Deity of Jesus - Worthy Christian Forums

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

"Deity of Jesus" - has a nice sound to it doesn't it? But is it scriptural? Remains to be seen, or demonstrated.

Let me begin by pointing out that the story of Jesus does not begin at John 1:1, nor does it begin anywhere near John's writings, but actually begins 66 books earlier, with Gen 3:15, which tells us that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the seed of the serpent. This is the first prophecy with promise, and the beginning of the "Jesus controversy." Jesus by this prophecy, predates Abraham in accordance with John 8:58, "Before Abraham became, I am." It is also in keeping with I Cor 15:45-46, in which is stated, "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterwards, that which is spiritual."

So John correctly instructs us that Jesus predates Abraham IN SOME FASHION, (Prophecy); and Paul tells us Adam predated Jesus in some fashion, dealing with "protwn," an ordinal adverb pointing out things that are first, or in order of protocol. John the Baptist further adds to the concept by bearing witness of him, saying, "This is he of whom I spoke, He that cometh after me, before me has become." [John 1:15,30] John is pointing out what Moses said in Gen, and Paul said in
I Corinthians, that Adam was first, then John the baptist, then Jesus, the latter becoming "before" John in importance or stature.

God tells us in Psalm 86:10 "Thou art the monos (only) and the great God." Isaiah tells us [37:16] O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who sittest upon the cherubs, thou ALONE (monos) art the God of every kingdom of the world: thou hast made heaven and earth." "Thus saith the Lord that redeems thee, and who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that performs all things: I stretched out the heaven monos (alone), and established the earth." [Isa 44:24];"

Jesus also tells us something that adds to the evidence. ""I am not alone, (ouk monos), because the father is with me." [John 16:32].

While Jehovah points out that he created all things monos (alone) Jesus tells us that when he and the father are together, they are "ouk monos (NOT ALONE.)

IF Jesus is deity, beyond being a FORM OF deity, then who is he? He is not Jehovah, he is not the Father, he is not prior to Adam, he is "before Abraham" but only in Prophecy, and he is after John in actuallity. Jesus, being a "form of God," cannot be God of whom he is a form.

From the preceding comments cited above, the overarching concept being proclaimed is that Jesus did not pre-exist creation but only pre-existed most of the major figures in the Bible. Adam and Eve and Satan and the Father Himself, being the only major Bible characters who pre-date Jesus in existence, whether by physical/supernatural existence, or in the form of prophecy as the author above believes.

So how much stock can we put in the above author’s claim? Did Jesus predate Abraham only "in some fashion?" Is that how Jesus meant to be understood in John 8:58? One of the greatest testimonies to the Deity of Jesus would be His preexistence with the Father.

In John 8: 18, Jesus said that God bears witness to Jesus. So, I believe that our Heavenly Father should be the first person we turn to for answers as to who Jesus was/is. After all, who would know his Son better than his own Father? Following, I will examine three testimonies of the Father about Jesus relating particularly to Jesus’ Deity.



The Father had something interesting to say about His Son, and we find it here in the book of Isaiah. The Father says:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Now I am not going to get into a word-by-word exegesis, as I believe this response will be almost inordinately long, without such extra burden to the reader. I do, however want to point out a few key terms in the passage:

This is once, both a prophecy of the first and second comings of Jesus, but I want to draw your attention to the terms "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father." Mighty God in Hebrew is "El Gibbor" and is not, and cannot be a reference to a mere human being. This is a specific reference to Deity. The Hebrew word El depending on the context can either be "El" with a capital E, or it can be "el" with a lower case e. "El Gibor." There is only one "Mighty God." For this child to be anything other than God, would make the attribution of any of these Names to Him in Isaiah 9:6, idolatry.

Secondly, the Father, through the prophet refers to Jesus as "The Everlasting Father." In Hebrew it is rendered, "Avi ad," and literally means, "Father of eternity." Isaiah is not calling Jesus "The Father," he is referring to Jesus as the "Father of eternity." In other words, Jesus is the author of the ages, of all eternity. We use the term Father in similar ways, such as referring to Alexander Graham Bell as the father of modern telecommunications, but the truth is that any example we can offer still falls far short of "Avi ad" because "Avi ad" actually denotes rank and refers more appropriately to Jesus' preeminence in connection with eternity. He is "Father of Eternity" not only in the sense that he is the creator of the ages, but that he is also Lord of the ages. As creator, and architect, He is also the sustainer of that which He created.

