Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Open Letter Concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ

As some of you may have seen in a previous blog entry, I was recently challenged concerning my Trinitarian beliefs. I was sent a link to a documentary which attempted to prove biblically, theologically, and historically that Jesus is not truly divine and that the doctrine of the Trinity is untrue and a product of pagan influence on a gentile church. Essentially, the Trinity and the deity of Christ was denied in favor of a Unitarian view of the Godhead and of Christ.

I took some time to watch the documentary "The Human Jesus" (hereafter THJ), take notes, and write down my review of it. I sent it to the individual who originally sent me THJ, Adam Pastor. But I thought it wise to put it also on the blog. I thought so because if I was willing to defend a complimentarian view of gender roles publically on the blog, much more the deity of my Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyway, my response is below. It is a little long but such an important topic deserves some time and space.

-Christian





Adam,

Please accept my apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I have not forgotten but in actuality have been taking the time to watch the documentary you sent and to take notes on it as I wanted to offer to you an informed reply. Also, I have looked at your website to try to understand exactly what you do believe and what you do not.

Now on to "The Human Jesus". The first and most glaring thing I noticed was that there seems to be a sizeable misunderstanding of what Trinitarians like myself really believe about the nature of Christ in particular. Although the basic definition is correct, one gets the impression that Trinitarians believe in a Jesus that is truly God, but not really a man. That is not in fact what we believe and such a belief would be considered Gnosticism. The only group I know of that would be close to this would be the Christian Science cult.

The second thing I noticed was that there is this underlying assumption that Trinitarianism is incompatible with Jewish Monotheism. Along with this is the assertion that Trinitarianism will not be acceptable to the Jews (for example) because it is not consistent with their monotheism. With these I have a few replies and questions. Firstly, Trinitarianism is a form of Monotheism. It is not the only form, but it is one of them (and in my judgment, the purest and most biblical). The very definition of Trinitarianism is the belief in one God in three persons. If orthodoxy were teaching tritheism, you would be absolutely correct in asserting that we have departed from monotheism.

Secondly, truth about God is not determined by what is “Jewish” and what is not, but by what God’s Word actually says. The truth of God’s Word is often at odds with what men (even Jewish ones) will accept. For example, the Corban rule (Mark 7:9-13) would have been considered a very Jewish thing to do because of its Talmudic origins, but it had no basis in Torah and in fact was a clever way of getting around what Torah commanded concerning honoring father and mother. In a nutshell, the Lord Jesus cared (and still cares) more about what the Scriptures actually said than what might have been considered Jewish at that time or any time.

Thirdly, along with the above is the presupposition that Trinitarianism and the creeds that confess it are actually borrowed from pagan philosophy and the polytheism that usually accompanies it. However, this would only be true if there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the idea of a plurality within the one Godhead. As I shall argue shortly, there is plenty of evidence within the Old Testament for the idea of plurality and tri-unity.

At one point in the documentary we are told that the New Testament consistently warns against the gentile influence corrupting the pure Jewish faith. My question is when does the New Testament ever warn of this? Not that it isn’t possible for pagan influences to corrupt the true faith of YHVH, but again in the documentary, it is simply assumed that that is what happened. And I am not referring to some prior pagan practices that may have been assimilated (1 Cor. 8 seems to teach that elements used in pagan worship are not defiled), but pagan belief systems. I don’t see the early church attempting to reconcile the worship of Zeus/Jupiter into the worship of Israel’s God. Rather, I see the church looking at evidences in both testaments and attempting to formulate a belief about the One True God whom they confessed.

Several times we are also told that whenever Jesus appeared to be taking on divine prerogatives, He always backed off and denied that He was doing so in an absolute sense. The examples given are John 5:17-23 and John 10:30-39.

Concerning John 5:17-23, my reading of it shows no signs of denial that Jesus is equal to God the Father, quite the opposite. Rather, we should look at this passage in its context.

For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
[1][2]


Basically, this text can be broken up like this:

-Whatever God does, Jesus does
-If it is objected that Jesus says He can do nothing of Himself, proving He is not God, my answer is that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or in inequality. Consider what I blogged about that caused you to contact me in the first place; namely the issue of men and women and their roles and functions in the home and in the Church. Men and women are equal and both are created in the image of God, but they have different roles with the man taking headship in the home and in the Church. The submission of the woman does not entail her inequality with the man.
-God (the Father) raises the dead, Jesus raises the dead. Only God can raise the dead whether physically or spiritually.
-Only God judges (Psalm 9:7, 8; 94:2), yet Jesus is the One Who judges. It will not do to argue that Jesus only carries out and pronounces what the Father decrees because this passage makes clear that the Father judges no one. God has given that prerogative to the Son.
-The result is that the very same honor given to God is given to the Son as well as the Father, and that failure to honor the Son in that way is failure to honor the Father.

