ideas of a “triune” God and the godhood of Jesus, the son of Mary. The Old Testament’s language and phrasing very plainly points to a monotheistic faith.

If at all it is claimed that the Old Testament proves the “trinity”, it is only so because Trinitarian Christians are reading the doctrine of the “trinity” back into the Old Testament. Trinitarian Christians often deploy fuzzy phraseology and semantic arguments to try to force-fit the “trinity” and Jesus’ godhood into the Old Testament. By forcing things to fit where they simply cannot, Trinitarian Christians will argue that the One God of the Old Testament is actually the “trinity” and that Jesus is “fully man and fully God”. Such an approach is akin to shooting arrows first and then painting targets where the arrowheads hit.

The Christian idea that God descended in the form of a human is far removed from the strict monotheism of the Old Testament and is, instead, virtually identical to the Hindu concept of “avatars”, i.e. human forms assumed by the transcendental God. It is also a known fact that many other cultures (such as those of the Romans, Greeks, Scandinavians, Babylonians etc.) had anthropomorphic deities that were represented in the forms of men and women. The religion of the Biblical Israelites stood apart from its contemporaries solely due to its conception of God being an absolute One and without form – including that of a human.

The very notion of a triune God rests entirely upon the assumed godhood of the Messiah, Jesus. The “trinity” collapses once the notion of Jesus’ godhood is refuted using nothing but the New Testament. This will be done through numerous proof-texts, that – God willing – will be presented in this article.

I have broadly categorized the proof-texts under these 3 headings:
A. The humanity of Jesus
B. Jesus’ subordination to God
C. Jesus’ shortcomings as “God”

Certainly, some proof-texts may fit into more than one category, but my intent was to have a general system of categorization that would facilitate quick referencing. God willing, this article will reach and impact those it is being written for.

May God open our eyes to the truth.

*****

THE HUMANITY OF JESUS

1. Jesus’ had a genealogy and was descended from David

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David… – Matthew 1:1

As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” – Matthew 9:27

The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” – Matthew 21:9

…regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David… – Romans 1:3

The Eternal God simply does not have a lineage or human ancestry and so Jesus was not “God”.

2. Jesus was the son of Mary

She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” – Matthew 1:21

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. – Matthew 1:25

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. – Matthew 2:11

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt… – Matthew 2:13-14

“Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead”. So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.… – Matthew 2:20-21

You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. – Luke 1:31

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. – Acts 1:14

The mother-son relationship between Mary and Jesus is, by far, one of the most potent arguments against Jesus’ godhood. If Jesus was “God”, then it logically follows that Mary is the “mother of God”, whether or not Christians acknowledge it. The truth is that Mary did not give birth to anything other than a mortal human being.

3. Jesus was likened to Adam

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many – Romans 5:15

So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. – 1Corinthians 5:45

The “man” in the first part of the verse is a reference to Adam, whose sin – according to Christian theology – caused death to enter the world. So why would Paul liken “God the son” to Adam?

4. Jesus ate and drank

The Son of Man came eating and drinking… – Matthew 11:19

Does God eat and drink?

5. Jesus felt hungry and thirsty

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. – Mark 11:2

After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. – Matthew 4:2

Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” – John 19:28

Does God feel hungry and thirsty?

6. Jesus called himself a “man”

As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. – John 8:40

Jesus states he is a man speaking what he heard from God – no different from previous prophets. The Trinitarian claim that Jesus was “fully God and fully man” has no foundation in the Bible.

7. Jesus was seen as a prophet

They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet. – Matthew 21:46

Jesus was seen as a mortal human prophet. The Israelites always understood prophets as messengers of God who were not, in any way, divine.

8. Jesus was a human mediator

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, – 1Timothy 2:5

The writer makes it clear that there is One God and Jesus is only a man who mediates between God and mankind.

9. Jesus was a man with God-given authority

When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man. – Matthew 9:8

The writer very clearly understood Jesus as a man with God-given authority, not a divine man or God in the flesh.

