• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Debate: Bible illudes that Jesus was an Angel, not a God

Jesus, was not the son of God, he was a man; he was just a man.

/thread

Tim-
The Bible does refer to Christ as the "Son of Man" which refers to his humanity. Christ was a human being, that much is clear in the fact that he doubted, wept, ate, slept, lived and died. Christ doubted God and his plan, "Oh God, why have you forsaken me?" It is a clear as day that Christ was a man, a human being and a mortal. God is none of those things, nor does God do any of those things.

But Christs essential message was that we are all children of God and that each of us can have the power to do God's miraculous work through faith. A message so commonly lost by some.
 
Then you have obviously never read the Bible closely enough.
Oh, I've read it closely but obviously you have been imparted with otherworldy knowledge and ONLY your "interpretations' (or implications, rather) are correct :roll:

"By faith Enoch was transferred, that he should not see death, and was not found, because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well." (Hebrews 11:5
To "witness" something in a Biblical sense is to tell people what you saw. That's what Enoch's writings are. To clam that Enoch was a liar is a self-delusion. To claim his witness was "false" is to contradict the Bible. Why would God bring a "liar" into Heaven and spare him the pain of Death?
I never questioned the fact that Enoch's life was pleasing to God - that much is apparent - and to bear witness is to "testify" in the Biblical sense. This could have been a personal testimony for all we know - to a single person - and would not have reflected significant "works" in the Biblical sense. However; ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the Bible does it attribute written scripture to Enoch - NOWHERE. What I question is the legitimacy of the Book of Enoch as scripture. Because an older translation - which can be tied to Aramaic - has never been produced, the Book of Enoch cannot be tied to the Holy Word of God.


It means a lack of respect, but obviously you have never read a single line from Enoch's writing, because he constantly shows respect to God. This is just a random line I looked up:
Oh, I've read more than just one line. I've read several chapters since you've "peaked my interest." In Chapter 40, for example, a contradiction to Christian doctrine is created as the "deity" of Jesus Christ is put into question. An angel named "Phanuel" is mentioned who is set over the "repentence of men's souls" - this is blasphemy. According to the Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ is the ONLY "mediator" between the unclean souls of mankind and repentence leading to salvation. I don't believe the name Phanuel is even mentioned in the Holy Bible.

In chapter 69, it suggests that wisdom comes to man through a Demon named Penemue and that this wisom propagated the downfall of man through teaching them to write with "pen and paper" ? This would suggest that NO written scripture can be attributed to God - would God "bless" Enoch for "writing" something if that writing taught that writing in and of itself was evil brought on by wisdom granted by a demon???? This is absurd and YES, IMO quite irreverent to God's Holy Word.

It's blasphemy to claim one of God's chosen few to be a liar or that his works are false.
Way to throw out the old "red Herring" here, LOL. You are obviously changing the entire premise here. I never claim that Enoch is a liar, I simply do not believe that the Book of Enoch is truly "the works" of Enoch. The ONLY old translation we have of this book is Ethiopic and this language is inconsistent with Biblical texts.
The only reason you believe in the letters and scripture collected in the Bible is because the Church of Rome and a few dusty scribes decided that that content best reflected the doctrine of the Church. The only reason you don't believe in the writing of Enoch is because those dusty scribes didn't put it in the Bible.
Wow! You think you really have me figured out here, LOL. Poor little ignorant me :roll: to think, I've been following a book that was canonized by the Papacy in the 4th century; and go figure, some things were added and others excluded - wow what a revelation, my eyes are now opened! I see the light!

