Jesus is no saviour

 According to the Old Testament Jesus cannot be a saviour

by Ibn Anwar

   According to Christians Jesus is a prince. He is the prince of peace. In the New Testament we read again and again that Jesus is called ‘the Son of Man’. In fact, that expression is mentioned for Jesus over 83 times throughout the New Testament. Consider the following verse,

“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help.” (Psalms 146:3)

Interestingly enough the word help in the above verse is shua in Hebrew. Do you recall the name of Jesus in Hebrew? It’s Yeshua which is rendered “God saves”. Christians often use this as proof that Jesus himself is God who saves. This would be like saying that Hezekiah is God because his name means ‘Strong God’ or Ishmael which means ‘God hears’. Surely, they do not mean anything more than reflections of God Himself and not those who bear those names. The names act as a way to remind the people regarding God. Yeshua cannot possibly be calling Jesus God who saves in light of Psalms 146:3 which clearly disqualifies him as one who offers shua or salvation. Jesus himself is no more than a messenger appointed by God(John 17:3).

We have yet another verse that undermines the notion that Jesus is the source of salvation,

“It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man.” (Psalms 118:8)

The same message is found in Psalms 108:12 and Psalms 60:11,

“Oh give us help against the adversary, For deliverance by man is in vain.”

Was Jesus not a man? Peter one of his top disciples said regarding Jesus,

“Men of Israel, listen to this, Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God…” (Acts2:22)

According to the verses shown by being a man Jesus is clearly disqualified as a saviour let alone as the ultimate saviour for all of humanity.

For further reading  related to this subject please proceed to God is not a man = Jesus is not God.

 

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

19 Responses to “Jesus is no saviour”

  1. Tridax says:

    The argument is good. Let me just add that Yeshua really means ” he is saved”.

    http://www.biblestudytools.com.....ersion=kjv

    Just imagine somebody who is in need of being saved is considered a saviour. Very ludicrous indeed.

  2. ibnsaad says:

    Short and Sweet, my kinda post :p

  3. Islam says:

    Jeremiah 17:5:
    “This is what the LORD says: ‘Cursed is the one who trusts in MAN, who depends on FLESH for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.'”

    So, Jesus is a man [John 8:40 & Acts 2:22], so according to Bible, anyone who depends on strength from man’s flesh, is cursed. Christians cannot: “trust man for strength,” and “NOT trust man for strength,” at the same time, it’s contradictory. Meaning, Christians follow this verse as well as Paul’s teachings at same time, its an oxymoron.

    Therefore, Jesus can NEVER be God, since we can NEVER trust a man for strength according to Bible, yet Jesus was a man.

  4. my jesus says:

    Jesus is God,

  5. my jesus says:

    There are many verses that says that Jesus is God and Saviour. Take a look at a few verses Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 43:10,11, Revelation 1:17-18; Revelation 2:8,Isaiah 44:6, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, John 1:1, John 5:17,18, Philippians 2:5-7, Revelation 22:13 etc.. Deceivers claim that Jesus came down as man, so he is not God, this is not true. Read 1 Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. According to the verses shown by being a man Jesus is clearly qualified as a saviour, as God, he as the ultimate saviour for all of humanity.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      My Jesus…you need to look at those verses again very carefully. None of them really show that Jesus is equal to the Father in every way and that he is “god” deserving of your worship. Matthew 1:23 is taken out of context by the author of Matthew from Isaiah 7:14. The word used in Isaiah 7:14 is ‘alma’ as opposed to ‘bethulah’. The former does not carry the same sense as ‘parthenos'(virgin) used in Matthew 1:23. Further more, Immanuel itself is similar to Gabriel, ishmael, Daniel etc. None of them are god despite the fact that for example Ishmael literally means ‘God hears’. Matthew 1:1 disqualifies ur interpretation since it talks about the GENESIS of Jesus. God has no genesis. You ought to know that. Isaiah 9:6 has been dealt with here http://unveiling-christianity......isaiah-96/. John 1:1 does not talk about Jesus, but rather the logos. Prof. Colin Brown from Fuller Seminary pertinently remarks that the verse is often misunderstood as saying ‘In the beginning was the Son’. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not say ‘God manifested in the flesh’. It says that ‘he/who manifested in the fles’. The ‘God’ part found in the KJV is a later scribal alteration that can be traced back to Codex Alexandrinus. None of the manuscripts predating that testifies to the reading ‘theos’, but rather ‘hos’ as is found in ‘aleph(codex sinaiticus). I can respond to all the other verses that you have cited, but I think it’s clear that you haven’t a leg to stand upon in your weak attempt to deify Jesus.

