Biblical Proof Text of the Trinity: All Christian Apologists welcome to join.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Daniel,

I think you’ve made it clear that your belief in the Trinity is not based on rudimentary logic, even at the level of an 8 year old child can understand.

For example, anyone can see the flaw with this claim:

Daniel’s Son = Son of Daniel = Daniel the Son

And yet, Trinitiarians will claim this is truth:

God’s Son = Son of God = God The Son.

When I point out this breaks the fundamentals of basic logic and is inconsistent, I am told that your Trinity belief doesn’t follow these basic rules of logic or consistency. And I’m teased about trying to put YHWH into a box.

Therefore, by definition, you are saying your Trinity belief is “illogical” and “inconsistent”.

Since this is the case regarding this simplistic example, I am now not surprised in the least about all the rest of Trinitarian reasoning…
 
[Daniel Marsh;2905600]So your God must fit in a box? explaining god to us humans is like explaining the mechanics of modern technology to a worm.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point here. 👍 Actually explaining the mechanics of modern technology to a worm is closer than explaining God to us, because modern technology and a worm are both finite which is closer than God (who is infinite) to man who is also finite.
BibleSteve keeps trying to compare metaphorically, infinite with finite which is so far from finite to finite. And he says we lack logic?:confused:
 
Yep, I think this is going to become my 2 question test to decide if somone has the ability to grasp the truth. This will save a lot of time…
  1. If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:
A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.
  1. If God has a son named Jesus, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Jesus :
A) “God’s Son”
B) 'The Son of God".
C) “God The Son”
D) All of the Above.
 
BibleSteve said:
Dear Daniel,

I think you’ve made it clear that your belief in the Trinity is not based on rudimentary logic, even at the level of an 8 year old child can understand.

For example, anyone can see the flaw with this claim:

Daniel’s Son = Son of Daniel = Daniel the Son

And yet, Trinitiarians will claim this is truth:

God’s Son = Son of God = God The Son.

When I point out this breaks the fundamentals of basic logic and is inconsistent, I am told that your Trinity belief doesn’t follow these basic rules of logic or consistency. And I’m teased about trying to put YHWH into a box.

Therefore, by definition, you are saying your Trinity belief is “illogical” and “inconsistent”.

Since this is the case regarding this simplistic example, I am now not surprised in the least about all the rest of Trinitarian reasoning…
Click to expand...
God’s Son is infinite therefore eternal. Man is finite therefore in time. You keep falsely setting up a straw man argument then knock down the straw man and say see an 8 year old can understand that as you falsely set up Son of God meaning an infinite God and a finite Son which is false.
Jesus is infinite that’s why He told the Jews "I AM (Ego eme which is translated “I AM”)
Jesus was quoting Exodus 3:14 after asking God who do I tell Pharoah who sent me? God said tell him “I AM” sent you.
Jesus is the “I AM” and is God.
 
BibleSteve said:
Yep, I think this is going to become my 2 question test to decide if somone has the ability to grasp the truth. This will save a lot of time…
  1. If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:
A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.
  1. If God has a son named Jesus, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Jesus :
A) “God’s Son”
B) 'The Son of God".
C) “God The Son”
D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
This is a wonderful set of questions to quickly understand how a person thinks.

In 2 simple questions, we can determine if their beliefs are based on basic rules of logic and consistency.

If a person readily identifies their core Trinitarian beliefs as not following rudimentary logic, and thus are “illogical”… how could I possibly use reason or logic to discuss other Scriptures?
 
BibleSteve said:
This is a wonderful set of questions to quickly understand how a person thinks.

In 2 simple questions, we can determine if their beliefs are based on basic rules of logic and consistency.

If a person readily identifies their core Trinitarian beliefs as not following rudimentary logic, and thus are “illogical”… how could I possibly use reason or logic to discuss other Scriptures?
Click to expand...
Steve … as has already been outlined in the thread. What do you do with all of the Scriptures that point to Jesus’ Divinity as well as the Holy Spirit’s Divinity and Personhood (as opposed to an object or even just an “active force”)? The Trinity takes all of Scripture into account, not just the verses that support Jesus’ human nature or not just verses that show Jesus’ relationship with the Father, but ALL of them. If you are going to stand on Scripture logic, what do we do with all those verses; logically speaking?
 
[BibleSteve;2907181]Yep, I think this is going to become my 2 question test to decide if somone has the ability to grasp the truth. This will save a lot of time…
  1. If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:
A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
Is Daniel a god or God?
  1. If God has a son named Jesus, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Jesus :
A) “God’s Son”
B) 'The Son of God".
C) “God The Son”
D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t have a biological son; Jesus IS the incarnate, second person of the Trinity; the Son.
 
