It is one of the great myths of Christian theology that the New Testament presents a unified picture of the divinity of Christ. Actually the Bible contains many different opinions on this matter, and actually insists that Christ was not a god, that Christ was born in the usual way and not born of a virgin, in that Joseph was his father 'according to the flesh', contradicting the theory of the virgin birth of Christ, and that Christ was in a subordinate position to God, among other things.

     In Mark's gospel Christ is 'the son of man' and is angered to be called 'good', much less to be called a God. If you want to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven 'keep the commandments', Mark teaches, while in John's gospel Christ becomes the incarnate Greek 'logos' and you are saved by 'believing in him.' Notice that in the following passage a man rushes forward to kneel in a worshipful way before Christ, and calls him 'good' provoking Joshua to anger...When asked the 'big question' which is 'what must I do to be saved' Joshua answers him curtly in such a way as to suggest that he already knows the answer to that question (so why did he bother to ask?)

"And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Joshua said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’" (Mark Chapter 10 verse 17)

     Compare this doctrine to that of classical Christian theology. Christ was good, in fact he was perfectly good and completely infallible in his god like perfection, being God incarnate and born of a virgin. You are not saved by keeping the commandments. As the church dogma states, 'even the unsaved good burn in hell without Christ.' You are only saved by 'believing in Christ.' The gospel of Mark was written long before the church developed theology, purportedly based on the 'teachings of the divine and inerrant scriptures' and so we see that Mark was entirely unfamiliar with this later dogma. Ask a church 'what must I do to be saved' and they will damn the good who keep the commandments and insist that that 'only by believing that Christ was God incarnate can you be saved.' (You are saved then not on the basis of your good deeds, but rather on the basis of which dogma concerning Christ you believe.) I have also listened to churches insist that the 'deceived' are those who wrongly believe that those who do good are saved 'apart from Christ'. So you can see how Mark's gospel could very well 'deceive' whole boat loads of 'heathens' and drag them down into the pits of hell along with Mark himself, who was also 'deceived' in this way, and unfamiliar with the later dogmas developed by Augustine and the other church fathers.

     The dogma of 'believing in Christ' and 'being saved', and most particularly 'believing that Christ was God incarnate' (and believing in the virgin birth of Christ), and being saved by 'believing' this particular dogma of the church, is not found in the comparison of the synoptic gospels. The doctrine that you are saved based on which dogma you believe is peculiar to the gospel of John among the gospels. (Note that John's gospel contradicts the synoptics on so many points that it seriously distract from the point of this essay to list them all here, and this subject alone is enough for another long, long essay...)

      This concept of 'the logos' is not unique to Christianity, but actually predates the church by centuries, emerging in earlier works of Greek philosophy. The church certainly recognized this fact, and that is why the church through the ages always had a fondness for Greek philosophy. If you attended what was a university in those days, or a seminary, you would study the Bible and theology of course, but you would also study Greek philosophy, Aristotle and Plato among others, because the Christian doctrine and theology became so intimately intertwined with Greek philosophy in the Gospel of John. Christ also becomes an incarnate God in Matthew's gospel, and in Luke's gospel this theme is picked up and continued, with Mary becoming a kind of substitute for goddess worship in other religions (Luke was a very shrewd propagandist, as the continuing popularity of goddess worship in the church now, and down through the ages proves so well).

      In Mark's gospel, Christ is not a god, and he is not even good. In Matthew's gospel he becomes a god incarnate, born of a virgin. In John's gospel he becomes the Greek 'logos' incarnate (the 'word' which was with God eternally, since before the world began.) This doctrine is not unique to Christianity, nor did it even originate with the church. The term logos was first known to be used by Heraclitus in the sixth century B.C.E. There are numerous parallels between the description Heraclitus gave of the logos and verses in the gospel of John. For example, 6 centuries before the church ever began, Heraclitus said that the logos was eternal but people are unable to understand it. Even though all things were created and came into being through this logos, it remains a stranger to humanity, and they do not recognize it. (John Chapter 1 verse 3) Indeed it can be seen that most people remain hostile to the logos, and set themselves against it. (John chapter 1 verse 10) He insisted that the logos was the criterion of truth and that only by participating in this logos that people could come into fullness of the truth. (John chapter 1 verse 9, verse 12, John chapter 3 verse 5) Philo was the first to refer to the logos as God's 'sub lieutenant', helping to govern the universe, being "his own logos, his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the great king." (John chapter 1 verse 1)

      You can see then that not only well known historical differences are found when comparing the gospels, but also differences in theological position between the different churches that produced the gospels. Joshua is no god in Mark's gospel. He is not even good. Only God is good. One of the reasons the churches squabbled and fought so furiously for four centuries before finally establishing a dogmatic, 'orthodox' theology, is because the very 'heresies' (as they are called) are found in the Bible itself, thus giving lots of ammunition to 'heretics' and making nothing simple to establish for a church looking for dogmatic rigidity in orthodox belief.

      The 'subordinationist heresy' (also known as the Monarchist or Arian heresy) is supported by the Bible (so Mark was not the only 'heretic' to write 'sacred scripture'). An author in Corinthians is careful to point out that while God 'puts everything under his (Christ's) feet, it is obvious that this does not include God, under whom even Christ is in subjection. Christ is intended to fulfill a useful purpose, and once that purpose is complete he will step down and become a subject of God himself. ""For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he (God) is not included who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him (God) who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one." (1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 27)

     It was passages like these that fueled the endless squabbling in the church over 'correct doctrine'. Even after the fourth century the squabbling and quarrelling in the churches did not end, but rather violent arguments continued about the 'nature' of Christ (human, divine, or human/divine and in what proportion) and over 'the will' of Christ (human, divine, or human/divine and in what proportion), all of this fueled by 'heretical scripture' as I point out above. These quarrels became so heated and violent that in 648 B.C.E. the Emperor Constans the 2nd outlawed even discussing these articles of theology. About twenty years later it all started up again under a new emperor and the hot tempered feuding over Bible verses which purported to describe the 'divinity' (or lack thereof) of Christ carried on until 680 B.C.E. when the third council at Constantinople declared the point of view of some the above passages found in Mark and Corinthians to be 'heresies' which they remain to this very day.

The Bible does not present any consistent view of Christology, as is demonstrated by over eight centuries of feuding over Bible verses like those above, and the Bible also does not present a consistent and unitary picture of 'the plan of salvation'. As I note in my discussion of the two versions of the Abraham story the scriptures do not only teach "believe in me and thou shalt be saved." For,

"What if some did not believe? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God. Certainly not." (Romans chapter 3 verse 3)

And the following passage is also a 'heresy' that stands in sharp disagreement with the gospel of John...

"For God is the savior of everyone, but especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 10)

     The church dogma which states that the Bible presents a single unitary portrait of the divinity of Christ and a single, simple 'plan of salvation' is false. The Bible proves to be as conflicting and diverse in matters of theology as it is in matters of history.