Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/is-jesus-god-answering-answers-in.html
In the first part of this series, we dealt with the arguments for the deity of Christ put forth by Answers in Genesis in their article, “Is Jesus God?“ In their article, they asserted that Jesus possesses many of the names, titles, attributes, and works that rightly apply to God alone, like being the creator or receiving worship. However, all of those arguments were shown to be false in one of two ways: either (1) the name, title, attribute, or work does not actually apply to Jesus and has been misinterpreted, or else (2) the name, title, attribute, or work is also applied to other humans throughout the Bible. The fact that such arguments can so easily be shown to be false from scripture alone certainly says something about the validity of the doctrine of Christ’s deity.
In the second section of their article, Answers in Genesis (AiG) defends the doctrine of the Trinity against unitarian detractors (such as myself). First, they define the Trinity and provide some scriptural evidence in favor of it, and then set up straw-man unitarian “objections” to trinitarianism and the deity of Christ. Let’s take a look at their arguments.
Defining the doctrine of the Trinity
The deity of Christ is intimately connected to the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine affirms that there is only one God and that in the unity of the one godhead there are three coequal and coeternal persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let us briefly consider the evidence for this doctrine.
Since many trinitarian organizations define the Trinity in different ways, let’s break down AiG’s definition of the Trinity so that we can better critique it as we go on.
1. There is only one God.
2. There are three persons within the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
3. These three persons are all equal in status to one another.
4. Propositions 1 - 3 are eternally the case.
Now that we have a better understanding of AiG’s definition of the Trinity, let’s take a look at their evidence for it.
There is one God
In the course of God’s self-disclosure to humankind, He revealed His nature in progressive stages. First, God revealed that He is the only true God. This was a necessary starting point for God’s self-revelation. Throughout history, Israel was surrounded by pagan nations deeply engulfed in the belief that there are many gods. Through the prophets, God communicated to Israel that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4, 32:39; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 44:6). Even at this early juncture, however, we find preliminary indications of the Trinity (Genesis 1:26, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16). God’s oneness is also emphasized in the New Testament (Romans 3:29–30; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 1:17, 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25).
I agree with AiG that scripture clearly states that there is only one true God. However, they completely pass over the fact that scripture also says that “God is one” (not three or ‘three-in-one’), even in the very passages that they cited (Deut. 6:4; Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19), and furthermore, that this title of “the one God” is repeatedly used of the Father and distinguished from Jesus Christ (Jn. 5:43-44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). In fact, in virtually all of the examples they provided of verses that prove monotheism, God uses singular pronouns to describe Himself, which precludes the existence of more than one consciousness or “person” within the one true God [1].
The instances of “preliminary indications of the Trinity” in the Old Testament which they provide amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the trinitarian. There are only four passages which use plural pronouns in reference to God (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), and these cannot offset the literally thousands of instances where God uses singular pronouns to describe Himself - even at critical junctures like Psalm 86:10 and Isaiah 44:6, where Yahweh describes His unique status as God, He still uses only singular pronouns [2].
Let’s take a look at the other supposed “preliminary indication of the Trinity” in the OT:
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? Yahweh loves him; he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, and his arm will be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. Come near to me, listen to this:”
“From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and His spirit.” (Isa. 48:12-16 NASB)
Because God is the one speaking in Isaiah 48:12-15, whereas Isaiah 48:16 says that “the Lord Yahweh has sent me”, this is supposed to show the so-called plurality within Yahweh. However, even if the speaker in v. 16 is one of the “persons” in the Trinity, the subject must change between vv. 15 and 16 (if only between “persons”), since the speaker clearly changes from the Caller to the one called.
There is no reason to believe that, when the speaker changes between vv. 15 and 16, it is changing between two different “Yahwehs” and not simply between Yahweh and a human. And indeed, the context shows that the one speaking in v. 16 is not another “Yahweh”, but is actually Cyrus king of Persia. Throughout chapters 45 - 48 of Isaiah, the focus is on God’s judgment of Babylon which would be carried out by Cyrus; that this is still in view is confirmed by 48:14, which states “he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, and his arm will be against the Chaldeans.” Thus, the one who was sent by Yahweh in v. 16 is Cyrus, not another ‘person’ of Yahweh. This is not a “preliminary indication of the Trinity,” but is again merely trinitarians’ wishful thinking.