BibleSteve said:
Yep, I think this is going to become my 2 question test to decide if somone has the ability to grasp the truth. This will save a lot of time…
  1. If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:
A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.
  1. If God has a son named Jesus, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Jesus :
A) “God’s Son”
B) 'The Son of God".
C) “God The Son”
D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
Again a comparison between the divine and human is not valid.🤷
 
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life … Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. [1]

The previous misconception (not posted) dealt with Jesus as the Son of God. Now we meet another sobriquet of Jesus: the ‘only begotten’ son, as some versions (for example, the King James and the American Standard) render it. However, the New International Version translates the word, ‘one and only’ Son.

The foundation of this misconception is the mistranslation of the Greek word monogenēs as ‘only begotten’. In the late 4th century a scholar named Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin. He translated monogenēs as unigenitus (‘one sired, begotten’), rather than sui generis (‘his own class’).

The monos part is okay: it means “only”. It’s the second part of monogenēs that presents the problem. (When we divide a word like this, we need to beware that we’re not falling victim to the etymological fallacy [2].) That word, genēs, is an inflected form of the noun genos, which means ‘race, generation, kind’. Jerome may have been slightly inattentive when he read monogenēs, and thought that genēs came from gennaō (‘I beget’) [3]. However, gennaō has two ‘n’s; but genos has only one.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that

monogenēs … is only distantly related to gennaō, beget. The idea of ‘only begotten’ goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg.[ate] to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made. monogenēs reflects the Heb. yā((d of Isaac (Gen. 22:2, 12, 16) of whom it is used in Heb. 11:16. [4]

So monogenēs means ‘unique; special; the only one of its kind’. Isaac was not Abraham’s only son [5] – he also sired Ishmael and six others – but he was Abraham’s special (monogenēs [6]) son because God intended to fulfil His promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) through Isaac’s offspring.

As monogenēs is used of Jesus, it points to Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father. Although Jesus the Word of God has taken a human nature, He still retains his nature as deity: he is ontologically (by nature; in all essentials) equal to God the Father. But Jesus is functionally (in role/ position/ relationship) lesser than the Father because He chooses to allow the Father to have the final say: ‘Not my will, but yours be done.’ [7] It is not Jesus’ human nature that makes him lesser than the Father; it is his deliberate choice to submit to the Father’s will.

Jesus himself said that the Father was greater than He was (John 14:28), but He never said that the Father was superior (in nature) to Him. The Greek word for ‘greater than’ is meidzōn; the word for ‘superior to’ is kreittōn (or kreissōn). The letter to the Hebrews (1:4) describes Jesus’ nature as superior to (kreittōn) that of the angels’ [8].

By nature, Jesus the Word is equal to the Father; however, by role – and that through His own choice – He is lesser than the Father. Even if the Incarnation never happened, the Word would still be functionally lesser than the Father because of His choice to submit to the Father’s will. While the Father is greater than Jesus [9] by virtue of His position in the Trinity and his role in salvation history [10], Jesus is not inferior in nature to the Father: if He were, He wouldn’t be ‘in very nature God’ [11], and ‘the fullness of deity in bodily form’ [12].

troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/biblical-misconception-11-the-meaning-of-the-phrase-%E2%80%98only-begotten%E2%80%99-john-316/
 
BibleSteve said:
This is a wonderful set of questions to quickly understand how a person thinks.

In 2 simple questions, we can determine if their beliefs are based on basic rules of logic and consistency.

If a person readily identifies their core Trinitarian beliefs as not following rudimentary logic, and thus are “illogical”… how could I possibly use reason or logic to discuss other Scriptures?
Click to expand...
You do realize that “rules of logic” are part of philosphy that the bible condems right? see my eariler post on this.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
You do realize that “rules of logic” are part of philosphy that the bible condems right? see my eariler post on this.
Click to expand...
YHWH is a God of order. Whether you look up at the Universe at the macro level, or into the subatomic micro level, you see order, and mathematical precision.

YHWH’s creation of matter and the Universe is so orderly that scientists were able to predict new elements on the periodic table before they were even discovered.

The rules YHWH used in designing this Universe and to control movement (described by Newtonian Mechanics) are so precise and orderly, that scientists can predict the movement of the planets thousands of years in advance. Space exploration vehicles can be sent millions of miles into space with perfect precision to circle and land on far away planets.