      • The Bull says:

        Ibn said: “John 1:1 does not talk about Jesus, but rather the logos.”.
        A: It’s very easy and reasonable to come to the conclusion that Jesus is the logos. You have to concede that even if you don’t agree with it. However if you concede that then you can’t claim that the verse isn’t talking about Jesus.
        Also: God is not only a man=Jesus can be a man and God.

  6. rambo says:

    jesus is DEAD!

  7. Anon says:

    Looks like Rambo is not a Christian then

  8. Muhammad says:

    Muhammad is DEAD too and i’m not a muslim. 🙂

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Well, Muhammad s.a.w. was a human being. Of course, he passed away. What’s your point? Moses a.s., Noah a.s., Abraham a.s. etc. all passed away. I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from making pointless remarks.

  9. Ibn Anwar says:

    The Bull said: It’s very easy and reasonable to come to the conclusion that Jesus is the logos. You have to concede that even if you don’t agree with it. However if you concede that then you can’t claim that the verse isn’t talking about Jesus.

    My reply:
    I have already cited Prof. Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary saying that it is “patently wrong to read John 1:1 as if it says ‘in the beginning was the Son'”. The New Testament hardly ever describes Jesus as ‘the word of God'(in fact there is no such sentence as ‘Jesus is the word’ in the entire New Testament) so to assume now that logos in John 1 is synonymous with Jesus is fallacious. If the author of John had really meant to say Jesus was at the beginning with the Father as a person and that he as a person is ‘theos’ he would have said “en arche en iesous…”, but of course that is not what is written. According to Biblical scholars logos’ appearance in John’s prologue parallels Proverbs 8 and other such instances of Wisdom.(Brown, R. E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. United States: Doubleday. pp. 338; Perkins, P. (1990). The Gospel According to John. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 951). Paul describes Jesus as ‘the wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24. If both Paul and the Biblical scholars are right then the logos like Wisdom were created (The Lord created me at the beginning of his work). The belief that the logos has human characteristics which then makes it an actual being(a personal him) is untenable in light of the fact that wisdom too is personified tremendously in Proverbs 8 and elsewhere. No Jewish authority ever thought of Wisdom as a separate person existing with God even though it is described as if it were a person. Analysing John’s prologue one learns that prior to the logos’ so called entrance into this world it is describe as ‘auto'(which is a neuter pronoun meaning it i.e. something abstract) in verse five. It is only upon entering this world that it is addressed as ‘auton'(masculine pronoun meaning him) in verse ten. Thus it is only reasonable to conclude that the linguistic features of the prologue shows that the logos is thought of as an abstract idea and a non-personal concept which becomes person only as it becomes man. In conclusion the person Jesus did not exist prior to his genesis(matthew 1:1) in Mary’s womb.

    • The Bull says:

      Ibn said: “I have already cited Prof. Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary saying that it is “patently wrong to read John 1:1 as if it says ‘in the beginning was the Son’”. ”
      A: Who is the logos? That is the pertinent question. You would have us believe that the logos is an attribute such as wisdom. However, how does an attrubute become flesh and dwell among us? (v14,15). Also, if the Word was God (v1) and was in the beginning with God (v2) then how can it not be an entity in its own right.
      The question for you is who is the Word who became flesh who dwelt among us, heralded by John etc? I think the answer is exceedingly obvious. Your assertion that the logos does not have human characteristics is therefore untennable.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        The question is not who is the logos, but rather what is it? Notice that you have conveniently ignored every single refutation that I offered including the brief linguistic analysis presented. Apparently, you have not read Proverbs 8 at all. Did I assert that the logos is not given “human characteristics”? Read again what I said and stop being a clown. I clearly used the word “personification”. Do you understand what that means? Just as logos is personified so is wisdom in Proverbs 8, yet nobody has ever said that wisdom is a female being/person existing together with God since the beginning of creation. Many months ago I have already explained to you what it means to say that the ‘logos became flesh’. How old are you? You’re not suffering from Alzheimer’s are you? Notice also that the gospel according to John uses ‘para’ to express proximity between individuals/persons such as in John 1:39, 4:40 and 8:38, but in the prologue he uses ‘pros’. This difference should be an indication that personal proximity is not meant by the author in ‘pros ton theon’. In the Tanakh we see that a person’s mental design or faculty is described as being ‘with'(et or im) him such as in 1 Kings 11:11, “This is with you(referring to Solomon and what he desired in his heart/mind).” There are plenty of other such examples such as in Genesis 40:14, Isaiah 59:12, Proverbs 11:2 etc.