This is classic Trinitarianism as it relates to the Son’s relationship with the Father. The Father and the Son are equal. They share the One divine essence. However, in that equality (which can be illustrated by the roles of men and women in the home and the church), there is headship and submission. Also, there is difference in function.

We now come to John 10:30-39. In order to treat this passage properly, I think its larger context will go a long way.

Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”


Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

One of the things that I think everyone overlooks in this exchange is the repeated emphasis Jesus makes on His “works” or the miracles that He did that bore witness to His identity. This is not isolated to this point in chapter 10, but is found elsewhere in John’s gospel (2:11; 4:54; 5:20, 36; 6:14; 11:45; 14:9-11; 20:30-31; 21:25).

This, I believe, is the lynchpin of Christ’s argument with the religious leaders. I always used to be confused by Jesus’ question immediately after the Jewish religious leaders picked up stones to stone Him. Why would Jesus ask about which work He is being stoned for? Is He completely oblivious to what He just said and wondering why He is about to be stoned? What does this question about His miracles have to do with anything?

The answer is found in verses 37 and 38. I am going to skip over vv. 34-36 for the time being but will return to them later. It is interesting that those about to stone Jesus did not dispute the reality of His miracles but instead for claiming to be God, which amounted to blasphemy in their book (and it would be, if it is not true). The Lord, however appeals to His miracles to back up His claim. Remember, we haven’t left the discussion of Christ’s statement in v. 30 about being one with the Father. Jesus is defending that statement by saying, in essence, “I am one with the Father. The miracles He gave me to do prove it. If I haven’t done any miracles, don’t believe me and start hurling stones. But if I do the miracles, which you don’t dispute that I do, believe me that I am one with the Father.”

The reason Jesus asks the question in verse 32 is to point out that the works which the Father gave Him to do, have never been disputed as having occurred by the religious leaders. Their response shows this. The point Jesus makes is that these same miracles which they admitted as having happened, prove the statement made in v. 30 and its implication, namely that Jesus is God.

Now I believe that Jesus did His miracles by the power and anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, these Spirit-wrought works were given by the Father to show that Jesus is the one sent by Him and Jesus, not me, is making the connection between the works He does and His identity as the God-man, one with the Father. In other words, His miracles confirm the message of Christ’s identity as one with the Father and the one sent to bring salvation to the world.

Now I will discuss vv. 34-36. At several points in The Human Jesus, we are told that many times in scripture, non-divine rulers and kings are called “gods”. As it pertains to this passage, Jesus is backing off from the claim to divinity by pointing that fact out.

However, many times, non-divine rulers are called “gods” because they actually are worshipped as such (like Caesar and in some cases Satan). Further, God Himself is also called “god”. At best, the argument from the documentary leaves the question open. Either Jesus is saying “I am God”, or He is saying “I am a ‘god’; that is a non-divine, but powerful ruler”. Context drives our interpretation (at least it should). Firstly, the point I made above argues for the former. Secondly, I think it is plain that Jesus is arguing from the lesser to the greater. He is saying that if non-divine judges are called “gods” in a much lesser sense, how much more the One sent by the Father and attested to by signs, wonders, and miracles. How much more is the one who actually is one with the Father going to be called God in its truest sense.

Now if I am correct, then it’s not blasphemy for Jesus to say, “I am the Son of God”, which according to context, is equivalent to saying “I and My Father are one”, because it was that statement and the religious leaders’ response to it that prompted this short monologue. That is exactly the point made in verse 36.

John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 are some other proof texts given in The Human Jesus designed to disprove Trinitarian notions of God in favor of a Unitarian one. I think on closer examination they are not as anti-Trinitarian as they may at first appear.

John 17:3 reads:
…And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Once again, I think context goes a long way in helping us correctly interpret the passage in question. Let’s see the whole context.

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
(John 17:1-5 NKJV)

While v. 3 standing on its own might give the impression that Jesus is affirming a Unitarian view of the Godhead, the surrounding context gives us some very Trinitarian statements. Firstly, Jesus petitions the Father to glorify Him. The Old Testament is very clear that God does not share His glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8; 48:9-11). Secondly, it is the Son who has authority over all flesh. Only God can have that. It will not do to say that the Father delegated this authority so that makes Him less than God because of the point I made above that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or equality. Thirdly, it is the Son who gives eternal life, which is a prerogative of God alone.