The same concept of preeminence is also communicated by Paul who might have had this verse from Isaiah in mind when he penned these words:

In whom we have redemption through his (Jesus') blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him (Jesus), and for him (Jesus): And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him (Jesus) all things consist. (Colossians 1:14-17)

Now Paul writes above that Jesus is the "first born of every creature" This is communicating the same thing as “Avi ad” in Isaiah 9:6. It denotes rank and preeminence in creation. You will note that I added in parenthesis, the name Jesus next to every pronoun in the passage. The context surrounding the passage makes it unmistakably clear that Paul is referencing Jesus, and I added the name Jesus to make it stand out even more.

Paul says the following about Jesus:

• We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sin;
• He is the image of the invisible God;
• He is the first born of every creature;
• All things whether they be in heaven or earth, were created by Him and for Him;
• He is before all things;
• All things consist (are sustained) by Him.

All of we find would be true of someone bearing the titles of “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity.”

Our Heavenly Father also has this to say:

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
(Isaiah 42:8)

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(Isaiah 48:11)

To ascribe the titles of Isaiah 9:6 to anyone would be give glory to that person. Those are “glorifying titles, and God will not share His glory. Yet, we find Him referring to a child by those very terms. The only logical conclusion is that the child of Isaiah 9:6 MUST be God.

When examining the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 even closer, we see that not only are the titles attributed to the Child referring to someone who is more than human, but we also note that this Child is a King whose Kingdom shall not end and shall reign according to verse 7, upon the throne of David. One must ask: Who from the tribe of Judah (the one upon David's throne MUST come from that tribe), could possibly have a Kingdom that will marked by unending increase, and will be established with justice forever and is called the Mighty God, and the Father of all eternity if that person is not God? If the person being described is not Jesus, what member of the tribe of Judah could Isaiah 9:7 possibly be referring to? Who would make a more suitable candidate to sit upon the throne of David?



Let’s look at what else the Father has to say about His Son:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Here we find that a Branch is referred to, as being a righteous Branch. The word used here for Branch is tsemeakh (seh-may-ahk) in Hebrew and is used commonly to refer to the Messiah. In Jeremiah 23: 5-6 it is used twice. Tsemeakh also means to grow. He will grow up (tsemeakh) unto David. This is something future and was written long after David’s death.

It is used in reference to the Servant of God referred to as tsemeakh in Zechariah 3:8, and again as the one who will build the Temple in Zechariah 6:12. Again, the word in Hebrew employed is tsemeakh.

We find that the Branch (tsemeakh):

• Is righteous. It is worth pointing out that this is not referring to righteous by faith, which is imputed to believers. It refers to personal, intrinsic righteous. The Branch is not made righteous. The Branch is righteous by nature, and thus the Branch refers to a Messiah whose righteousness is inherent to his Character and operations, and only God possesses inherent Righteousness. Christians are merely declared righteous by faith, and thus it is imputed to them. Thus, the Branch cannot be merely a man.
• Will grow up to David ;
• Will execute justice and judgment;
• Will save Judah and cause Israel to dwell in safety;
• He will be called the LORD (YHVH) our Righteousness;
• Is called the Servant of the Lord in Zech. 3:8 (Jesus is called “My servant in Isaiah four times in what are known as the “Servant Songs” which are Messianic Prophecies about Jesus;
• Will rebuild the Temple according to Zechariah 6:12-13. This agrees with the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 concerning the Millennial Temple built by the Messiah.

What stands out is that this Branch is called YHVH. This is a name that is not attributed to any single man other than The Branch which is undoubtedly Jesus since the biblical description of the "The Branch" resembles at several points, Isaiah's description of the Child of 9:6; not the least of which, the Child is called "The Mighty God" in Isaiah, and bears the Name YHVH in Jeremiah.