Yes, believe it or not, some Christionas DO INDEED know the history of the canonization of original scripture, and I know it's difficult for some to understand but through faith, God will, and does reveal his will to those who seek it - no minute inconsistencies by human translators can hide the true will of God from the faithful:
Galatians 2:20 (New International Version)
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

2 Corinthians 5:7 (New International Version)
We live by faith, not by sight.
 
I never questioned the fact that Enoch's life was pleasing to God - that much is apparent - and to bear witness is to "testify" in the Biblical sense. This could have been a personal testimony for all we know - to a single person - and would not have reflected significant "works" in the Biblical sense. However; ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the Bible does it attribute written scripture to Enoch - NOWHERE. What I question is the legitimacy of the Book of Enoch as scripture. Because an older translation - which can be tied to Aramaic - has never been produced, the Book of Enoch cannot be tied to the Holy Word of God.
The only recorded the "witness" that God was pleased by are the scriptural writings of Enoch--his testimony.

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, yet ignorant Christian's believe that God is a trinity. If the entire cannon of the Bible is God's word, don't you think He would have mentioned it? Maybe it's because the Trinity is fake and Christians are following a religion created by polytheists in Rome?
Oh, I've read more than just one line. I've read several chapters since you've "peaked my interest." In Chapter 40, for example, a contradiction to Christian doctrine is created as the "deity" of Jesus Christ is put into question. An angel named "Phanuel" is mentioned who is set over the "repentence of men's souls" - this is blasphemy. According to the Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ is the ONLY "mediator" between the unclean souls of mankind and repentence leading to salvation. I don't believe the name Phanuel is even mentioned in the Holy Bible.
Enoch was alive during the writing of the Old Testament, so he would have had no knowledge of Christs existence. If anything, the passage you mention appears to be a prophecy of some kind, sine Christs name was supposed to be "Immanuel" and he was similar to an Angel in a lot of ways. Phanuel is translated as "the face of God." Oops. Did I just school you? That has got to hurt.

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Phanuel
In chapter 69, it suggests that wisdom comes to man through a Demon named Penemue and that this wisom propagated the downfall of man through teaching them to write with "pen and paper" ? This would suggest that NO written scripture can be attributed to God - would God "bless" Enoch for "writing" something if that writing taught that writing in and of itself was evil brought on by wisdom granted by a demon???? This is absurd and YES, IMO quite irreverent to God's Holy Word.
You obviously don't understand what you were reading.

First off, Satan was, is and always will be a servant of God and the Bible explicitly states that God has "evil spirits" He can control and influence people with. According to the Bible God is the source of all Good and all Evil. If that's the case, then life is really just a test of faith.

Secondly, Enoch attributes the fall of man to the Angels who took human wives and had "giants" talked about in the Bible. The giants taught men witch-craft, spells and iron-work for war. This is a the 'knowledge' that led to mans corruption and down fall. Part of it at least. Pieces of that is mentioned in the Bible and Torah.
Way to throw out the old "red Herring" here, LOL. You are obviously changing the entire premise here. I never claim that Enoch is a liar, I simply do not believe that the Book of Enoch is truly "the works" of Enoch. The ONLY old translation we have of this book is Ethiopic and this language is inconsistent with Biblical texts.
No.

Your premise is that God is Omnipotent, but allowed his chosen one--the only person in history to be taken into Heaven without dieing--to have his testimony and witness corrupted so that now, all we have left are "lies." You are truly insane, if you believe that. Honestly, you have so little faith in God's ability to work through scripture.
Yes, believe it or not, some Christionas DO INDEED know the history of the canonization of original scripture, and I know it's difficult for some to understand but through faith, God will, and does reveal his will to those who seek it - no minute inconsistencies by human translators can hide the true will of God from the faithful:
Yet you doubt the word of God in sources outside of the Bible. Sad.

This is all really irrelevant to the discussion, which is that Christ wasn't God.

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.'
If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 6:2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
If the saints will judge angels, how can Jesus be an angel?
 
The Jehovah's Witnesses used to teach that Jesus was the Arcangel Michael. Does anyone know if they still teach that?
 
"Thoughts" - joe six-pack

The difference between Christ and the angles is that Christ is the "only begotten" (John 3:16) Son of God.