The last point is made in v. 5 in which I believe clinches it. Jesus prays again that the Father would glorify Him with the same glory He had with the Father before the creation of the world. The documentary asserts that Jesus was created in the womb of Mary His mother. John 17:5 would seem to contradict that assertion (among other verses; see for example Colossians 1:17). Further, this passage I believe asserts the full equality of Jesus with the Father, as well as by extension proving His deity.

It is in this context that Jesus defines eternal life by saying that it is knowing the Father, the only true God. I believe this fits perfectly well in a Trinitarian framework. No Trinitarian says that the Father is one of three gods, with the Son being another, and the Spirit yet another. That would be polytheism, which is heresy! Trinitarians happily assert that the Father is the only true God. We also assert that the Son and Holy Spirit also are the only true God. We believe in one and only one God.

If that doesn’t convince you, try this. If you would, assume just for the sake of argument that the Trinity is true and God the Son did become incarnate and take on human flesh. Ask yourself this question: Just how would we expect Him to pray to God His Father? Would we expect Him to affirm anything less than monotheism. Would we not expect that He would refer to God the Father as “The only true God”?

Jesus is certainly affirming monotheism here, but He also makes the point that eternal life is just as equally knowing Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. That clearly puts Him on an equal plane with the Father.

1 Corinthians 8:6 is similar. Paul makes a very monotheistic creedal statement to which I agree completely. However, there is something that I think Unitarians miss. It is asserted that since the passage says “…There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we for Him…” that that is damning to Trinitarianism. However, reading the rest of the passage reveals Paul’s very Trinitarian theology. Again I will quote the whole passage.

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(1 Corinthians 8:5,6 NKJV)

Let’s take the Unitarian argument to consistency. If the argument is true that this passage precludes Jesus Christ from being God because there is only one God, the Father, then it is equally true that God cannot be the Lord, because Paul tells us that there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. How then should we understand a passage like Revelation 11:15:

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

It is obvious that “our Lord” is God and “His Christ” is Jesus. But if we took 1 Corinthians 8:6 the way you suggest, then we have a problem because there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Paul’s Trinitarian theology is brought out by linking together God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in the work of creation. He says that all things exist of God the Father and all things exist through Jesus Christ, God the Son.

I find that both John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, when read in context are very strong passages affirming both the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

One other point that is made particularly at the beginning of the documentary concerns the Shema. It is argued that any argument for Trinitarianism breaks down when we remember that God is one and that this was (and is) the flagship confession of the people of Israel. A couple of things I’d like to say concerning this.

Firstly, the Shema is a classic statement of monotheism; one of the most to the point. However, it is not the last word on the nature of God. Nothing subsequent will contradict it, but it might (and does) offer advance and new revelation that will teach us more about God while never superceding it or contradict it. This I think is apparent when coming to the New Testament, but there are Scriptures which says it pretty outright.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds. (Hebrews 1:1 NKJV)

For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house…And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:3,5-6a NKJV)

Now I realize that you recognize that Christ is greater than Moses and I do not wish to patronize you by suggesting that you don’t, but I think that you may have missed some of the implications of that fact. Moses spoke from God and everything he spoke (including the Shema) was and is true, but what these Scriptures indicate is that the revelation given us in Christ Jesus is greater and more complete (but not contradictory), and sheds more light on what we have read prior. Further, everything prior must be interpreted in light of the greater revelation in Christ.

Another example of this can be seen when Jesus and Peter, James, and John descend from the Mountain of Transfiguration. Peter astutely asks why the scribes say that Elijah must come before the Messiah and the Lord replies that the scribes are correct but that Elijah did come. The disciples realized that He was referring to John the Baptist. So then, Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled, but the New Testament gives us advance and the deeper, truest meaning of the prophecy.

I think we have something similar in Deuteronomy 6:4. The New Testament never changes it, ignores it, or contradicts it; but rather more fully explains it and teaches us its truest meaning.

But even without all of that, I do believe that the Shema itself does hint at Trinitarianism. The first Trinitarian argument that is attacked is the belief that the Hebrew word “echad”. Trinitarians have argued that the word can and often does imply a compound unity which would open the door to the idea of a plurality within the Godhead, whereas The Human Jesus objects by saying that it only means an absolute one with no room for plurality. A Rabbi is even enlisted to support this.

However there are other passages in Scripture which seem give weight to the Trinitarian interpretation. Firstly, Genesis 2:24 says that when a man and a woman come together, the two become “one flesh”. In the Hebrew language, the word used for “one” is ehcad. This is one example of ehcad meaning a compound unity. Similarly, in Ezekiel 37:17, Ezekiel is instructed to take the two sticks symbolizing Joseph and Judah and to join them into one stick. Again the Hebrew word for “one” is echad.