The Father is God
As history unfolded, God progressively revealed more about himself. It eventually became clear that while there is only one God, there are three distinct persons within the one godhead, each individually recognized as God (Matthew 28:19).
The Father, for example, is explicitly called God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; Galatians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2). He is also portrayed as having all the attributes of deity—such as being everywhere-present (Matthew 19:26), all-knowing (Romans 11:33), all-powerful (1 Peter 1:5), holy (Revelation 15:4), and eternal (Psalm 90:2).
You will find no argument from me that the Father is not God. He is repeatedly revealed to be God throughout the New Testament, in fact, to the exclusion of any other “person” being God (Jn. 5:43-44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6). He is also called the God of Jesus (Jn. 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).
However, I do object to AiG’s assertion that Matthew 28:19 proves that “there are three distinct persons within the godhead, each individually recognized as God”. This is what Matthew 28:19 says:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit” (NASB)
All that this verse shows is that the Father is separate from the Son, who is separate from the holy spirit, and that baptism occurs by the authority of all three. This does not show that all three of these are recognized as God, or even that all three are personal beings (which is probably untrue of the holy spirit, as Sean Finnegan argued in an article that I featured earlier on this blog).
The Son is [not] God
Jesus is also explicitly called “God” in Scripture (Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8). And He, too, has all the attributes of deity—including being everywhere-present (Matthew 28:20), all-knowing (Matthew 9:4), all-powerful (Matthew 28:18), holy (Acts 3:14), and eternal (Revelation 1:8, 17).
You should note that none of these verses (with the exception of Acts 3:14) actually teach what AiG claims they teach. However, I already dealt with most of these passages in the first part of my rebuttal, so I won’t rehash the same points here - please go read that post instead.
The Holy Spirit is God
The Holy Spirit is also recognized as God (Acts 5:3–4). He, too, possesses the attributes of deity, including being everywhere-present (Psalm 139:7–9), all-knowing (1 Corinthians 2:10–11), all-powerful (Romans 15:19), holy (John 16:7–14), and eternal (Hebrews 9:14).
It is true that the holy spirit is indeed God, although AiG’s characterization of the holy spirit as a “he” rather than an “it” is questionable. The holy spirit is not a “person” separate from the Father, but is the means by which the Father interacts with the world, and which indwells believers in order to connect them to both God and Christ. For a more detailed study on the biblical definition of the holy spirit, and the question of its personality, see Sean Finnegan’s article that I featured earlier on this blog.
Three-in-Oneness in the Godhead?
Scripture also indicates there is three-in-oneness in the godhead. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructed the disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The word name is singular in the Greek, thereby indicating God’s oneness. However, the definite articles in front of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (in the original Greek) indicate they are distinct personalities, even though there is just one God.
These distinct personalities relate to each other. The Father and Son, for example, know each other (Matthew 11:27), love each other (John 3:35), and speak to each other (John 11:41–42). The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Luke 3:22), is called another comforter (John 14:16), was sent by the Father and Jesus (John 15:26), and seeks to glorify Jesus (John 16:13–14).
Again, AiG appeals to Matthew 28:19 as proof that God is three “persons” in one “being”. Let’s take a closer look at this verse:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit” (NASB)
First, it is argued that because the word “name” is singular here, the Father, Son, and holy spirit must somehow all have the same name (which AiG would presumably claim is Yahweh). But this is absolutely false. The “name” of something or someone simply refers to the authority of that thing or person, as prophets and kings often did things in “the name of Yahweh” in the Old Testament (Deut. 18:5-7, 22; 1 Sam. 17:45; 2 Kings 2:24; etc.) Furthermore, singular “name” can be used to refer to multiple people with different names, as the following passages demonstrate:
“The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and may my name live on in them, and the name [singular] of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Gen. 48:16 NASB)
The three older sons of Jesse had followed Saul to the battle. And the name [singular] of his three sons who had gone into the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and second to him, Abinadab, and the third, Shammah. (1 Sam. 17:13 NASB)
In order to stay grammatically accurate, most Bible versions translate the above instances of (singular) “name” as the plural “names”. If these translators wish to be consistent and not misleading, they should translate Matthew 28:19 as “in the names of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit”. But until then, this verse remains another instance of trinitarian translator bias, which is unfortunately common throughout the Bible.