You also have to ignore John 1:1 and all of the other verses that show the deity of Christ. Compare those verses with Revelation 19:10.
 
From what I can see in all this is too much time is being spent on what in the end is meaningless minutia, when your efforts might well be spent on understand the reason Jesus was here and his message to us.

If we look to the Old Testament we find a completely different kind relationship that man of that time had with God than the one we learn of from Jesus.

Did you ever wonder why the major change from demanding, threatening and even vengeful to welcoming and forgiving, and just?

Is there a reason we can point to for this seemingly complete turnaround, or should we just accept it and do our best to live up to the standards set for us By Jesus in the short time he walked among mortal men, and women?

We know because the Romans kept records that Jesus was a real person and we know for a fact how he died. But do we know for example if there is anything on the other side that we should be prepared for?

The answer for people like me is yes there is something because I have seen that when one dies life does not end only the body dies and the spirit lives on. My encounter was only a few minutes but very real and it did have a profound effect on me since that time many years ago.

I say you can if you wish remove religion from the discussion and concentrate on the message Jesus gave to us to make us better people not just for our own salvation but to spread the goodness by example to others.

Do a little experiment. The next time you go shopping in a grocery store look into the eyes of the people coming from the other direction. You will remember that you often see the same people many time because of where you each started to shop.

When you spot a person who looks a little down or sad, make a point to smile at them, not a goof grin just a little smile and see if the next time you see them they don't smile back at you.

I have done this countless times ans it never fails, maybe not on the first try but usually by the second for sure.

What is the point? The point is you just changed that stranger for the better and it could grow in to a more profound change for them and it cost you nothing, not even time.

We are the sum of everything we experience and just as smiling at a stranger who might need it changes them outwardly if only for a minute, if we live our lives as Jesus has taught us those around us will it see and catch on and we will all be happier and things will fall into place for us.

The cost of being the person Jesus teaches us to be is zero and it just makes sense to be a good person.

So the minutia is unimportant and the rewards might surprise you.
 
Sorry, but your "evidences" are an joke, Jesus is our God, not an Engel, you should try to study the Holy Bible more curefully.
 
We know because the Romans kept records that Jesus was a real person and we know for a fact how he died. But do we know for example if there is anything on the other side that we should be prepared for?

If that was true it would be very significant news. But you're wrong, there are no contemporaneous Roman accounts of Jesus. The earliest reference is in Tacitus in the early second century, and that is probably a forgery.
 
If that was true it would be very significant news. But you're wrong, there are no contemporaneous Roman accounts of Jesus. The earliest reference is in Tacitus in the early second century, and that is probably a forgery.

Really? Are you familiar with the Antiquitates Judaicae by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus written in the thirteenth year of the reign of Roman emperor Flavius Domitian (which was around 93 or 94 CE)? This WAS indeed kept in Roman records in its Latin form. While written approx. 60 years after Jesus' death, the Testimonium Flavianum from the original writing, suggests that Josephus did indeed draw from the first-hand accounts of those who lived during the era of Christ. The disciple James is also mentioned. Josephus was born in the year 37, a mere 3-4 years after the death of Christ. In addition, the majority of modern scholarly reviews have now agreed upon the authenticity of the Antiquitates Judaicae .
 
Last edited:
In the New Testament, Christ spent much of his three year ministry demonstrating and reiterating that he was the "Son of God," by preforming miracles, speaking the word of God and baptizing people. The term "Messiah" literally means the Anointed One and "anointed" means to set aside for a holy purpose. In Hebrew tradition, Chrism was an ancient oil used by High Priests to Anoint people or artifacts, which is the most likely origin of the term "Christ," especially considering Christ is synonymous with the Messiah, the both mean the Anointed One--as in to Anoint with holy oil.

You can Google any of those terms for clarification.

But Christ was not the only Son or Daughter of God mentioned in the Bible. This is largely a term used to describe Angels. Job 1:6

"Now it happened on the day when God's sons came to present themselves before Yahweh (The Lord), that Satan also came among them."