While these do not prove the Trinitarian interpretation, they certainly open the door for it, and given the extra light of the New Testament particularly (though not exclusively), Trinitarianism is not as baseless as The Human Jesus would lead us to believe.

The next thing I want to touch on is the documentary’s treatment of John 1:1. I have heard of alternate interpretations of this verse which are used to deny that Jesus is God (notably the Watchtower’s translation “a god”) but I did not expect this. The only thing I can really say to that is that I think the interpretation that the “Word” which was with God and is God is more than just the plan of God or the purpose of God as the documentary asserts.

This interpretation breaks down at v. 14 which tells us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The question we may reasonably ask is, “Who became flesh and dwelt among us according to the context”? The Word did. And the apostles beheld His (the Word’s) glory as of the only begotten of the Father. Clearly Jesus is the one who is only begotten of the Father. And if this is so, then it is He who became flesh and dwelt among us and it is He who is the Word who became flesh and who was with God and was God. This is more than just a Hebrew idiom that personifies God’s purpose or plan.

I also wish to defend the belief that the deity of Jesus makes possible our salvation. Contrary to the documentary’s claim, the worthiness of the sacrifice does make a difference. The children of Israel were not allowed to bring just any goat/bull/ox/sheep, etc… The sacrifice, as you no doubt are aware, must have been without blemish completely or it could not be a sacrifice.

This is typical of the sinlessness of Jesus. Only a sinless human being could be the sacrifice necessary to take away the sins of the human race. And only an infinite being could suffer an eternity’s worth of the wrath of God against sin in a finite period of time. If Jesus were not God, He could not suffer that infinite wrath in the space of one afternoon. If Jesus were not God, then no one could be saved.

One final thing. Near the end of the documentary it is argued that if Jesus were God, then how does He serve as an example to me as to how to live as a redeemed human being? The answer given is that He doesn’t. Jesus is man, not God so He does give us that example of how people should live to God’s glory.

However, I would counter by saying, as I did above, that Jesus when coming to earth “emptied Himself” as Philippians 2 says and became a human being. In emptying Himself, He voluntarily chose not to use His divine attributes but instead lived His life as a man in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is His sinless life, His victory over temptations, His miracles, and His obedience to the Father in going to the cross were done in the power of the Holy Spirit and not on the strength of His divine nature although He could have. This provides powerful assurance to me of what I can do with the same Holy Spirit in me.

To further make my point, I have linked below a message given by Dr. Sam Storms where he argues this point further.[3]

In closing I wish to put this in perspective. This is not a minor disagreement about a secondary point of doctrine. This is an issue which touches our eternal destinies. The fact is that Christology is vital to our salvation. Even a cursory reading of John’s gospel and His epistles make this plain. If I am wrong about Jesus being God and the Trinity, then I am going to Hell. If you are wrong about Jesus not being God, then you are going to Hell. I cannot sugar coat this. I believe that you must turn away from this doctrine you hold, embrace the true Lord Jesus Christ who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Jesus who is God incarnate who alone through faith in His name will save you and all who trust in Him from God’s wrath against our sins. Please consider what I say and don’t hesitate to reply.

-In Jesus name and on His authority,
Christian Edmiston








[1] Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] All emphases are mine.
[3] http://www.charismaticreformed.org/10-14-2006%20Sam%20Storms.mp3

4 comments:

Adam Pastor said...

Greetings Christian

You said "Trinitarianism is a form of Monotheism!"
How can one have a form of Monotheism? Well at least, in the context of Holy Scripture?
Monotheism means belief in ONE GOD. Therefore, in the context of Biblical Monotheism, it means belief in the ONE GOD, YHVH, as ONE person, ONE being, ONE entity. There is simply no scriptural evidence of YHVH being defined as one God in three persons. Such a belief was not taught or propagated by anyone in Scripture, whether OT or NT. So yes, Trinitarianism is indeed incompatible with Jewish, Biblical Monotheism.

In the right context, what GOD's Word says, is very much "Jewish."
Remember, GOD revealed His Scripture to the Jewish Nation, Israel.
So for example:
Jesus said:
(John 4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Paul said:
(Rom 3:1-2) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Rom 9:4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

What was (and is still is) the Jewish creed of the OT/NT times? Based on GOD's word?
The Shema, Deut. 6.4ff; which has never catered nor can ever cater for or endorse a tri-unity.
The Shema has always meant that GOD is one Person, one Being.
Remember, the words of the Jewish scribe who was commended by Jesus the Jewish Messiah:

(Mark 12:32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Not them as would be the case if the Shema defined GOD as three persons!

Obviously then, neither Jesus nor the scribe, were trinitarian.

