Click here for previous session
Exhibit #2 — Scriptural Predictions
The Old Testament predicted the coming of Jesus. It also predicted the coming of
John the Baptist in the book of Malachi. More importantly, many Old and New
Testament references to a final prophet do not match the profile of either John the Baptist to the words of Jesus, is a person to conclude that Jesus had a prehuman existence?
According to Jeremiah 1:5, so did Jeremiah. According to the Islamic religion, so did all
mankind. Next, is a person to draw a parallel between the “I AM” attributed to Jesus and
that attributed to God? Once again, the foundational text pokes fun at the translation.
Jesus is not recorded to have said “I AM” in capital “makes me look like God” letters.
Jesus is translated as having said “I AM” in a “looks like God’s words in Exodus, think
they’ll buy it?” effort at textual synchronization. What Jesus is recorded to have said is
eimi in a humble, uncapitalized, unprepossessing and nonexclusive (152 times in the
New Testament) Greek word which doesn’t justify capitals or comparison with the
supposed words of God in Exodus (which are not capitalized, either in the Hebrew hayah
or the Greek Septuagint ho ohn). By no means can the New Testament Greek eimi
attributed to Jesus be compared with the Old Testament Greek ho ohn attributed to God
in the Septuagint. By no means of honesty or accuracy, that is. Likewise, neither of these
phrases can honestly be capitalized “I AM,” for the 151 other instances of eimi are
translated to the uncapitalized, “I am.” Why is eimi capitalized once and not capitalized
151 times, if not due to doctrinal prejudice? To their own credit, most reputable bibles
avoid this textual gameplaying. The New International Version, the Revised Standard
Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the American Standard Version, and many
others do not capitalize the eimi of Jesus to “I AM.”
Exhibit #5 — The Right Hand Man
Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69 report that Jesus was received into heaven, where he
sat at the right hand of God. Let’s begin by pointing out that Mark 16:920 has been rejected from many bibles for being of doubtful scriptural authority. 154 Bart Ehrman puts
it more simply, stating, “But there’s one problem. Once again, this passage was not
originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe.”
155
Barring the consideration that the entire passage may be illegitimate to begin
with, the argument that closeness to God makes one equal to, partners with, or part of
God breaches clear from the waters of reason. The Bible says Jesus sat with God which,
if Jesus were God, could only mean that God sat beside Himself, on his own right side. In
conflict with this bizarre thought is Isaiah 44:6, which reads with blinding clarity, “Thus
says the Lord … ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God.’” Isaiah
43:11 records, “I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior.” So what’s the
argument again? That Jesus sat beside Himself, Theirselves, Godselves, whatever—but
he sat beside God without sitting beside God because, “Besides Me there is no God,” and
“besides me there is no savior”? A true dilemma arises—either Jesus sat beside God and
therefore is neither God nor savior, or he didn’t sit beside God and the Bible is unreliable.
In the first case the theology fails, in the second case the Bible fails, and either way we’re
left confused, whereas the purpose of revelation is to clarify. In addition, the Bible says,
“And Enoch walked with God …” (Genesis 5:24). So what does that make him?
Exhibit #6 — Forgiving Sins
Some attribute divinity to Jesus because they believe he forgave sins. Luke 5:20
reads, “So when he saw their faith, he said to him, ‘Man, your sins are forgiven you.’”
Luke 7:4748 states, “Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven….
And he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’” The claim is that, by these words, Jesus
forgave sins. Others suggest he informed the individuals concerned that their sins were
forgiven, but by whom, he didn’t say. Significantly, Jesus didn’t say, “I forgive your
sins.” Were we to assume Jesus conveyed the forgiveness of the Creator, of which he was
informed through revelation, we fall into agreement with Jesus in John 12:49—“For I
have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me gave me a command,
what I should say and what I should speak.” On the other hand, were we to assume Jesus
forgave sins on his own initiative, we contradict his statement, “I can of myself do
nothing …” (John 5:30).
A deeper question is not whether Jesus had the power to forgive sins, but whether
that would make him equal to God. The Pharisees allegedly thought so, but Jesus
corrected them, as Luke 5:21 records: “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason,
saying, ‘Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’”
Again, the argument is that the Pharisees believed Jesus claimed to be God, so we should
believe as they did. However, it’s a peculiar argument. The Pharisees hated Jesus, defied
him and obstructed his mission, lied against him at his trial and plotted his capture,
humiliation, beating and murder. And yet, we’re supposed to trust their opinion? Let’s
remember, it’s the defiant Pharisees who teach, to this day, that Jesus Christ was a
bastard child and his mother was either a fornicator or a prostitute. And yet the Christian is supposed to accept their opinion? Jesus didn’t. In the very next verse, Luke 5:22, he
rebuked the Pharisees with the words, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts?”—the
rough scriptural equivalent of calling them blithering idiots, for they allowed their
emotions to override rational judgment.
And again, what better place for Jesus to have asserted his divinity if, that is, he
were in fact divine? What better place for him to have stood tall with the confidence of
divine omnipotence and said, “That’s right, who can forgive sins but God alone? Finally,
you’ve figured it out. Now, let me explain …”
But he didn’t, and we have to assume he had good reason not to, for in fact he
stated the exact opposite.
English 