Job is a story about how Satan tests Man's faith. The verse above is describing the "Son's of God," which are angels, and Satan, "the adversary," among them. This is the origin the the belief that Satan was an angel and originally a servant of God.

Now we also know that Christ's name in Hebrew was Yeshua, which means "God is Salvation." This was translated into Greek as Iēsoûs, then into Latin as Iesus. But the English translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua is Joshua. Therefore, I will refer to Christ by his proper name, Joshua. Joshua Christ.

You can Google the relevant proper names for clarification.

Joshua Christ consistently referred to himself as a Son of God, which is an Old Testament term for an angel. It is reasonable to assume that Joshua Christ was an angel in human form, here to serve God and speak his message. He was the Anointed One, just as angels are described as the "Anointed Ones." Ezekiel 28:14

"You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones."

A Cherub is an angel, a servant of God. Angels were created before Man at some point during the Seven Days in Genesis, God makes Heaven--and all the Angels--before people are made. Then refers to Angels in the creation of Man in Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image," but by "us" there is no one else around but God and the Angels.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

I believe God made Angels in his image and made Men in the shared image. In the beginning, God and the Angels looked alike, God was the "Father" of all of them. I believe Joshua Christ was an Angel at the time of Creation. John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

This is not such a great leap to make. Joshua Christ refers to himself in terms that the Hebrew Bible referred to Angels as. Joshua Christ was a "Son of God" and an "Anointed One" and it is an Angel who tells John in the Book of Revelation about Christ and the End of Days, the Messianic-Age to come.

To me, this is a much more compelling argument to make, than any other interpretation of the Bible and the challenge to combine the Old Testament with the New Testament. Joshua Christ did not want to be worshiped, he wanted to be believed in. Christ compelled people to obey the 10 Commandments and worship Yahweh, the Lord. Christ did not speak for himself, God spoke through him. Christ was not the origin of his own power, God was the origin of Christ's power. Christ was a servant of God, just as Angels are servants.

Thoughts?

This is an easy one. John 3:16 calls Jesus God's "only begotten son". Literally, the Greek phrase means only son of the same substance. It would be like a cat lady calling her cats her babies. But if she had a true human baby, that baby would be her only begotten baby and would be differentiated that way from the cats.
 
This is an easy one. John 3:16 calls Jesus God's "only begotten son". Literally, the Greek phrase means only son of the same substance. It would be like a cat lady calling her cats her babies. But if she had a true human baby, that baby would be her only begotten baby and would be differentiated that way from the cats.

How is Jesus the only son of the same substance? If it was only God in the beginning, God must have made EVERYTHING out of itself. A piece of dog **** is just as much God as Jesus is. :shrug:
 
How is Jesus the only son of the same substance? If it was only God in the beginning, God must have made EVERYTHING out of itself. A piece of dog **** is just as much God as Jesus is. :shrug:

This is mostly incorrect. Creation didn't stop in the beginning. Humans, and in this case animals, have the ability to create as well. So yes in a way the elements need to create the sh&t is of God; the actual sh&t is not.
 
In the New Testament, Christ spent much of his three year ministry demonstrating and reiterating that he was the "Son of God," by preforming miracles, speaking the word of God and baptizing people. The term "Messiah" literally means the Anointed One and "anointed" means to set aside for a holy purpose. In Hebrew tradition, Chrism was an ancient oil used by High Priests to Anoint people or artifacts, which is the most likely origin of the term "Christ," especially considering Christ is synonymous with the Messiah, the both mean the Anointed One--as in to Anoint with holy oil.

You can Google any of those terms for clarification.

But Christ was not the only Son or Daughter of God mentioned in the Bible. This is largely a term used to describe Angels. Job 1:6

"Now it happened on the day when God's sons came to present themselves before Yahweh (The Lord), that Satan also came among them."