You said: "At one point in the documentary we are told that the New Testament consistently warns against the gentile influence corrupting the pure Jewish faith. My question is when does the New Testament ever warn of this?"

May I suggest:

(Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
(2 Pet 2:1) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
(1 John 2:18-19) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
(Jude 1:3-4) Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


Now what you call classic Trinitarianism is not classic Scripture.
Classic Trinitarianism is a manmade doctrine which consists solely of inference & implication.

That being said, John 5.17-23, is classic Scriptural, Jewish Agency.
The Agent functions on behalf of the Sender, hence Christ (the Sent) functions on behalf of the Sender (YHVH)
Hence, Whatever God does, Jesus does in the context of functional agency.


Jesus of Nazareth is indeed a man, a human being, made in the image of GOD [2 Cor 4.4]
GOD, the Sender would perform His operations through His human Agent, Jesus of Nazareth (the Sent)
However, in actuality, GOD is performing the tasks, however, the results of the tasks are exhibited through His agent, viz. Jesus of Nazareth. Classic Agency.

See Divine Agency in the Scriptures &

Why Does Jesus Assume the Duties and Actions of YHVH?


"Only GOD can raise the dead", you say. How did Elijah & Elisha raise the dead? Did they do it of themselves? No! They, like Jesus, raised the dead by the power of their GOD. They acted as agents in GOD's stead, GOD raised the dead through them!
Scripture makes it very clear that Jesus raised the dead by the power of GOD & not of himself. For example, the case of Lazarus. GOD heard Jesus. [John 11.42-43]
Almighty GOD has no need for someone to hear Him in order for a prayer to be answered or a miracle to be performed.
Therefore, hear the words of Jesus: (John 14:10-11) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Please, believe what Jesus says. GOD his Father performed the works through him.
Compare NASB Acts 2.22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know


"Only GOD judges", you say? Well, did not GOD raise up judges to judge in His stead? The answer of course, is Yes! And the very fact that GOD had given that prerogative to Jesus; ought to make the point, that Jesus is not GOD Himself; otherwise Jesus would not need anyone, much less someone HIGHER than him to give him the prerogative to judge!
So yes, we ought to honor the Son even as we ought to honor the Father, because GOD the Father as chosen His human Son to be the Judge of mankind.

(Acts 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
(Acts 10:42) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

So just as GOD chose judges in the OT; GOD has ordained Jesus, to be the Judge of mankind.
Almighty GOD, however, has no need for someone to ordained Him in order to be Judge! And the very fact that GOD had ordained Jesus, Judge; ought to make the point, that Jesus is not GOD Himself; otherwise Jesus would not need anyone, much less someone HIGHER than him to 'Ordain' him, Judge!
No one ordains Almighty GOD!!



Now the miracles performed bore witness to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed, the Messiah, GOD's Son, Israel's King. However, the miracles did NOT nor did Jesus EVER confess that they, bore witness that Jesus was their GOD!?!
Jesus is Israel's King, not Israel's GOD!
(John 6:14-15) Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Speaks for itself, doesn't it??


What is the implication of John 10:30? Where did you get the idea that it is "Jesus is Almighty God"?
Is that what Jesus said? Is that what he implied?
What did he say? (John 10:30) I and my Father are one.

What possibly could he mean?

Answer: That they were one in love, unity, purpose & fellowship; he even prayed that the church would be just as one, John 17.11,21,22.

And scripturally, according to Psa 82, is it legitimate that such a representative be called "god"?
Yes? In what sense? The same sense as Moses and the judges.
Does that make the representative, Almighty GOD? NO?

Incidentally, the Greek language has no indefinite article. John 10.33 can legitimately be translated into English, "makest thyself, a God." Hence, Jesus' response in verses 34ff.


Jesus wasn't claiming to be YHVH.
No. He was claiming to be the Son of YHVH. [John 10.36]
Which means being Israel's King, YHVH's Messiah, and by implication at the most, a 'God' in the ultimate sense of Exo 7.1, Exo 22.28, Psa 45.6, Psa 82.6, etc.

Let's look at it another way. If Jesus meant indeed to confirm to his audience that he was indeed YHVH their GOD. Let's just say, that his audience perceived Jesus rightly, that he was announcing his Deity, that he was indeed Almighty GOD, co-equal with his Father.

Just think of the myriad of OT verses he could have proclaimed and said, in order to identify Himself as YHVH indeed!! Just think of the many verses he could have used in order to plainly state that the man before them, was in actuality YHVH himself!!