  10. The Bull says:

    There is a significant contextual difference between the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 and that of the logos in John. The personification of the logos was in an actual person. Compare John 1:15 with 1:27,30.

    compare:
    v15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

    with:
    v17 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
    v30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

    In verse 15 the person John is baring witness of is the logos who became flesh.
    In verses 17 and 30 he is baring witness of Jesus. They are indisputably the same person.
    Jesus Christ is according to Johns testimony the word who became flesh period.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Contextual difference or otherwise, the Christian Trinitarians commentaries agree that logos’ depiction in John 1 parallels Wisdom’s depiction in Proverbs 8 and elsewhere. However, you have agreed that Wisdom is personified which means it is given human characteristics. As a matter of fact, Wisdom is given far more human characteristics than the so called logos is given in the entire New Testament. Yes, I know verses 15, 17, 30 etc. refer to Jesus as a person, but you forget my first response to you:
      “Analysing John’s prologue one learns that prior to the logos’ so called entrance into this world it is describe as ‘auto’(which is a neuter pronoun meaning it i.e. something abstract) in verse five. It is only upon entering this world that it is addressed as ‘auton’(masculine pronoun meaning him) in verse ten. Thus it is only reasonable to conclude that the linguistic features of the prologue shows that the logos is thought of as an abstract idea and a non-personal concept which becomes person only as it becomes man. In conclusion the person Jesus did not exist prior to his genesis(matthew 1:1) in Mary’s womb.”
      Your problem has always been comprehension The Bull. You can’t even understand my simple responses to you and you think you can understand a 1900 year old piece of literature? lol

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        To remind our readers as per The Bull’s modus operandi he conveniently ignores most of my points and picks up those that have already been refuted time and again.

  11. Dr Mustafa says:

    JOHN CHAPTER 1 AND THE LOGICAL FALLACIES OF TRINITARIAN
    INTERPRETATION OF IT

    What is John actually saying in 1st chapter is very well explained by brother Anwar
    in response to Bull.

    I will elaborate few logical points on this chapter which show how it will be a logical absurdity if we take it in the usual way it is taken by trinitarians.

    POINT 1

    why is that the concept that Jesus was a word with God and was god and will come in flesh one day not said by God himself through out old testament .Compare John chapter 1 to Genesis chapter 1 which talks about God creating heavens and earth. Why didn’t God say he has a word with him and that one day the word will become flesh

    why has not not any prophet said about this that God has a word with him and he will come in flesh one day

    why Jesus himself did not tell that he was a word with God and he is God or he is God in flesh

    why Mark, Matthew and Luke did not mention this

    so the concept so central to Christianity just told by the anonymous writer of John.

    POINT 2

    trinitarian Christians believe that God is triune and God is taken to be all three members of the trinity

    so when John 1:1 says that in the beginning was word and the word with God , why is not triune God or all the members of trinity taken here why only God the father taken here as the verse itself never says word was with God the father

    so according to trinitarian concept of God ,John 1:1 should be, in the beginning was word and word was with triune God and word became flesh

    so now we have a quadraune God.

    POINT 3

    John chapter 1 verse 14 says “and the word became flesh and DWELT among us..”

    compare this with 1 kings chapter 8 verse 27 where Solomon says “but will God indeed DWELL on the earth ? behold heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain the…”

    since Solomon is considered to be the wisest man in the bible he will know that God cannot dwell on earth

    so it could be that Jesus is not God or it could be that Solomon dosent know that God can indeed dwell on earth

    Solomon builds temple of God and says in 1 kings verse 27 “…heaven and highest heaven cannot contain thee : how much less this house which i have built?

    compare this John chapter 10 verse 23 “..Jesus was walking in the temple,in the portico of Solomon..”

    how is that if Jesus is God he came into the temple build by Solomon where as Solomon himself said God cannot come in his temple .

  12. Dr Mustafa says:

    JESUS SAVIOR ?

    Nehemiah chapter 9 verse 27 says “..in the time of their suffering they cried to thee and thou didst hear them from heaven and according to thy great mercies thou didst give them SAVIORS WHO SAVED THEM FROM THE HAND OF ENEMIES,..”

    so as we have seen that it is God who saves by sending saviors.God gets his works done through angels and prophets in the same way he saves through them not that prophets can save all alone

    it is frequently claimed that Jesus is the savior.What does he save us from?
    if it is from the wrath of God it is God who ultimately saves us not Jesus alone as Jesus himself said in John 8:28 “..i do nothing on my own authority..”

    Acts chapter 3 verse 26 further clarifies this “God ,having raised up his servant,sent him to you first,to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

    So God saves. Jesus and other prophets are only the medium in that we should listen and obey them to avoid Gods wrath.

    if people say Jesus on his own saves .How can a man who COULD NOT SAVE HIMSELF FROM THE HAND OF ENEMIES save the whole humanity ?

    IT IS LIKE WHOLE EUROPE ASKING GREECE TO BAIL THEM OUT FROM THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

Leave a Reply