Job is a story about how Satan tests Man's faith. The verse above is describing the "Son's of God," which are angels, and Satan, "the adversary," among them. This is the origin the the belief that Satan was an angel and originally a servant of God.

Now we also know that Christ's name in Hebrew was Yeshua, which means "God is Salvation." This was translated into Greek as Iēsoûs, then into Latin as Iesus. But the English translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua is Joshua. Therefore, I will refer to Christ by his proper name, Joshua. Joshua Christ.

You can Google the relevant proper names for clarification.

Joshua Christ consistently referred to himself as a Son of God, which is an Old Testament term for an angel. It is reasonable to assume that Joshua Christ was an angel in human form, here to serve God and speak his message. He was the Anointed One, just as angels are described as the "Anointed Ones." Ezekiel 28:14

"You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones."

A Cherub is an angel, a servant of God. Angels were created before Man at some point during the Seven Days in Genesis, God makes Heaven--and all the Angels--before people are made. Then refers to Angels in the creation of Man in Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image," but by "us" there is no one else around but God and the Angels.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

I believe God made Angels in his image and made Men in the shared image. In the beginning, God and the Angels looked alike, God was the "Father" of all of them. I believe Joshua Christ was an Angel at the time of Creation. John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

This is not such a great leap to make. Joshua Christ refers to himself in terms that the Hebrew Bible referred to Angels as. Joshua Christ was a "Son of God" and an "Anointed One" and it is an Angel who tells John in the Book of Revelation about Christ and the End of Days, the Messianic-Age to come.

To me, this is a much more compelling argument to make, than any other interpretation of the Bible and the challenge to combine the Old Testament with the New Testament. Joshua Christ did not want to be worshiped, he wanted to be believed in. Christ compelled people to obey the 10 Commandments and worship Yahweh, the Lord. Christ did not speak for himself, God spoke through him. Christ was not the origin of his own power, God was the origin of Christ's power. Christ was a servant of God, just as Angels are servants.

Thoughts?

I thought everyone knew this.
 
This is mostly incorrect. Creation didn't stop in the beginning. Humans, and in this case animals, have the ability to create as well. So yes in a way the elements need to create the sh&t is of God; the actual sh&t is not.

We know that the Creation event came to it's stopping point because God took a brake afterwords.

Remember, "Creation" refers to what God did, not what man does.
 
Really? Are you familiar with the Antiquitates Judaicae by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus written in the thirteenth year of the reign of Roman emperor Flavius Domitian (which was around 93 or 94 CE)? This WAS indeed kept in Roman records in its Latin form. While written approx. 60 years after Jesus' death, the Testimonium Flavianum from the original writing, suggests that Josephus did indeed draw from the first-hand accounts of those who lived during the era of Christ. The disciple James is also mentioned. Josephus was born in the year 37, a mere 3-4 years after the death of Christ. In addition, the majority of modern scholarly reviews have now agreed upon the authenticity of the Antiquitates Judaicae .


Yeah, I know the Josephus one, that's a well-known forgery, even more likely to be a forgery than the Tacitus reference.

Tacitus, you can make a good case that it's legit, but I still this it's wishful thinking. Mara Bar-Serapion is a good one too, but not as clear who it is actually referring to. Those two are all you've got.

Josephus, it is pretty clear was written in after the fact by Bishop Eusebius about two hundred years later. Look it up if you don't believe me. Historians consider the Josephus reference thoroughly debunked.
 
Last edited:
We know that the Creation event came to it's stopping point because God took a brake afterwords.

Remember, "Creation" refers to what God did, not what man does.

No, creation does not just refer to what God did. However, lets just assume this. If "Creation" refers only to what God did, then First Thoughts comment is still wrong as Jesus would be apart of creation and the dog droppings are not.
 
Last edited:
Historians consider the Josephus reference thoroughly debunked.