And what does Jesus do? Quote Psalm 82:6!!! Huh! A verse that speaks about men, human beings. A verse that does not mention or speak of Almighty GOD!
But rather, a verse, as Jesus explained; talks about men, who because of their role as agents, they have received Almighty GOD's words, and as such, were meant to represent and judge on behalf of Almighty GOD; they are therefore, called elohim.

So, apparently, this is the best that our Master and Rabbi could do, in order to present his Deity, that he is indeed co-equally GOD Almighty?? Pleassseee.
Jesus our Lord and Master speaks plainly, and he said no such thing, nor did he imply such a blasphemous idea.


As Ben Witherington, so succinctly puts it:
"If he had simply announced, ‘Hi, folks; I'm God,’ that would have been heard as ‘I'm Yahweh,’ because the Jews of his day did not have any concept of the Trinity. They only knew of God, the Father; whom they called Yahweh, and not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit."
[The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, p.133]


So yes, if non-divine judges are called 'gods' in a much lesser sense, how much more the One sent by the Father and attested to by signs, wonders, and miracles. How much more is the one who actually is one with the Father going to be called God in the truest sense of Psalm 82!!

Jesus, our Master Teacher & Rabbi, must be allowed to teach & expound exactly what he means. He must be allowed to speak plainly.
The context of Psalm 82 proves what Jesus means. He whom the ONE GOD, the Father, sanctified & sent into the world, is of the highest caliber of the men & function depicted in Psalm 82.6; and furthermore, he is "the Son of GOD, the son of YHVH, the son of the Father."
[2 John 3]

And "Son of GOD" in Jewish ears is equivalent to & synonymous to being "the Messiah, GOD's foreordained King" e.g.
(John 1:49) Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
(Luke 1:32-33) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

(John 6:69) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(John 11:27) She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
(Acts 9:20) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.


And what was the so-called blasphemy that Jesus of Nazareth was condemned for?

(John 19:7) The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

(Mat 26:63-65) But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

(Luke 22:70-71) Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. 71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

(Luke 23:1-2) And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

(Mat 27:43) He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

See also THE BLASPHEMY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH


Now John 17:3 reads:
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Now what does "only" mean? What does "only true" mean? Does it mean three? Or even more than one??

Only means "one"! If the Father is the only true GOD, then any other person is not!! And that includes Jesus.


Jesus said that "that they may know You, the only true God"
Seeing that the trinity defines three persons as the only true GOD - You cannot get much more antitrinitarian than John 17.3!
This verse plainly states, and from the mouth of Jesus, that solely the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD!. You cannot get much plainer than that!

(In John 5.44, Jesus calls the Father, the only GOD!)

Read John 17.3 for what it says. Stop trying to read a Western-mind-set, Hellenistic meaning into this verse. It can not and will not fit.

John 17.3 plainly states that solely "one person" is the ONLY TRUE GOD! And this person is the Father!! Therefore, John 17.3 is totally antitrinitarian even as much as
1 Cor 8.4,6 is.
(1 Cor 8:4) ... that there is none other God but one.
(1 Cor 8:6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, ...


You state: "the Son who has authority over all flesh. Only God can have that. It will not do to say that the Father delegated this authority so that makes Him less than God because of the point I made above that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or equality. Thirdly, it is the Son who gives eternal life, which is a prerogative of God alone."

So, will it not do, to say what the Bible says? Hmm! Personally, I choose to stick with Scripture.
The Scriptures say that the Son has authority over all flesh because:
(John 17:2) As thou [the Father] hast given him [the Son] power [authority] over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.


The Scriptures say that the Son gives eternal life because:
(John 5:26) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
(1 John 5:11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.


It is clear from these verses, that Christ Jesus does not possess these attributes OF HIMSELF.
Rather, the Bible clearly asserts that Christ Jesus possesses these attributes because the ONE GOD, the Father, has given them to him!
It is that simple. No need for talk of essence and such like. Christ possesses these things because the ONE GOD, the Father, has given them to him. Amen!


John 17.5 says nothing about the "same" glory. Besides, verse 22, says that the same glory has you put it, has been given to Christ's disciples! How then, can the disciples of Christ possess glory which has been with the Father, before the world was?
Answer: It is glory in prospect; foreordained, reserved glory.

Therefore, Jesus was praying for glory that was promised him (and his disciples) before the world was.
Compare: (1 Pet 1:19-21) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.


Paul's trinitarian theology LOL
Now, that's a contradiction, an incongruity & an anachronism; if I ever heard one.
Paul was not a trinitarian and neither was Jesus.
There was no such thing as a trinity in their era. LOL!
(See again, Ben Witherington's quote, above)

Paul & Jesus know of solely ONE Person as their GOD. And that's the Father.

