This is specifically for JWs and should find a home in a topic under Jehovah Witnesses.Even though it is true, as the Trinity booklet points out, that the word Trinity is not to be found in the pages of Scripture, the doctrine certainly is “clearly and consistently presented” there, as was Edmund Fortman’s’ point. The Bible asserts there is but ONE God, and yet also claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit —all three—that ONE God! Hard to understand? Perhaps. Unbiblical, no! What people need to understand is that the Bible is not a theology book with a chapter explaining the nature of God, the nature of man, and so on. We might wish it to be so, but it is not that way. Bible scholars throughout the centuries who read the Scriptures carefully and systematically—comparing Scripture with Scripture, armed with a cultural understanding of the times in which it was written, and a knowledge of the language and grammar—have arrived at theological systems and put this information down in theology books. The Bible itself just makes certain assertions—human beings have to figure out how it fits together! Theology is the study of God or things divine. Christology is the study of Christ.
Incidentally, the WTBTS has a Christology of its own, but you would never know it by reading the Trinity booklet. They believe and teach that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel— both before he was born as a man and again now after his resurrection. Can we find that doctrine “clearly and consistently presented” in the Bible—that Jesus is Michael? No, Michael is only mentioned a few times in the Bible, and it never claims that Michael and Jesus are the same person. In order to arrive at that conclusion, you must read the WATCHTOWER** magazine or the WTBTS’s own theology book, Insight on the Scriptures. So ineffectual and weak is their argument that you will be hard pressed to find a JW who is willing to even make an attempt to prove that Jesus is Michael using the Scriptures.
When discussing this subject of the Deity of Christ with a JW, we always insist that they also defend the WTBTS’s teaching about Jesus being Michael from the Bible. One JW elder, who only wanted to “play offense,” told me that the Watchtower Society does not teach that Jesus is Michael! Incredible! He stuck to his story until I produced the documentation (a photocopy of the Feb.1, 1994 WATCHTOWER, pg. 6) proving that they do, in fact, teach that! How can JWs demand that we prove the Deity of Christ from the Scriptures, and yet, be unable and unwilling to prove their own Christology from the Bible?
Moreover, as I have already said, the Trinity booklet informs us of all the reasons why Jesus cannot be God without even mentioning, let alone making their case, that Jesus is Michael. Why is that, do you suppose?
Do The Ante-Nicene Fathers Agree With The Watchtower Society?
The Watchtower Society dances the “two-story two-step” when it comes to the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Story #1 is employed when it seems convenient to infer that the early Fathers were the “early Christians” [13. The booklet refers to the ante-Nicene Fathers as “the early Christians” on the last page of the Trinity booklet. Keep in mind that in order to be considered a Christian, one needs to be a JW. There are no true Christians outside of the WTBTS organization. If these men were Christians, though, when and how did the Great Apostasy develop?] doctrinally with the Church of today. They need this connection to the early days— some connection, as it were, with Jesus and his Apostles—so they do not appear as just another Johnny-come-lately, nineteenth-century, anti-Christian, religious cult, which, in fact, they are. ☺ The Trinity booklet contains a fine example of Story #1 on page 7 which presents a list of Ante-Nicene Fathers and makes it appear—through linguistic sleight-of-hand—that these men, who were closer in time to Jesus and His teachings, believed pretty much as the WTBTS does today.
Story #2 comes into play when it becomes necessary to explain why the WTBTS—calling itself a Christian organization—rejects all essential Christian doctrine as understood and taught for 1900+ years. This is when the WTBTS claims that the people who came on the scene soon after the death of the Apostles (the Ante-Nicene Fathers!) apostatized from the true Christian faith—which the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society thankfully “restored” when they came on the scene in the late-nineteenth century. These Ante-Nicene apostates are to blame for the infusion of Pagan philosophy into the Church, at which point the Christian Church became “Christendom.” More on Story #2 later, right now we’ll look at their portrayal of Story #1—that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed similarly to the WTBTS when it comes to the nature of God and Christ.
The ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.”[14. Should You Believe …, p.7]
Really? Justin Martyr called Jesus a created angel? Justin identifies Jesus, the Son of God, with “the Angel of the LORD” Who appeared to men in the OT times, but never refers to Him as a created being. Let’s look at Justin Martyr’s own words.
…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin. . . [15. Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe,vol. I (1884; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p.184]… but now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts. . . [16. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. I (1884; reprint,Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p.212]
Like Justin Martyr, we believe Christ appeared as the Angel of the LORD to Moses and other Old Testament saints, but also like Justin, we believe Him to be WHO He said He is—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! In fact, the “Angel of the LORD” is the person who identifies Himself by the name of YHWH in Exodus 3:1-14!