10. Jesus was a man accredited and appointed by God

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. – Acts 2:22-23

For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” – Acts 17:31

Like others before him, Jesus was a man ‘accredited’ and ‘appointed’ by God, and thus Jesus is not “God” himself.

11. Jesus is called a ”son of man”

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders… – Mark 8:31

But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, – Mark 2:10 (Also see: Matthew 9:6 and Luke 5:24)

In numerous places Jesus addresses himself as the ”son of man” – a phrase applied to humans in the Old Testament. Why would God ever be a ”son of man”? God, in the Old Testament, categorically denies being a man or a son of man. There is no question of a ”son of man” being God.

*****

B. JESUS’ SUBORDINATION TO GOD

12. Jesus himself has a God

…so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Romans 15:6

(Also see: 2Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17, Ephesians 3:14, Colossians 1:3, 1Peter 1:3)

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. – 1Corinthians 11:3

The New Testament routinely states that God and Jesus are separate persons and that God is also the God of Jesus. In the verses above, God is the God OF Jesus, thus ruling out any possibility that Jesus is God or co-equal with God.

13. Jesus taught to worship and pray to God

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'” – Matthew 4:10

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. – Matthew 6:6

“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers – John 4:23

Jesus directed all worship only to God, who he called the “Father”, and not the “God the son” or the “God, the Holy Spirit”. Jesus never demanded worship for himself.

14. Jesus prayed to God while submitting to His will

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” – Matthew 26:39

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. – Hebrews 5:7

Jesus prays to the “Father” – the first person of the so-called “trinity”. God is sovereign and submits to nobody. Jesus on the other hand submits to the will of God, which demonstrates that Jesus was subordinate to God, and therefore could not have been “God” in any way or form.

15. Jesus emphasized doing the will of God and not his own.

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. – John 4:34

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. – Matthew 7:21

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. – John 6:38

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.” – John 12:50

Jesus found it important to do the will of God – not his own – and taught the same to others. Thus, he could not have been God.

16. Jesus said God is greater than him

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. – John 10:29

If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. – John 14:28

Jesus plainly makes it clear that God is greater than him and thus Jesus could not have been God. A monotheist would know that there is nobody greater than God.

17. Jesus was circumcised according to the Law

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. – Luke 2:21

Did God have to keep the physical sign of His covenant that He made with his own people? Obviously not. Like any other Israelite, Jesus had to be circumcised on the eighth day as per Israelite Law.

18. Jesus was presented to God according to the Law

When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord – Luke 2:22

Jesus was presented to God in the temple, like any other Israelite firstborn. Mary and Joseph were keeping the commands that God gave to the Israelites.

19. Jesus affirmed the Shema

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’. – Mark 12:28-29

Jesus affirmed the Shema – the Israelite statement of faith in One God, which would have applied to Jesus, who was an Israelite himself. Jesus did not attempt to modify it so as to accommodate a “trinity” or his own supposed godhood. How, then, do Trinitarians see the “trinity” and Jesus’ godhood in the Shema?

20. Jesus identified as a Jew

You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. – John 4:22

Jesus identifies as part of the monotheistic Jewish community, and thus would have never claimed Godhood.

21. Jesus’ God is the God of the people

‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.” – John 20:17

This proves Jesus was part of a community that worshiped God, and was thus not “God” himself.

22. Jesus at the right hand of God

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. – Mark 16:19

But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” – Luke 22:69

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” – Mark 14:62

“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” – Matthew 26:64

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. – Acts 7:55

Christ Jesus who died–more than that, who was raised to life-is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. – Romans 8:34

After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. – Hebrews 1:3

We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, – Hebrews 8:1

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, – Hebrews 10:12

For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.- Hebrews 12:2

If Jesus was “God”, why do we have so many verses mentioning that he sits at ”the right hand” of God? This clearly proves that Jesus is separate from God.

*****

C. JESUS’ SHORTCOMINGS AS “GOD”

23. Jesus had to learn obedience

Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered… – Hebrew 5:9

If Jesus needed to learn obedience to God, he simply could not have been God.