YHVH is the supreme Name of God. It is the Name above every Name. This is the Name to which every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD (YHVH) to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:10-11) YHVH is God’s redemptive Name. It is nothing short of a blessed irony that God’s supreme Name is also the means by which He makes known Himself, His character and operations to man. By this Name He is known as our Righteousness, our Redeemer, our Peace, our Provision and Portion, our Healer and Good Shepherd. It is by this Name that that God reveals His Will for all of those things that make for our highest good. To the baser creatures and inanimate world, he is Elohim; only to man does he stand as YHVH. Every provision for every need of the human heart is found in that Name.

Now, my opponent will argue that YHVH is also used in reference to the city of Jerusalem when it says Jeremiah 33:15:

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. (Jeremiah 33:15)

To my opponent, the fact that the City of Jerusalem will one be called by the same name as The Branch (The LORD our righteousness) this fact stands as a refutation to YHVH never referring to anyone but God. He compares the Jeremiah 3315 and 23:5-6 but fails to take into account the different Hebrew wording. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the latter half of v. 6 reads thusly: vzeh shmo asher yikro YHVH tzidkeinu. "This is what He shall be named, The LORD our Righteousness." Now Jeremiah 33:16 is worded differently. Please note the difference: vezeh asher yikra-lah YHVH tzidkeinu.

Let us look at both wordings side by side to make it easier.

vzeh shmo asher yikro YHVH tzidkeinu (23:6)

vezeh asher yikra-lah YHVH tzidkeinu. (33:16)

The first phrase refers to a name; hence, the presence of the word shmo. "He shall be named" (Jeremiah 23:16) In Jeremiah 33:16, the wording is different, and there are two schools of thought as to what the prophet Jeremiah is saying. Some scholars understand this to be nothing more than "identification" of the city with YHVH our Righteousness.” The city is name after their redeemer, The Branch. This is a valid line of reasoning since we find this concept in the New Testament. When Jesus confronted Saul of Tarsus on the Road to Damascus, He asked "Saul, Saul, why peresecuteth thou me?" (Acts 9:4) Paul was not personally persecuting Jesus, yet His followers are identified with Him so much so, that Jesus takes it personally. In 2 Corinthians, the identification with Christ is made even more poignant by the apostle Paul when addressing a Christian being unequally yoked with unbelievers, Paul asks, "What And what concord hath Christ with belial?" (2 Cor. 6:15) No one would make the absurd claim that Paul is literally calling Christians, "Christ." The literary device of identification is clearly understood by any reader with a normal degree of comprehension skills. So, one can make the argument that Jeremiah is simply employing the same device by claiming that the New Jerusalem will bear the Name of her King and in doing so, be forever identified with Him. The transference of the Name YHVH our Righteousness is a means of expressing what the Messiah offers and will bring to His people. Now, the second school of thought renders Jeremiah 33:16 to read in English, "The one who calls to her is YHVH her Righteousness." It is the rendering I personally favor, since the absence of shmo makes it harder to justify saying that the city will actually bear the name of YHVH. It pictures the Messiah, calling to his beloved, which also reveals the heart of Christ toward His people, the Jews.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37)

It would take too much space to show all of the places where God is constantly calling to His people, Israel. He calls to them repeatedly through His prophets his arms outstretched calling her to salvation. Either way, no reputable scholar or even the casual reader who is honest in their reading and ability to understand the plain sense of Jeremiah 33:16, would come away with the conclusions drawn by my opponent.



What else does the Father say about Jesus that shows us that Jesus is God? Well, He calls Jesus, “God” in the book of Hebrews:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Hebrews 1:8-10)

“But unto the Son HE (The Father) saith..." Father God is speaking to His Son, and from the words of the Father here is what we learn:

• The Son is called "God."
• The Son's Throne is established Forever (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7)
• The Son loves righteousness and hates iniquity; His scepter shall be a scepter of righteousness (cf. Jer. 23:5-6)
• The Father has anointed the Son oil of gladness above His fellows
• The Son in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of His hands. (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7 “Avi ad”, John 1: 1-3, Col. 1:14-17 & Heb. 1:2)