The test I put before you is a simple test. Give that test to any child or any person who hasn’t been indocrinated with the false concept of the Trinity and they will easily answer the question. It’s simple logic. Not wild philosphy of men… just simple mathmatical precision like what we see from YWHW and his creation.

Answers A&B follow Logic. Answers C&D do not follow logic. They are thus “illogical”

The doctrine of the Trinity has been indocrinated into church members so much that it’s adherents have lost touch with simple reasoning and logic.

Since they can’t see the difference between what Jesus called himself “The Son of God” and what their Church has been telling them “God The Son”, their power of reason has been skewed.

If you’ve lost touch with this simple level of reasoning, you thus wouldn’t have any problem with Jesus sitting next to YWHW and still thinking he is YHWH. And yet any child knows the difference between sitting next to someone and being that person.

By losing touch with simple logic, Trinitarians have headed down the slippery slope of absurdity.

Any scriptural discussions based on “reasoning from the Scriptures” like Paul did are mute, because ultimately Trinitarian beliefs fall outside of simple reasoning or logic. Thus, they are by definition “illogical”.

Why share reasonings on Scriptures when we can’t even agree on the fundamental basis of analysis… even at the 8 year old child level.

Daniel, I wish you well. Your Trinitiarian beliefs are by your own admission not based on logic… and are thus “illogical”.

We are not talking about idle philosophies of men, in that you are simply trying to flank the discussion in another silly direction.
 
clearly you never read up on Choas theory.

Since your PM in box is full.

Daniel Marsh
6539 Linville drive
Brighton, MI 48116-9531 USA

Robert Edward, lexicon quote you used, send me a photo copy of the full article quoted by you and of the title page which indicated edition.

Thanks

I am still waiting for all those CD ROMs of Watchtower literature free of charge, maybe you can inquire at your kingdom hall to send me a set of the UNABRIDGED editions.

researchapplications.org/HTML%20pages/order.html
 
Ah I already, responded to your “logic problem” several times now.

I even quoted Augustine who stated the answer better than I could.

Go back and read them.

In short, Jesus is God. And, human anologies, language often fails as your “logic” has proven.

You have ignored Bowmans’ Outline on the trinity often enough, go back and read the links to it.

The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study

By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com

Introduction

It is often alleged that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. While the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical.

The following outline study presents an overview of the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. Comments on the texts have been kept to a bare minimum; the emphasis is on the many biblical texts themselves (about 700 references are listed, including references from 26 of the 27 books of the New Testament).

An exposition of many of the texts discussed here can be found in the author’s book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989). Unfortunately, it is currently out of print, but you may be able to locate a copy through Amazon.com’s out-of-print service.

Aproper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Here I will mention just two principles which, if followed, would prevent almost all interpretive errors on this subject.

The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. That is, texts that explicitly state that such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages that do not address the issue directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is, that he knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert, that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).

The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not “logical,” is rationalistic. It may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.

It should be noted that a study of the Trinity should not be undertaken apart from a study of the nature of God.
 
I. There Is One God

A. One God: Explicit Statements
  1. OT: Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9
  2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25
B. None like God (in his essence)
  1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25: 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18
  2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44
  3. Fallen man become “like God” only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22
C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21

D. All other “gods” are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20

E. Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8

F. How human beings are meant to be “like God”
  1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
  2. The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:
a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29

b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49
  1. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature (“having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust”), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of “partakers,” see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:1
G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?
  1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods
  2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9; Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
  3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
  4. Moses was “as God,” not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
  5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as “mighty gods,” but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
  6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17
  7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.
a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.

b. Asaph’s meaning is not “Although you are gods, you will die like men,” but rather “I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are”

c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly “sons of the Most High” (v. 6b)

d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph’s message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)

e. Christ’s use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82

f. The words, “The Scripture cannot be broken,” means “the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment” (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they could not do, and is what they could never be (see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture)

g. The clause, “those against whom the word of God came” (John 10:35) shows that this “word” was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all

h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not “godlike” or “divine” by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal
  1. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1
 
H. Are angels gods?
  1. Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods
  2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being “mighty spirits” does not make angels gods
  3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4
  4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods
a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8 16, 26-28. Note that the Psalmist is speaking of man’s exalted place in creation, whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all.

b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are “gods,” in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely speaks of “gods” in the sense of false gods); and cf. Col. 2:16 on the problem of the worship of angels.
  1. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as “sons of the gods”), are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called “angels” in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.
  2. Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13.
I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature - all of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly - then we must conclude that there is indeed only one God.