Next, AiG demonstrates that all three of the “persons” of the Trinity are separate from one another, contra modalism. Since I agree with this assertion, I won’t spend too much time talking about their argument here. However, I should note that - although not all unitarians are agreed on this point - I don’t believe the holy spirit to be an actual personality, but simply the means through which God interacts with the world, which is occasionally personified in scripture (see this article for more information).
More ad hominem
Again, like at the beginning of their article, Answers in Genesis feels the need to inform its readers that all unitarians are simply cult members and followers of false religions.
Cults and false religions often raise objections against both the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. In what follows, key objections will be briefly summarized and answered.
Apparently, they find it difficult to believe that anyone could come to the conclusion that the Trinity is false, and that Christ is not God, based on their own honest and independent study of scripture. So instead they resort to ad hominem attacks, spreading the falsehood that all unitarians are simply indoctrinated into their beliefs by cults and false religions.
As I showed in the first part of my rebuttal, the most recent surveys do not support the assumption that all, or even most, unitarians are part of cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, although 96% of US Evangelicals profess a belief in the Trinity, fully 65% of them also believe that Jesus is a created being, and 37% did not agree with the statement that the Son of God existed prior to Jesus’ birth. It seems that most unitarians are simply regular Protestants, although they profess themselves to be trinitarians. AiG’s assertion that all unitarians are cult members and followers of false religions is simply poisoning the well.
Jesus is the Son of God
Some claim that because Jesus is the Son of God, He must be a lesser God than God the Father. Among the ancients, however, an important meaning of Son of is “one who has the same nature as.” Jesus, as the Son of God, has the very nature of God (John 5:18, 10:30, 19:7). He is thus not a lesser God.
It is absolutely false that a meaning of “son of [God]” is “one who has the same nature as [God]”. This is simply a lie, and I’m not sure why AiG feels comfortable lying to their readers like this. As R. C. Sproul said,
...we see the difference between the title “Son of Man” and “Son of God”... both of these titles have within them elements that refer to His deity and to His humanity. But if anything, the emphasis on the two is just the opposite of what we would normally expect. The title “Son of God” is given, in the first instance in Scripture, to those who manifest obedience to the Father. Sonship is defined predominately, not in biological terms here, but in terms of being in one accord or submissive towards, and so on. Remember Jesus Himself, in His discussions with the Pharisees, who claimed to be “sons of Abraham,” Jesus rebuked them and said, “You are the children of Satan. You are the children of the one whom you obey.”
In the Old Testament, the “son of God” language is usually used of kings, specifically the king of Israel [3]. For example, see the following passages:
Then King David rose to his feet and said... “Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel. He said to me, ‘Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courtyards; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him.’” (1 Chron. 28:2, 5-6 NASB)
“But as for Me, I have installed My king upon Zion, My holy mountain... ‘You are My son, today I have fathered You.’” (Ps. 2:6-7 NASB)
Likewise, the council of Israelite judges in Psalm 82 are referred to as both “gods [elohim]” and “sons of the Most High”. This is highly significant, because Jesus applies this passage to Himself in Jn. 10:34, implying that He is the “son of God” in the same way that they were sons of God - by being Yahweh’s anointed ruler over Israel. This is confirmed by the gospel of Luke, as it is written there that
“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end... Holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God.” (Lk. 1:32-33, 35 NASB)
Here, we are given two reasons why Jesus will be called the Son of God: first, because He will rule over the house of Israel on the throne of David, and second, because of His miraculous conception (note that it says “for that reason also“). There is certainly a special sense in which Jesus is the Son of God, because He was miraculously conceived by holy spirit, thus making Him the “only-begotten Son”. But there is nothing here about Him being “of the same nature” as God, or being “eternally generated” by God, because these are not the meanings of “son of God”.