What about Irenaeus? According to the Trinity booklet:
Irenaeus…showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.” [17. Should You Believe …, p.7]
Irenaeus believed that the Father is the head of Christ just as the Bible teaches, and as we also believe. But keep in mind headship does not imply superiority of nature. Women are under the headship of their husbands, but they are not inferior to them. Men and women share the nature of humanity. But as to Christ’s nature, Irenaeus believed, as we do, that Jesus Christ is God.
3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God, our Creator. [18. Irenaeus, “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. I (1884; reprint,Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p.545]
Next, we have Clement of Alexandria as portrayed in the Trinity booklet:
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E. called Jesus in his pre-human existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him. [19. Trinity, p.7]
Did Clement consider Jesus to be unequal to the Father—a mere creature? It doesn’t seem so from what he said here:
What therefore he says, “from the beginning,” the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, “That which was from the beginning,” he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. [20. Clement of Alexandria, “Fragments from Cassiodorus,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe,vol. II (1884; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p.574]
Clement was making the point that Jesus—although “generated” or begotten of the Father—was generated “without beginning” and is, therefore, as eternal as the Father and not created. After misrepresenting Clement’s views, the Trinity booklet goes on to deliver the bombshell that:
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.”[21. Should You Believe …, p.7]
Oh, NO! Tertullian believed the Father and the Son are different persons? Well, duh! Trinitarians—like Tertullian and like us—believe there are different persons within the nature of the Godhead—three of them, in fact! That’s why Trinitarians happily sing the Holy, Holy, Holy hymn that concludes with “God in three persons, blessed Trinity.” Remember that old song? The Father is the First Person, the Son is the Second Person, and the Holy Spirit is the Third Person all of whom have the same nature. It’s hard to believe the WTBTS thinks this is such a big secret! Well, besides the shocking news that Tertullian seems to believe there is more than one person in the Godhead, what else did he have to say about the nature of God?
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in the plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our image, and after our own likeness;” whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness;” as being a unique and singular Being?…He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son?…Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase…[22. Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. III (1884; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p.606]We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun—there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. [23. Tertullian, “Apology,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTENICENEFATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. III (1884; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), pp.34-35]
This next quote by Hippolytus is the one I most love to show JWs at the kitchen table, along with a photocopy of Hippolytus’actual words, because even the most militantly obtuse JW has no choice but to recognize that Hippolytus believed the opposite of what the WTBTS claims he believed. According to the WTBTS:
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him…But he was One, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created pre-human Jesus. [24. Should You Believe …, p.7]
What Hippolytus actually said is:
God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the word, He made it; and straightway it appeared, formed as it had pleased Him…Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. [25. Hippolytus, “Against the Heresy of One Noetus,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, rev. by A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. V (1884; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p.227]
God, before the creation of anything, existed in plurality! There can be no doubt that the WTBTS knows what Hippolytus actually taught and deliberately edited this out of their deceitful “quotation.” So when they close this section on the Ante-Nicene Fathers with the statement that “the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter,” [26. Should You Believe …, p.7] they show themselves to be shameless liars.
Story #2—The Great Apostasy
Gather around, children. We’re about to hear the story about how the Christian Church became nasty old “Christendom.”
This disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things.[27. Should You Believe …, p.9]Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common…And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. [28. Should You Believe …, p.11]
Is Jesus truly Almighty God By Joy A. Veinot - Ad Lucem Ministries
(Originally printed in the Fall 2003 Issue of the MCOI Journal) Should you believe in the Trinity? This is the question raised by the widely circulated, 1989 booklet published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS)*, appropriately titled Should You Believe in the Trinity?and subtitled...adlucem.co
Don't want to derail the thread @synergy.
The misuse and abuse of John 17:3 by Unitarians to promote Unitarianism.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
spot on and we know all false doctrines begin with isolation.
Jay Dyer is another top rated apologist besides Sam Shamoun. In fact, Sam and Jay paired up recently to utterly demolish a pair of Muslims over a debate that drew over a million views.
civic
Well-known member
Nice I will have to watch that one.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
That's why, in dealing with doctrinal controversies, massive numbers matter more than small numbers. Direct speeches matter more than indirect speeches. Prose matters more than poetry. Words spoken by Jesus matter more than words spoken by his disciples. (WARNING: I am talking about dealing with doctrinal controversies, not about profiting spiritually from the Bible in our daily life).