II. This One God Is Known in the OT as “Jehovah/Yahweh” (“The Lord”)

A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Psa. 100:3; etc.

B. Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:3; 9:26; 24:3; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:4; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.

C. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

D. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

III. God Is a Unique, Incomprehensible Being

A. Only one God, thus unique: See I.A.

B. None are even like God: see I.B.

C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3

D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
  1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
  2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
  3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3
 
IV. Is God One Person?

A. God is one God (cf. I above), one Yahweh, one Lord (cf. II above), one Spirit (John 4:24)

B. However, the Bible never says that God is “one person”
  1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father
  2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person
  3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces”
C. The use of singular and plural pronouns for God
  1. Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings
  2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretation cannot account for these occurrences.
a. A plural reference to God and the angels is possible in Isa. 6:8, but not in the Genesis texts: in 1:26 “our image” is explained in 1:27, “in God’s image”; in 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.”

b. The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to texts in which God is speaking, not writing.

c. The “plural of deliberation” (as in “Let’s see now…”) is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and cannot explain Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).

d. The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22.

e. The “plural of majesty” is possibly attested in 1 Kgs. 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these are certain; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22; also nothing in the context of the Genesis texts suggests that God is being presented particularly as King.

D. The uniqueness of God (cf. III above) should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons
 
V. The Father of Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.

B. The expression, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”: 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3

VI. Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements
  1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render “mighty hero,” are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. above.
  2. John 1:1 Even if Jesus is here called “a god” (as some have argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the “a god” rendering is incorrect. Other passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered “God”: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos (“the God”) to theos (“God”) never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11
  3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have “the unique God” (monogenês, frequently rendered “only-begotten,” actually means “one of a kind,” “unique,” though in the NT always in the context of a son or daughter). Even if one translates “only-begotten,” the idea is not of a “begotten god” as opposed to an “unbegotten god.”
  4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is used in the plural (“our”) instead of the singular (“my”). See also Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ’s response indicates that Thomas’ acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that the Father was Jesus’ “God” (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words “my God” as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as well).
  5. Acts 20:28: “the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” The variant readings (e.g. “the church of the Lord”) show that the original was understood to mean “His own blood,” not “the blood of His own [Son]” (since otherwise no one would have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.
  6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as “God” in this verse.
  7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp’s first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated “our great God and Savior” (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word “manifestation” (“appearing”) of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8.
  8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, “God is your throne,” is nonsense - God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also, “God is your throne,” if taken to mean God is the source of one’s rule, could be said about any angelic ruler - but Hebrews 1 is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.
  9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13; see the parallel passages in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18.
  10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for “this” is Jesus Christ. Also note that the “eternal life” is Christ, as can be seen from 1:2.
 
B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh
  1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated “for,” which links these verses closely together. The “Lord” of 10:13 must be the “Lord” of 10:9, 12.
  2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the “name that is above every name” is “Lord” (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.
  3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as “Lord,” in a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called “God”). Since here the Father addresses the Son as “Lord,” this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense.
  4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8a, where “Lord” is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that “the Lord” in v. 3 is Jesus.
  5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.
  6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the “one Lord” (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.
C. Jesus has the titles of God
  1. Titles belonging only to God
a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6

b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16
  1. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God
a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Titus 2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43.11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation; Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21

b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:11

c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8

D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone
  1. Honor: John 5:23
  2. Love: Matt. 10:37
  3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who answers the prayer); Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46); Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where “the Lord” must be Jesus, cf. v. 9); 2 Thess. 2:16-17; etc.
  4. Worship (proskuneô): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf. Matt 4:10
  5. Religious or sacred service (latreuô): Rev. 22:13
  6. Doxological praise: 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:13
  7. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.
 
E. Jesus does the works of God
  1. Creation: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14 (where archê probably means ruler); on “through” and “in” cf. Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Isa. 44:24
  2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, 11-12
  3. Salvation:
a. In General: See C.2.a. above

b. Forgives sins: Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26; note that Jesus forgives sins not committed against Him.
  1. All of them: John 5:17-29 (including judgment, cf. Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:10)
F. Jesus has all the incommunicable attributes of God
  1. All of them: John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Heb. 1:3
  2. Self-existent: John 5:26
  3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12 (in the same sense as YHWH); 13:8
  4. Eternal: John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2
  5. Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11
  6. Omniscient: John 16:30; 21:17; cf. 2:23-24
  7. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top