Often, trinitarians bring up another passage, John 5:18 (which AiG did cite above), to support the idea that being the Son of God means being of the same nature as God. Let’s take a look at this verse:
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
There is definitely a sense in which Jesus is “equal with God”, and that is in a representational sense. As the divinely appointed Messiah and king, He has representational equality with Yahweh. But this was actually true of all the human Davidic kings of Israel in the Old Testament; it was in this sense that David was allowed to be worshipped by the people of Israel (1 Chron. 29:20), and that the unnamed Davidic king of Psalm 45:6 (probably either Solomon or Ahab) was called “God”.
In the Old Testament, the human king of Israel from the Davidic line was said to sit on the throne of God (1 Chron. 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8), rule over the kingdom of God (1 Chron. 28:5; 2 Chron. 13:8), be called the “son of God” (1 Chron. 28:6; Ps. 2:6-7), and be worshipped alongside God (1 Chron. 29:20). These all indicate representational equality with God, based on the deity-ruler relationship, and all of these are also said of Jesus in the New Testament. However, other passages make clear that Jesus was not equal to God in an ontological sense (e.g., Jn. 14:28; 20:17; Rom. 15:6).
The Father is Greater than Jesus
Some cults argue that because Jesus said the Father is “greater” than Him (John 14:28), this must mean Jesus is a lesser God. Biblically, however, Jesus is equal with the Father in His divine nature (John 10:30). He was positionally lower than the Father from the standpoint of His becoming a servant by taking on human likeness (Philippians 2:6–11). Positionally, then, the Father was “greater” than Jesus.
Notice how AiG again poisons the well by saying that some “cults” argue that the Father is greater than Jesus. And furthermore, they put “greater” in scarequotes, making it seem as though the Father isn’t really greater than Jesus, even though there are explicit statements in the Bible that the Father is greater than Jesus. But I digress.
AiG argues that Jesus was only inferior to the Father in His human nature. This means that once He regained His exalted position after His resurrection (Php. 2:9-11), He would no longer be inferior to the Father. However, even after Christ’s resurrection, the Father is repeatedly referred to as the God of Jesus (Jn. 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Heb. 1:8-9; 1 Pet. 1:3), clearly demonstrating that the Father is still greater in status than Jesus. This alone demonstrates that AiG’s argument is absolutely false.
They then appeal to John 10:30 to supposedly prove that Jesus is “equal with the Father in His divine nature”. Let’s take a look at that passage, then:
“I and the Father are one.”
But wait, by citing only a single verse, AiG is removing it from its entire context. Does this really show that Jesus is ontologically equal with the Father? Let’s look at the overall context:
“My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will 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 the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one”...
The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods... are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (Jn. 10:27-36 NASB)
Notice, Jesus does not say that He is equal to God. In fact, just before making the declaration that “I and the Father are one”, He says that “My Father... is greater than all”, implying that the Father is greater than Him. And when the Jews try to stone Him for “making Himself God”, Jesus refutes their charge of blasphemy by telling them that He is not God in the same sense that Yahweh is God, but in the sense that human kings can be called gods and sons of God, as in Psalm 82 (see above).
Furthermore, in John 17:21-22, Jesus prays for believers that “they may be one in us even as we are one”. This means that the sense in which Jesus is one with the Father cannot be in “being” or “nature”, unless believers too will become equal to God (which is clearly false).
But if this is true, in what sense are Jesus and the Father “one”? The answer must be, in the same sense that Paul and Apollos are said to be “one” in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8, which is that they are of one mind, or agree as one. Both Jesus and the Father agree as one on the issue of giving eternal life to the sheep who follow Him. This is the only interpretation that does not directly contradict the surrounding context and the many other passages that show the Father to be ontologically greater than Jesus.
Jesus is the firstborn
Some cults argue that because Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15), He is a created being and hence cannot be truly God. Biblically, however, Christ was not created but is the Creator (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3). The term firstborn, defined biblically, means Christ is “first in rank” and “preeminent” over the creation He brought into being.