I invite you and our brother @101G to visualize this:
@101G and I could join forces against your view, to show that God is massively treated as One Person across the Bible. In this regard, the proportion of verses treating God as Person versus those treating God as an essence is about 100:1. You would have a very hard time disproving verses in such proportion and clinging to a handful of verses.
On the other hand, you and me could join forces against the view of @101G, to show that The Father and Jesus are massively treated as two distinct persons. In this regard, the proportion of verses treating them as distinct persons versus those treating them as if they were the same Person is also high, let's say around 50:1 or more. @101G would have a very hard time disproving verses in such proportion and clinging to a handful of verses.
In both scenarios, the "dynamic duo" could resort to a HUGE pile of texts on Scripture to support their views, while the "villain" would have a hard time stopping the avalanche. You may think also in a scenario where you and @101G are the dynamic duo while I am the villain. I'm too biased as to visualize such scenario
Now, joking apart, the important thing is... how our Unitarism/Modalism/Trinitarism influence in the way we love God or feel loved by Him?
Last edited:
101G
Well-known member
first thanks for the reply. second, 101G is not a modelist nor do 101G believe in Modalism, nor Unitarism, nor trinitarism. let it be on record, 101G is a "Diversified Oneness".
now true, 101G is a one person God .... "SHARED Equally in Spirit, or Diversified in Spirit Equally, as ONE PERSON, and not as a mere essence of himself. but the Intrinsic Spatial of himself in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK. because Philippians 2:6 eliminates just an essence of God. please understand what 101G means by Intrinsic Spatial of (God) himself in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK.
now.. "What do I applaud from your Trinitarism? That you recognize that Jesus and His Father have distinct minds and wills."
101G must disagree with that statement, and here's why. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." by being the ARM this explain clearly and eliminated the erroneous beliefs in understanding a separate and distinct will.
the bible is clear on these points.
101G.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Please accept my apologies for using a term for you that you don't identify with.
Thanks for your observation, because it stresses that fact that there are and have been thousands of ways to think about this subject.
Even what is known as "Trinitarism" nowadays is only one of many ways early Christians thought about Jesus, and even within those who believed Jesus was God.
I mean, Nestorians, for example, were as convinced as @synergy on the deity of Jesus and of his independence from the Father as distinct persons. However, Nestorians were condemned as heretics.
There are some Protestants, like Oneness Pentecostals, that uphold that Jesus is God, although do not uphold the Trinity. They are considered heretics by mainstream Protestants.
A good friend of mine, who identifies himself as a Calvinist, refuses over and over to be called "Trinitarian"... he says he refuses to describe God in terms of numbers... but he says he is not a modalist either.
Muslims think in Jesus as a Prophet, but Baha'is like me, who emerged from a Muslim context, think in Jesus as a Manifestation of God Himself, of his Logos.
So, what I want to say is that there are as many ways to visualize this subject as there are believers in the world. This is why my main concern is not to put the dogma we adhere to as a CONDITION for anybody to be forgiven and transformed by the grace of God.
Let's see. We see the Father clearly in Jesus who now sits on His Father's Throne and along with the Father receives prayers and worship from the entire Heaven. As for Muhammad, he is dust trampled upon and pooped on by pigs and dogs. Now who do you think manifests the Father the best?That's why, in dealing with doctrinal controversies, massive numbers matter more than small numbers. Direct speeches matter more than indirect speeches. Prose matters more than poetry. Words spoken by Jesus matter more than words spoken by his disciples. (WARNING: I am talking about dealing with doctrinal controversies, not about profiting spiritually from the Bible in our daily life).
I invite you and our brother @101G to visualize this:
@101G and I could join forces against your view, to show that God is massively treated as One Person across the Bible. In this regard, the proportion of verses treating God as Person versus those treating God as an essence is about 100:1. You would have a very hard time disproving verses in such proportion and clinging to a handful of verses.
On the other hand, you and me could join forces against the view of @101G, to show that The Father and Jesus are massively treated as two distinct persons. In this regard, the proportion of verses treating them as distinct persons versus those treating them as if they were the same Person is also high, let's say around 50:1 or more. @101G would have a very hard time disproving verses in such proportion and clinging to a handful of verses.
In both scenarios, the "dynamic duo" could resort to a HUGE pile of texts on Scripture to support their views, while the "villain" would have a hard time stopping the avalanche. You may think also in a scenario where you and @101G are the dynamic duo while I am the villain. I'm too biased as to visualize such scenario
Now, joking apart, the important thing is... how our Unitarism/Modalism/Trinitarism influence in the way we love God or feel loved by Him?