See also In defence of Paul


You state: "The first Trinitarian argument that is attacked is the belief that the Hebrew word 'echad'. Trinitarians have argued that the word can and often does imply a compound unity which would open the door to the idea of a plurality within the Godhead, whereas The Human Jesus objects by saying that it only means an absolute one with no room for plurality. A Rabbi is even enlisted to support this."

So let me get this right. A Jew is not allowed to inform YOU of the meaning of the word echad from his very own language!!! Huh!!

Did you know that when Jews are taught to count, they begin with echad?
echad means ONE, CARDINAL NUMBER ONE, NUMERAL ONE!!


So one can grasps after hints at trinitarianism & symbolism all one likes. Nonetheless,
echad still means ONE, NUMERAL ONE! And that is what it means to a Jew.
A Jew must be allowed to inform others of what their very own language means. And that includes Jesus and the scribes, who are Jews!

(BTW, in Ezek 37.17ff, it was still literally TWO sticks, tied? together, in Ezekiel's hand. These two sticks did not somehow morph into one stick.
(Ezek 37:20) And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

Likewise, a husband & a wife do not somehow morph into one person. They are still literally two persons, two human beings. See Elohim and Echad)


One thing you have rightly said Christian; is that these do not prove the trinitarian interpretation. Leave it as that!


Echad means ONE!!
(Mark 12:32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Note, the scribe did not say them as would be the case if echad indeed was somehow plural.

Compound unity is nothing more than another manmade fallacy. It simply does not exist in language.
See also Mathematics Gone Mad: When One is Supposed to Mean Three


So one has a choice. Either desperately seek trinitarian interpretations and then to read them into the plain text of Scripture; or simply & humbly accept what Scripture is indeed plainly saying.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be far from the Kingdom of GOD at all. [Mark 12.34]
Therefore, I will side with the commendation of Jesus and stick with the creed of Jesus, Deut 6.4, which is to be interpreted to mean: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.


Concerning John 1.14, the question is not Who became flesh, but rather, What became flesh?

I will quote Kuschel, Born Before All Time?, p. 382:

"From this it may be concluded that he [Jesus] is the Logos in person, the wisdom of God in human form. ... We may therefore follow Leonhard Goppelt in seeing the focus of the content of the prologue as this: 'The logos of the prologue becomes Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh, not the logos as such.'"

(1 John 1:1-2) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

So how was the word of life manifested? How was eternal life manifested?
Answer: In the person of Jesus of Nazareth. GOD's word, GOD's eternal life, as a human being!

So whose glory did the disciples beheld?
Answer: they beheld the glory of the human person who came into being after the word of GOD became flesh! They beheld the glory of a human being who was begotten into this world in the fulness of time. [Gal 4.4] They beheld the glory of GOD's only-begotten son, the man Christ Jesus.
The man, Jesus of Nazareth, is what the word of GOD became! And it is this man, whose glory, the disciples beheld.


I recommend James Dunn's Christology in the Making; who goes into great detail about GOD's word becoming flesh resulting in Jesus the Messiah.
For starters, have a look at: Concerning John 1:1


You state: "And only an infinite being could suffer an eternity’s worth of the wrath of God against sin in a finite period of time."

Where do you get this stuff from?? Certainly, not from Scripture. Let's stop listening to Athanasius, and see what the Scriptures actually say.

NASB Romans 5:12-19:

12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, ... 14. ... Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 ... For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. ... 17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

NASB 1 Cor 15.21. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

So do you really think that Paul was comparing Adam with Almighty GOD? (See Isa 40.18, 46.5; Deut 4.16, Rom 1.23)
No, of course, he wasn't. Two men were being compared.

Jesus Christ was and is a finite, sinless human being. He indeed was tempted (something Almighty GOD cannot be - Jas. 1.13); yet he did not yield to sin.
(1 Pet 2:22) Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(Heb 4:15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
(1 Pet 1:19) ... Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


And as such, according to GOD our Savior's requirements, the finite, sinless man, Jesus of Nazareth qualifies as GOD's Lamb, sacrifice and propitiation for the sin of the world
[John 1.29, Heb 9.26, 10.12, 1 John 2.2, 4.10]

See also How does Christ’s Sacrifice Work to Remove Sin?


Concerning Philippians 2 & Jesus emptying himself please see Adam Christology, Pre-existence & The Philippian Hymn


Well, Christian Edmiston, in closing, I would like to thank you for your time; thank you for viewing the video & thank you for your comments.

If you are indeed wrong about Jesus being God and the Trinity; you can always by GOD's grace, turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein;
[Acts 14.15]
and turn to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven.
[1 Thess. 1.9-10]

I indeed pray that in your efforts to do so, GOD Almighty will bless you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord. Amen.