I actually agree with AiG on this point, for the most part, because I don’t believe that Jesus is the first created being as Arians do (instead, I believe that He began to exist at His conception). However, note again their insistence that it is only “cults” that disagree with their belief in the deity of Christ - these ad hominem attacks are absolutely unacceptable, because as I noted earlier, fully 65% of Evangelicals actually believe that Jesus was the first created being. This is simply poisoning the well.
Jesus is not all-knowing
Some cults argue that because Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of His return except the Father (Mark 13:32), Jesus must not be all-knowing, and hence He must not be truly God. In response, Jesus in the Gospels sometimes spoke from the perspective of His divinity and at other times from the perspective of His humanity. In Mark 13:32, Jesus was speaking from the limited perspective of His humanity (see Philippians 2:5–11). Had he been speaking from His divinity, He would not have said He did not know the day or hour. Other verses show that Christ, as God, knows all things (Matthew 17:27; Luke 5:4–6; John 2:25, 16:30, 21:17).
It’s very interesting that AiG tries to argue that Jesus’ limited knowledge is only in His human nature, because just a few paragraphs earlier they attempted to show that the title “Son of God” refers to His divinity, and yet this verse states that “the Son” does not know the day or hour.
However, even if we grant them that this verse might be compatible with trinitarianism, there are still many other passages that show that Jesus isn’t omniscient. For example, elsewhere we are told that He only knew and taught those things that the Father revealed to Him (Matt. 11:27; Jn. 8:40) and that He needed to learn (Heb. 5:8). By making it seem as though the unitarian case is based on a single verse, AiG is setting up a straw man that they can easily knock down.
Jesus prayed
Some cults argue that because Jesus prayed to the Father, He could not truly be God. Biblically, however, it was in His humanity that Christ prayed to the Father. Since Christ came as a man—and since one of the proper duties of man is to worship, pray to, and adore God—it was perfectly proper for Jesus to address the Father in prayer. Positionally speaking as a man, as a Jew, and as our High Priest—“in all things He had to be made like His brethren” (Hebrews 2:17)—Jesus could pray to the Father. But this in no way detracts from His intrinsic deity.
It appears that AiG has resorted to arguing that everything they don’t like about Jesus is just part of His “human nature”. This is not a valid argument, because to have the “nature” of something just means that you possess the characteristics of that thing. So if Jesus truly had the nature of God, because God is inherently greater than all things (Eph. 4:6), it would be impossible for Him to be positionally inferior to the Father.
However, even if we grant AiG’s argument that Jesus was only positionally inferior to the Father in His humanity, we would expect that He became on the same level as the Father when His human nature was exalted to His current position after His resurrection, according to trinitarians (Php. 2:9-11). Instead, we see that even after His resurrection, the Father was called the God of Jesus (Jn. 20:17; Heb. 1:8-9; etc.), and that Jesus still prays to and petitions the Father for our salvation (Heb. 7:25). This proves AiG’s argument to be false and unscriptural.
The Trinity is illogical
Some cults claim the Trinity is illogical (“three in one”). In response, the Trinity may be beyond reason, but it is not against reason. The Trinity does not entail three gods in one God, or three persons in one person. Such claims would be nonsensical. There is nothing contradictory, however, in affirming three persons in one God (or three whos in one what).
No, actually, the Trinity is entirely against reason. According to the orthodox doctrine of trinitarianism, as laid out in the creedal statements of the fourth and fifth centuries, each of the three “persons” fully encompasses what God is, and each one can be said to be fully God. However, they are also affirmed to be distinct persons, or “whos” as AiG says, and not merely manifestations of the same person, God. This can be summed up in six statements:
1. The Father = God
2. The Son = God
3. The Holy Spirit = God
4. The Father =/= the Son
5. The Son =/= the Holy Spirit
6. The Holy Spirit =/= the Father
If each of the three “persons” is numerically identical with God, and yet each of the three is not numerically identical with one another, this breaks all rules of logic. Traditionally, this has led to three main “heretical” schools of thought that attempt to resolve this problem: modalism (which argues that the three are merely manifestations of the same person), tritheism (or “social trinitarianism”, which argues that the three are separate Gods), and unitarianism (which argues that only the Father is God).