So, I would say, support your claims here with credible contextual and objective research from credible historians. You know, suprisingly enough, I have researched the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum and have read several books and reputable scholarly journal articles on its authenticity, and you know what I found? Noone has successfully debunked it as being a forgery. Of course there are those who claim to be historians and who write on Atheistic Blogs and Atheism-driven websites created for the purpose of debunking Christian "mythology" - I presume it is from these sorts of sites that you derive most of your information. Many of these pseudo-professionals have suggested it is a forgery by making very generalized and sweeping statements like "most scholars today agree......." but nowhere on these sites do they ever list the names of these "vast number" of "scholars" to which they refer. Do you find this strange Guy?

Perhaps, Guy, you should venture into an actual library, where there are actual books, and where actual primary source material can be found. Is there a University near where you live? If so, the historical archival collection there (almost every Univ. has one) may be a good starting point. Perhaps an objective historiographical approach could also help. Some of the historiography classes I've taken while working on my M.A. in Amer. History, required me to read a minimum of 9 or 10 books written from varying perspectives, all on the same subject matter. Perhaps you should use a similar approach - simply researching it objectively, from varying points of view - not simply setting out to "debunk" but setting out to find "truth" or at the very least "accuracy."

My point here is, any degree of actual research is better than typing in "Josephus Debunked" into Google and scanning the first few hits.

So, let us summarize just in case you avoided what I wrote above :lol:............................after ALL of the scholarly research regarding the Testimonium Flavianum has been reviewed, we cannot say with certainty that it is not authentic.
 
Last edited:
"Thoughts" - joe six-pack
Yes, I'm capable of independent thought.
The difference between Christ and the angles is that Christ is the "only begotten" (John 3:16) Son of God.
That's a limited distinction. "Begotten" is defined as created. God doesn't have a penis.

Since God doesn't have sperm, we must interpret begotten to mean created. God made Christ and the Angels.
You also have to ignore John 1:1 and all of the other verses that show the deity of Christ. Compare those verses with Revelation 19:10.
You basically ignore Jesus' own words on the subject of his own nature. I suppose you think Jesus' own words are less valid than your misguided interpretation of Revelation and John 1:1. Take Jesus' word for it next time.

1) Any person with faith can become more powerful and greater than Jesus Christ. (John 14:12)

2) God is greater than Christ and no one can be greater than God. (John 14:28-29)

3) God doesn't doubt, or weep or die. Jesus doubted God twice in the Bible. (NT)

Look it up for yourself. Christ was an "angel-like" creation. A servant of God. That doesn't prove he was an angel, maybe he was something different. But the Bible says that God "created Christ." (Ephesians 2:10, Hebrews) As you know God cannot be created and God cannot die.
 
Last edited:
I remain unconvinced as to this premise. Very much so, in fact.
 
This is mostly incorrect. Creation didn't stop in the beginning. Humans, and in this case animals, have the ability to create as well. So yes in a way the elements need to create the sh&t is of God; the actual sh&t is not.
Your concept of God appears limited. How could an omnipresent, omnipotent being not be all of it's creation if everything manifested is made of it's essence?
 
Your concept of God appears limited. How could an omnipresent, omnipotent being not be all of it's creation if everything manifested is made of it's essence?

Because omniportent and omnipresent are limited concepts in themselves.
 
I remain unconvinced as to this premise. Very much so, in fact.
Granted, it's valid to question any theory. But the Bible does prove the following:

A. Christ was a creation of God, just like the Angels and just like man.

B. In Christs own words, anyone (through faith) can be greater and more powerful than Christ.

C. Christ doubted God at least twice in the New Testament. (Once Garden of Gethsemane and once on the cross as he died)
 
I've asked once before, Joe, and I don't know if you ever answered. What is your particular religion/denomination/flavor?
 
I've asked once before, Joe, and I don't know if you ever answered. What is your particular religion/denomination/flavor?
And what difference would that make to my thesis?

For the record, I'm a deist. Just like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.

:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom