BELIEF IN JESUS’ DEITY IS IRRATIONAL
The Christian Church claims it is rational to believe that Jesus Christ though a
true man was also truly God. Jesus in this theology was indeed both an ordinary
normal man and God. The worship that is due to God is due to Jesus. Most
scholars and researchers in the world disagree with Christianity in this thing.
Who is right?
Most scholars deny that Jesus viewed himself as God. But if he did, is the
theology of anybody being fully God and fully human logical?
CHAPTER 7, HANDBOOK CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
Religion says that the doctrine reads like a contradiction but it says it is a
mystery. Sorry but that is just a cover up. It is a contradiction.
Page 154 dishonestly argues that the incarnation, God becoming a man, is
possible. What right has anybody who believes that Jesus was fully God and fully
man two separate natures in one person to say that the incarnation is possible?
He cannot know when it is like a contradiction. If it is a paradox then how do
we know if it is a paradox or a contradiction?
REASON AND CHRISTOLOGY
The Christians teach that Jesus Christ is true God, fully God and true man – two
distinct natures in one person. This doctrine was made official at 325 AD at the
Council of Nicaea.
And it was defined to counteract the influence of the priest, Arius of
Alexandria, who taught that the Son of God, Jesus, was not God but was the best
and highest person God had created. Before he was conceived of the virgin Jesus
was an angel in Heaven. Jesus was the first thing God had ever created. This
heresy assailed the Church so successfully that it once captured the devotion of
the majority.
The followers of Nestorius held that Jesus was two persons acting like one
person. God the Son was not Jesus Christ but the two were in perfect union. The
theory implies that a man who is not God can be prevented from sinning and still
be freely good. This makes God an evil tyrant because he could have done
something to all people so that they will not sin.
The Monophysite heresy, probably started by the bishop, Cyril of Alexandria,
which was promulgated by the monk Eutyches, taught that Jesus was not two
natures in one person but one nature in one person.
Many advanced the crude notion that Jesus’ divinity and humanity were mingled to
form a new nature. Jesus was a mixture, a mongrel.
The mingling could not have involved the body for God is immaterial but would
have involved the spiritual soul and the spiritual God being mixed together. The
result would be a soul that was only partly human.
Some Monophysites might assume that the blending doctrine means mixing God and
human nature like two colours of paint to make another colour. But God is
timeless and this cannot be done with him for to mix him with something is to
change him. And the result would not be God and man combined but a new nature
that is neither divine or human. All that can be done is to produce a different
kind of human being that God can be incarnate in and form one nature with.
The Catholics objected that if Jesus was one nature then he was not truly man.
He was not the same as the rest of us and so could not earn our salvation for
us. But if the mingling took place the right way Jesus could have felt like an
ordinary person. It is really only experience that counts. Does it really matter
if one has a body that is made of different material from what bodies are made
of as long as one experiences life like ordinary people do? The Bible testifies
to the normal and full humanity of Jesus. Jesus would not have been spoken of
this way if he were a hybrid.
The fourth century teacher, Apollinaris of Loadicea, taught that while the human
being had a soul (or a mind) and a body, Jesus had a body but no human mind or
soul. His divine nature took their place. This would mean that Jesus had no idea
of what it was like to be a human being at all. The Bible denies the
Apollinarian heresy by saying that Jesus was attracted to sin and was like us in
all things but sin (Hebrews 2) and suffered. God cannot suffer for he has no
body and is happy. An infinite God cannot suffer and be happy at the same time.
God is his power which is infinite so if God suffered he would be infinitely or
totally suffering. If Jesus suffered then the heresy is wrong. God having a body
that suffered would do him no harm for his happiness would erase the pain. It
would hurt him less than a prick on the finger would us. Pain is not suffering
– suffering is a feeling that existence is worthless.
If Jesus was two natures and yet one person then did he have one will or two?
The Catholics said he had two which worked in perfect harmony. But some
heretics, the Monothelites, wanted to teach that he had only one will. If Jesus
was really two natures then he had to have two wills.
Since the early days, some “Christians” denied both the deity and humanity of
Jesus. They claimed that he was a spirit that acted like a man but was not a man
or a material being at all. Some agreed but claimed that Jesus was just an
apparition of God. The heresy that Jesus was just a phantom is called Docetism.
Some of the Docetists claimed that Jesus could not suffer and others held that
Jesus, though a spirit, was miraculously enabled to suffer. They pointed out
that we are body and soul and when the body is maltreated the soul suffers too.
Docetism was inspired by the notion that the spirit was good and the body was
evil and to be hated.
If Jesus was the supreme divine messenger then he had to be a spirit and not a
material being unless he was sinless and perfect in which case it didn’t matter.
The body needs sleep and food so it distracts you from holiness. It leads you
into sin for temptation appeals to it. If you did not have it you would not sin
so the body must be evil. Docetism and God go together.
The orthodox Christian doctrine of the incarnation cannot be understood. We
cannot fathom how Jesus could be fully man and fully God and still be one
person. The doctrine of the Trinity has three persons being one being while this
doctrine, called the hypostatic union, has two beings being one being.
Christians say that there are not two beings in Jesus but two natures, one human
and the other divine. But to say a nature is not a being is incoherent. It looks
so much, too much, like a contradiction. It is said that it is not for the soul
and body make one being in us in the same way. But the body is not a mind and
the soul is a mind like the divine and human nature of Jesus. The oneness of the
divine nature and human nature of Jesus is not like the union of body and mind
in us. It is said that the distinction between a person and a nature helps prove
that two natures can be one person. The distinction is apparent to anybody who
knows that asking what is that is not the same as asking who is that. But the
two go together regarding a personal being. A person being, say, a soldier is
what he is but his being a person is not about what job he does but about what
he is. This is the mistake. It is a person’s nature to be a person. Jesus can
not be one person unless he is one nature. The doctrine of the hypostatic union
is claiming that two natures can make one nature which is impossible.
The heresies are better than this incomprehensible theory of hypostatic union
which offends against the principle that one should not have more mysteries than
one needs. Anybody could devise a contradictory doctrine and call it a mystery
like the hypostatic union. Mysteries can be dangerous.
To make a person you need consciousness. A person does not need a will or a body
or a memory to be a person. You are still a person if you succeed in emptying
the mind as in Oriental meditation techniques. God is consciousness. Jesus’
humanity would chiefly have consisted of consciousness. How could these possibly
make one person if they are distinct? And if they are not distinct then the
human awareness is not required for the result of a union would not be really
human anyway. The doctrine leads to belief in unnecessary and/or ridiculous
miracles. A God who does that could be at anything.
And it is no way out to say that Jesus revealed the doctrine and so it must be
right.
We know by now that if God is a trinity and if Jesus taught that he was a member
then Jesus would have to be a fraud for he would need to claim to be all three.
If God cannot be three persons in one human nature then the trinity is false.
Thomas Aquinas taught that the three persons could become the one man Jesus at
the one time (page 92, The Metaphor of God Incarnate).
And Jesus rejected the notion of saying he was all three.
Jesus said he was sent by the Father so he was not the Father (John 20:21). He
offered himself to the Father (Hebrews 9:14). The Gospel of John says that the
Word, who became Jesus was with God. He said that he did not come to glorify
himself but his Father – that would be meaningless and deceptive if he were the
Father. In John 14:6 Jesus called the Holy Spirit another comforter. The
original word for another here means another of the same kind but not
necessarily nature. Jesus was not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We cannot take Jesus’ word for it that the hypostatic union is possible if he
claimed to be God the Son alone.
The hypostatic union doctrine is really just taking God the Son and the human,
Jesus Christ, and pretending that they are one person.
Justin Martyr saw Jesus as a second God or inferior God. In other words, he
would have been a non-literal God who was called God because God had made him
similar to himself. Theophilus the Bishop of Antioch in the late second century
was the first to mention the holy Trinity and his trinity was one of attributes
and not persons (page 4, The Godhead Explained) which is very important. The
early Church knew nothing of a divine Christ and three persons in one God.
Christians today say that as man Jesus did not know all things but as God he
did. That is a contradiction for knowing is a sign you are a person. If Jesus
did not know as much as he did as God then he was not God. The doctrine is
incoherent.
Another fatal contradiction though euphemistically called a problem in theology
is that if God cannot sin then Jesus could not sin and thus could not really be
able to please God by obeying him. If love is voluntary then Jesus had to have
the power to sin even if he did not use it. The doctrine of merit is that you
cannot deserve anything good or bad unless you have free will and are the cause
of your decisions and are not programmed. A Jesus who cannot sin cannot deserve
the salvation he supposedly won for our sins on the cross. The doctrine of Jesus
having to die to make up for our sins is nasty and unfair and insulting to
justice and therefore mankind.
Conclusion
To believe in Jesus being God isn’t a rational belief and it is full of
contradictions.
BOOKS CONSULTED
A CALL TO HERESY, Robert Van de Weyer, Lamp Press, London, 1989
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania,
undated
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
CHRIST IS GOD, Rev JP Arendzen DD, Augustine Publishing Company, Devon, 1987
CHRIST OUR LIGHT, J Buys SJ Geoffrey Chapman and Gill & Son, London-Melbourne,
Dublin 1966
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED Ed John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany Fellowship
Inc, Minneapolis, 1973
DID JESUS CHRIST REALLY COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN? Alan Hayward, Christadelphian
ALS, Birmingham
DO CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THREE GODS? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1992
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press
Foundation, Bucks, 1995
FOUR GREAT HERESIES, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,
1975
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East
Sussex, 1994
HERESIES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM, Editors Ben Quash and Michael Ward, SPCK,
London, 2007
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES John Wijngaards, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1998
JESUS GOD THE SON OR SON OF GOD? Fred Pearce Christadelphian Publishing Office,
Birmingham
MERE CHRISTIANITY, CS Lewis, Fontana, Glasgow, 1975
MIRACLES, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1960
PRIESTLAND’S PROGRESS, Gerald Priestland, BBC, London, 1981
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
SET MY EXILES FREE, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
SOME MODERN FAITHS, Maurice C Burrell and J Stafford Wright, Intervarsity Press,
Leicestershire, 1988
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GODHEAD EXPLAINED, Christadelphian Press, Beverley, South Australia
THE METAPHOR OF GOD INCARNATE, John Hick, SCM Press, London, 1993
THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, John Hick ed., SCM Press, London, 1977
THE NEW CULTS, Walter Martin, Vision House, Santa Ana, California, 1980
THE SPIRIT OF GOD, John Bedson, Lightstand Burbank CA 1984
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1992
UNDERSTANDING THE CULTS, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Campus Crusade for
Christ, San Bernardino, 1983
UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER ESSAYS, William Ellery Channing, The
Bobs-Merrill Company Inc, Kansas, 1957
YOU CAN LIVE FOREVER IN PARADISE ON EARTH, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
New York, 1982
THE WWW
http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html,
Kevin Quick discusses the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Bible never says
that Jesus is God
www.easyspace.com
Gives the Jehovah’s Witness response to this site
www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/fathersonwayne.htm
Father and/or Son by H Wayne Hamburger