I will now leave you with the final say and bid you, Adieu.

Yours In Messiah
Adam Pastor

Adam Pastor said...

PS oops, forgot to add,
concerning 1 Cor. 8.6.

YHVH is the ONE LORD GOD.
Whilst Jesus is the Lord Messiah, adoni.

The word 'Lord/kurios' is clearly used in the NT, in two different senses, in correspondence with the Hebrew words: YHVH/Adonai & adoni.

(Acts 2:32-36)
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
both Lord and Christ.

Now is Peter telling his audience that YHVH has made the crucified,
resurrected Jesus of Nazareth,
both YHVH & Christ???
NO!!!

Peter is clearly declaring that the ONE GOD, YHVH; has made the
crucified, resurrected Jesus of Nazareth,
both Lord & Messiah,
in fulfillment of Psalm 110.1.
Jesus of Nazareth is NOW that Lord, that Master, that adoni at GOD's right hand;
therefore he is truly ...

the Lord Jesus Christ,
the ONE man that GOD Almighty has ordained to be at His right hand
and be made "Lord of all"
[Acts 10.36]
Hence Jesus is the 'one' Lord,
of Psalm 110.1, at YHVH's right hand.


Hence we have One God and Father of all
[Eph 4.6]
and One Lord [v.5], the man Christ Jesus.

Hopefully now you can see the difference between the "LORD" GOD
and the "Lord" Messiah.
[Col 3.24, Luke 2.11]

The Father is the ONE GOD, YHVH.
Whilst Jesus of Nazareth is the ONE man whom YAHWEH has
made 'Lord/Master/adoni' of all.
Hence ONE GOD, ONE Lord,
1 Cor 8.6.


Think about it??
Was the Father made "Lord"?? NO!!
So, Paul does indeed mean that Jesus is the ONE "Lord" in a sense
that the Father, the ONE GOD, is not!

And of course, seeing there is solely ONE GOD, the Father, and Jesus is not the Father; then Jesus is not the ONE GOD.
However he is the ONE man made 'Lord of all' by YHVH, his GOD!

In closing,
(I mean it this time! :-) ),
let me again quote James Dunn, who sums it up beautifully:


Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, SCM Press Ltd, 1977, page 53:

“Should we then say that Jesus was confessed as God from the earliest days in Hellenistic Christianity?
That would be to claim too much.
(1) The emergence of a confession of Jesus in terms of divinity was largely facilitated by the emergence of Psalm 110:1 from very early on (most clearly in Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34f.;
I Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13).

The Lord says to my lord:
‘Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool’.

Its importance here lies in the double use of kyrios. The one is clearly Yahweh, but who is the other?
Clearly not Yahweh, but an exalted being whom the Psalmist calls kyrios.
(2) Paul calls Jesus kyrios, but he seems to have marked reservations about actually calling him ‘God.’ ...
Similarly he refrains from praying to Jesus. More typical of his attitude is that he prays to God through Christ
(Rom. 1:8; 7:25; II Cor. 1:20; Col. 3:17).
(3) ‘Jesus is Lord’ is only part of a fuller confession for Paul. For at the same time as he affirms ‘Jesus is Lord’, he also affirms ‘God is one’ (I Cor. 8:5-6; Eph. 4:5-6). Here Christianity shows itself as a developed form of Judaism, with its monotheistic confession as one of the most important parts of its Jewish inheritance; for in Judaism the most fundamental confession is
‘God is one.’ ‘There is only one God’
(Deut. 6:4). Hence also Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20, I Tim. 2:5 (cf. James 2:19). Within Palestine and the Jewish mission such an affirmation would have been unnecessary — Jews and Christians shared a belief in God’s oneness. But in the Gentile mission this Jewish presupposition within Christianity would have emerged into prominence, in face of the wider belief in ‘gods many.’
The point for us to note is that Paul can hail Jesus as Lord not in order to identify him with God, but rather, if anything, to distinguish him from the One God
(cf. particularly I Cor. 15:24-28; ...).”

Luke Geraty said...

It is very, very difficult to interact on this subject because of the overwhelming amount of proof texting going on. I'd suggest taking it a bit slower and not posting entire essays on the subject. How about we take some of those OT passages and exegete the Hebrew to determine whether what is being stated is, in fact, remotely close to the original "Jewish" intention.

Blessings,
luke g.
thinktheology.org

Christian Edmiston said...

Luke,

Sounds good. I suggest we start with Deuteronomy 6:4.

Adam,

I think we should take Luke's suggestion. How about I start a blog entry about Deut. 6:4 and see if it opens the door for a compound unity or not.

-Christian