101G
Well-known member
first, no problems, you're my brother. secondly, you're welcome.
true, but the CONDITIONS are spelled out clearly in the bible. and with the many way(s) to achieve these conditions is a deception of the devil this is why there are so many WAYS presented by... MEN and WOMEN, and not by God, because his standards are set and change not. thank God for these forums so we may discuss.... and find the truth. 101G don't put anyone down, but hear one our or just reprove what they say by scripture ... only. for we must test the spirit by the Spirit. THANK GOD FOR THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
101G
101G
Well-known member
first, 101G understand your point, but the delivery .... a bit harsh. for all who died have been "trampled upon and pooped on by pigs and dogs".Let's see. We see the Father clearly in Jesus who now sits on His Father's Throne and along with the Father receives prayers and worship from the entire Heaven. As for Muhammad, he is dust trampled upon and pooped on by pigs and dogs. Now who do you think manifests the Father the best?
but what 101G will ask you is this. YES, it's the Lord Jesus who sits on the throne.... correct, but please explain how the Lamb, (Jesus, the son) stand before the very throne he sits on.
looking to hear your answer.
101G
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Just a comment about what Jay Dyer says in his video at 1:40
This guy says that Jews tried to stone Jesus because He had said (or implied, somehow) He was God, and that Jesus "didn't correct their oponents". Well, that's not true! Has Jay Dyer read the passage he is making a comment on?
The passage says:
The Feast of the Dedication[a] was at Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s Porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him, saying, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you did not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life. They shall never perish, nor shall anyone snatch them from My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them from My Father’s hand. 30 My Father and I are one.”
Again the Jews took up stones to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”[b]’? 35 If He called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of My Father, do not believe Me. 38 But if I do them, 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.” 39 Again they tried to seize Him, but He escaped from their hands.
What do we find here?
- Those wanting to stone Jesus were the enemies of Christ. They were making false accusations so they could kill him.
- Jesus was saying He did the works of his Father. In other passages, that He spoke the words of His Father.
- The question being discussed (verse 24) was if Jesus was The Messiah (The Christ). The deity of Jesus was not in the question, and the deity of Jesus was not in the answer!
- Jesus had not declared Himself God. He had been saying (as the gospel of John attests over and over) that He did the works and spoke the words of His Father. That it was His Father who had given him their sheep. That it was His Father who bear witness of Him. He had been saying He came from God, not that He was God!!
- When Jesus is accused for blasphemy, Jesus DID defend Himself! He did correct them! He didn't "hold his ground" on being God!. All the contrary. He responded: "Why all this fuss is about? In the Tanakh, men are called "gods"... so why would it be inappropriate to use the title "Son of God" if I am the Messiah?"
- Jesus explains in verse 38 that He and his Father are One because He does the works of His Father.
- Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah ("Son of God" was a messianic title), doing the works of His Father. That's why He could say He and His Father were One.
- Whether Jesus was the Messiah or not was the topic addressed in the question, and the topic addressed in the answer. No deity on debate.
- That Jesus had made Himself God was an accusation of his ENEMIES, and not surprisingly, a false one.
- Jesus DID defend Himself from the FALSE accusation. Jesus DID correct his opponents. He show them that if "gods" was a title applied to men, so it was more than justified for Him to claim the title "Son of God". He never admitted He had said He was God.
- Jay Dyer has been refuted.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
It's written starting in 1 Corinthians 12:7 that the manifestations of the spirit is given to all Christians. Prophets in the Old Testament heard from God by the spirit of God that was placed on them. This is not rocket science. If you think hearing from God is out of your reach then you need to read my book.
That's exactly my point. That's why Jesus is God and everyone else is just dust. I can't understand how Judaizers (Unitarians, JWs, Muslims, etc...) can not see that fact.
The Bible (word of God) speaks to everyone who sincerely reads it. That is not rocket science. Are you saying that God speaks to you directly, person to person, as Joseph Smith claimed God did to him?
You picked the wrong passages. It's in John 8:58 where Jesus declared himself the "I Am", (the name of the OT God) and the fact that Abraham saw him as the Preincarnate Jesus. The Pharisees took exception to Jesus declaring himself that old but they really got pissed off when Jesus called himself God's name, "I Am". Pharisees are prototypical Unitarians.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The spirit of Christ communicates with all Christians who have their spiritual ears on. I may be able to help if you want to learn since I wrote it all down here... https://walking-by-the-spirit.com
101G
Well-known member
but did not Isaiah say Jesus is YHWH/I AM, and was this not confirmed by the writer of John? scripture, Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." Isaiah 6:2 "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." Isaiah 6:3 "And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:4 "And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke."
now the writer of John wrote this concerning this vision of Isaiah. John 12:37 "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:" John 12:38 "That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" John 12:39 "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again," John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:41 "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him."