24. Jesus had to be made perfect

…and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. – Hebrew 5:9

If Jesus was “God”, shouldn’t he, by nature, be perfect?

25. Jesus is lesser than the third person of the so-called “trinity”

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. – Matthew 12:32

Speaking against “God the son” is forgivable, but that doesn’t seem apply to speaking against the Holy Spirit. This proves that the members of the so called “trinity” are unequal in status and that there exists a hierarchy within the “trinity” – no different from the pantheons of pagan religions.

26. Jesus felt forsaken

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). – Matthew 27:46

Why would “God the son”, cry out to God about being forsaken?

27. Jesus was made lower than the angels

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while… – Hebrews 2:9

Why would “God” who created the angels be made “lower than the angels”, even if for “a little while”?

28. Jesus doesn’t get to decide who sits to his left and right

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” – Matthew 20:21,23

If Jesus was “God”, how is it that he doesn’t get to decide who sits to his left and right? Jesus also states that only the Father decides the places to Jesus’ right and left.

29. Jesus is given authority, glory, honour, power and exaltation by God

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. – Matthew 28:18

He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” – 2Peter 1:17

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, – Philippians 2:9

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. – Acts 3:13

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. – John 8:54

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. – Acts 10:38

God’s honour and glory is His own and was not given to Him by anybody. God by nature is exalted and is the sole possessor of glory, honour and power. If Jesus was “God”, why would he need to be “given” glory and honour?

30. Jesus does not know the day or hour

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” – Matthew 24:36

If Jesus was “God”, why didn’t he know the day or hour’?

31. Jesus was raised by God

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. – Romans 8:11
(Also see: Romans 10:59, 1Corinthians 6:4, 2Corinthians 4:14, 1Thessalonians 1:10, Hebrew 13:20, 1Peter 1:21, 2Timothy 2:8)

The fact that Jesus had to be raised by Someone other than him proves that Jesus was not God, that is if “God” can even die in the first place.

32. Jesus could do nothing of his own

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. – John 5:30

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.- John 5:19

So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. – John 8:28

Jesus states that he does nothing of his own and that he does as he is told. This proves that Jesus was not the Almighty Sovereign God at all.

33. Jesus’ teaching and words were not his own

Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. – John 7:16

These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. – John 14:24

For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. – John 12:49

Jesus’ teachings and words are from God. Jesus is simply doing as he is told. Does this sound like God to you?

34. Jesus questioned being called “good”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone. – Luke 18:19

Jesus questions being called “good”, he would not have proclaimed being God.

35. Jesus was tempted

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. – Matthew 4:1

…where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. – Luke 4:2

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet he did not sin. – Hebrews 4:15

If Jesus was “God”, it’s beyond absurd to think Satan would ever dare to tempt God. The New Testament itself makes it clear that God cannot be tempted.

36. Jesus was not considered “God” by his followers

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. – 1John 4:12

This passage requires special attention as it was written after Jesus’ death and resurrection. If Jesus’ disciples knew Jesus as “God”, why does the writer echo the Old Testament idea that no man has seen God? Was not Jesus, whom he saw every day, “God” to him?

*****

The New Testament is rather consistent in its portrayal of Jesus as a man, not as God or even anywhere close to being equal to God. Granted, there are a number of passages that Trinitarian Christians will continue to cite as proofs that God is a “trinity” and that Jesus is “God the son”. However, the multitude of passages that unmistakably present Jesus as the human son of Mary living in submission to God cannot be brushed aside. Instead, they must be given precedence over any vague “proof-texts” that are cited in favour of the “trinity” and Jesus’ godhood.
The Old Testament is foundational to the Christian faith. Therefore, the New Testament must be studied in light of its predecessor and not the other way round. The New Testament cannot be interpreted in a way that violates the Old Testament idea of the monotheistic nature of God. When this is sincerely done, Jesus is seen as a human who had submitted to God in all he did – in words, deeds and worship. Jesus was a man. A very special man, but a man nonetheless.