Unitarianism is the only option that is compatible with both scripture and logic, but trinitarianism breaks the simple rule of logic that a thing is always equal to itself. Essentially, if trinitarianism is true, logic states that God is not God, which is about as heretical and anti-biblical as one can get.
The Trinity is pagan
Some cults have claimed the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in ancient paganism in Babylon and Assyria. In response, the Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods who headed up a pantheon of many other gods. These triads constituted three separate gods (polytheism), which is utterly different from the doctrine of the Trinity that maintains that there is only one God (monotheism) with three persons within the one godhead.
I, personally, am not familiar with this objection to the Trinity, and I don’t know of any knowledgeable unitarian who would make this argument in good faith. I suspect that this is a straw-man of the unitarian argument that the Trinity was not developed in its modern, orthodox form until several centuries after Christ (which is indeed true). But either way, I am not knowledgeable enough about this subject to fully engage with it.
Conclusion: Jesus is [not] God
We have seen that Jesus must be viewed as God by virtue of the facts that He has the names of God, the attributes of God, and the authority of God; He does the works of God; and He is worshiped as God. We have also seen persuasive scriptural evidences for the doctrine of the Trinity. Our triune God is an awesome God!
Well, we’ve made it to the end of AiG’s article. We had to suffer through multiple outright lies about what the Bible says, many straw-men of unitarian arguments, and the repeated insistence that all unitarians are members of cults (which is patently false). Ultimately, none of their arguments for Christ’s deity really prove that Jesus is God beyond a doubt, whereas there are many passages of scripture - indeed, every single time that God is described as separate from Christ [4] - that show that Jesus is not God. If you are a trinitarian reading this, I hope you will challenge your presuppositions about the nature of God and study this issue with an open mind - because worshipping a triune God is really worshipping an idol of man’s own creation.
______________________________
[1] Since both Jesus and the Father, supposedly “persons” of the Trinity, also use their own singular pronouns in the New Testament, and when spoken of together use plural pronouns (e.g., Jn. 14:23). Thus, if God were truly a being that included both Jesus and the Father, He would need to use plural pronouns to accurately describe Himself in the passages that prove His uniqueness (Deut. 32:39; Ps. 86:10; Isa. 44:6; etc.) Instead, He chose to use singular pronouns to describe Himself, which shows that there cannot be more than one “person” within the “godhead”.
[2] These four instances can be explained by the Hebrew use of the “plural of majesty” (sometimes called the “royal we”), in which a singular person of great authority uses a plural pronoun or verb to express their intentions. For example, King Artaxerxes uses the plural of majesty in Ezra 4:18: “The king [singular] sends this reply: ‘The letter you sent us has been read...’”
[3] “A parent-child relationship between the gods and the king was common imagery in the ancient world. Such imagery supported the authority of the king and portrayed his role as mediator between the divine realm and the world in which he was to maintain order.” (Commentary on Psalm 2:6 by John Walton)
[4] Which is literally dozens of times in the New Testament. See the following passages: Matt. 4:9-10; 9:8; 19:17; Mk. 9:18; 16:19; Lk. 1:68-69; 3:7-8; 18:19; 22:69; Jn. 1:18; 3:16-17; 34; 6:29; 7:16-18; 13:3; 16:27-28; 17:3; Acts 2:22; 24; 33-36; 3:13-15; 26; 4:10; 5:30-32; 7:55; 10:38-42; 13:30; 37; 17:31; Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3; 34; 15:6; 1 Cor. 3:23; 8:6; 11:3; 15:15; 24; 2 Cor. 1:2-3; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:3; 17; 20; 4:4-6; Col. 1:3; 2:12; 3:1; 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Tim. 2:5; 6:13; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:8-10; 9:14; 12:2; 23-24; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:4; 3:21-22; 1 Jn. 3:9; Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12; 7:10; 12:10; 14:4
No comments:
Post a Comment