101G.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Let's get into the time machine, type "30 AD" and "Jerusalem" in the keyboard, and bring with us a device that translates our thoughts into Aramaic automatically.
What arguments would you use to convince a Pharisee that Jesus was God? Not "a god", since they are monotheists, but the God of Israel they worshiped.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Well, I didn't pick the "wrong passage". The passage I quote in John 10 fits perfectly Dayer's description and it perfectly explains how Jesus managed the situation of being accused by blasphemy for declaring Himself God. In contrast, the narrative of John 8 does not tell us how Jesus managed the situation or what he replied. So, John 10 is much richer and better suited for the discussion.
Perhaps you mean that I picked one of the passages Jay Dayer is referring to.
So thanks for calling my attention to John 8 as well. I will comment on that.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-known member
The Shema and the Oneness of God
Begin by affirming the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one"), which was central to Pharisaic belief. Rather than introducing Jesus as a separate or competing deity, highlight that He embodies and reveals the fullness of Yahweh in a unique way. Isaiah 9:6 speaks of the coming Messiah as the “Mighty God, Everlasting Father,” which implies that Yahweh’s presence could be uniquely manifested in the Messiah without compromising divine unity. This framing addresses any concern that Jesus would violate monotheism.
Messianic Prophecies of Divine Presence
A Pharisee would know the messianic prophecies in Isaiah, such as Isaiah 7:14: “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (meaning "God with us"). Highlight that Isaiah prophesied the coming of Yahweh Himself to His people, rather than just another prophet. The Messiah would embody God's presence directly, fulfilling this prophetic expectation.
The Son of Man in Daniel 7
Daniel 7:13-14 describes a “Son of Man” who comes “with the clouds of heaven” and is given “dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” Here, the Son of Man is given an eternal kingdom and is worshiped, something that only God could receive within strict monotheistic Judaism. Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man, claiming this divine role and pointing to His rightful place as the one worthy of worship alongside God.
Yahweh’s Exclusive Authority over Forgiveness and Sabbath
Pharisees held that only Yahweh could forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25: “I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake”) and that Yahweh alone was Lord of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:13). Jesus’ forgiveness of sins (e.g., Mark 2:5) and His declaration of being “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28) positioned Him in Yahweh’s exclusive domain. The Pharisees themselves were shocked by these claims, recognizing that Jesus was placing Himself in a position that only Yahweh could occupy.
The “I AM” Statements and Yahweh’s Name
In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” using the divine name ἐγώ εἰμί (ego eimi), aligning Himself with Yahweh’s self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”). The Pharisees recognized this as a direct claim to divinity, as shown by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). This statement directly equates Jesus with the God of Israel, asserting His existence as timeless and self-existent.
Messiah as the Suffering Servant Who Redeems
Pharisees were familiar with Isaiah 53 and the concept of the suffering servant, a figure whose suffering brings atonement for Israel’s sins. Pointing to Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection would emphasize that He fulfills this role uniquely as God Himself stepping into human history to accomplish redemption, something that would require both divine authority and love. Only the God of Israel could bear the iniquities of humanity in such a way.
Fulfillment of Messianic Miracles
According to rabbinic tradition, specific miracles were reserved for the Messiah alone, including healing lepers, casting out mute demons, and restoring sight to the blind (Isaiah 35:5-6). Jesus performed these miracles, fulfilling messianic expectations and demonstrating divine power in ways no other prophet had. The Pharisees’ own knowledge of these messianic signs could be used to emphasize Jesus’ identity as Yahweh Himself intervening in history.
Psalm 110 and the Lordship of the Messiah
In Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus cites Psalm 110:1, where David calls the Messiah “my Lord,” a title that implies superiority. If the Messiah is David’s “Lord” and seated at the right hand of God, then He must share in God’s authority and be more than a mere human descendant of David. This shows that the Messiah, Jesus, is identified with God’s own authority and existence.
To convince a Pharisee, the key would be to demonstrate, using Scripture, that the Messiah wasn’t merely a representative of God but was actually revealing God Himself. By referencing passages they already deeply respected, we could show that Jesus’ words and actions were not just prophetic. Instead, they were uniquely divine, fulfilling Yahweh’s own roles and attributes in human form.
J.
Similar threads