There is also some confusion in the minds of those who reject the Deity of Jesus as to what the term "Son of God" means. When the Bible uses the term in reference to Jesus, it is a reference to His Deity:


“In Jewish usage, the term “son of…” did not generally imply any subordination, but rather equality and identity of nature. Thus Bar Kokhba, who led the Jewish revolt (132-135 A.D.) in the reign of Hadrian, was called by a name that means “Son of the Star.” It is supposed that He took this name to identify himself as the very Star predicted in Numb. 23:14. the name Son of Consolation (Acts 4:36) doubtless means, “The Consoler.” “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17) probably means “Thunderous men.” “Son of man” especially as applied to Christ in Daniel 7:13 and constantly in the New Testament essentially means “the Representative Man.” Thus, for Christ to say, “I am the Son of God” was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God, equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense.” (J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1962)

So it is useless to argue that Jesus did not claim to be God, but only claimed to be the "Son of God." In making that claim, Jesus was in fact saying, "I am God."

Those are three testimonies, and there are many, many more where God the Father testifies as to the Deity of His Son Jesus.



The above comparison between John 16:32 and Psalm 86:10, Isaiah 37:16 & Isaiah 44:24 does not work because John 16:32 is speaking to different subject matter, and thus uses the word “alone” (monos) differently than does the pslamist and the prophet Isaiah.

What God is communicating through the psalmist and the prophet is His uniqueness in comparison to the gods of the surrounding pagan nations. The pagan polytheists of every age had a god/goddess who was first of all, responsible for a different aspect of creation. There was a god of the harvest, a god of the seedtime, a god who governed the seas, or a god of fertility, a god of the sun a god of the moon, a god of war, a god of love, and so on.

God, through the prophet Isaiah and the psalmist in the verses cited by my opponent, and in many, many other places in the Bible, sets Himself apart in the following ways. He sets Himself apart as the sole creator and sustainer of the universe. This uniqueness, in contrast to the other gods of the surrounding pagan nations, comes out most conspicuously in the above-referenced passages of Scripture. That is really the way "alone" is being used in the OT passages cited by my opponent. God's point is not that he is "alone," but that unlike the gods of the surrounding nations, He is the only One in control of the entire order of the universe, and the governs in the affairs of kingdoms of this world as well. Unlike the gods of the pagans, who are tied to the material world and subject to the same frailties of character as those who worship them. God, in the Bible reveals Himself as the creator who is separate from His creation, and is not subject to the same human frailties and shortcomings as is common with man.

In John 16:32, Jesus is simply making the statement, albeit a sad statement, that while He knows that at His time of trial and sacrifice upon the cross, He will be abandoned, His Heavenly Father is with Him and He expresses the utmost trust and confidence in the love of His Father.

Now, back to John chapter 8. My opponent claims that in John 8:58, that Jesus was only claiming to predate Abraham, and then only in the sense of OT prophecy. My opponent claims that this is what Jesus meant, and not that Jesus preexisted Abraham as a living person, and certainly NOT as the Divine creator of the universe. But in light of what we have seen thus far, does that “interpretation” really hold any water?

We have seen that Jesus

• Posesses personal righteousness of His own
• Is the very image of the Invisible God
• Is before all things
• Is the creator of all things be they in heaven or earth
• Is the one in whom all things consist and are sustained
• Is called “God” by the Heavenly Father;
• Has a eternal throne that is established forever;
• Has an eternal Kingdom that will be characterized by eternal increase;
• The Son of God which by definition, makes Him equal and one with God the Father in substance
• And last but, not least is the redeemer of all mankind.

So the question is, light of what we have seen thus far, how should Jesus words be understood in John 8:58?

Jesus, first of all was not claiming, as my opponent says, to predate Abraham. Jesus is saying much, much more important than this.’

By saying, “before Abraham was, I am,” Jesus is declaring that He is God. Had Jesus simply declared that He was the Messiah prophesied by the Scriptures, He could have been passed off as an eccentric religionist and a Messianic fanatic. No, in this verse Jesus crossed the line in their minds, from madman to blasphemer. That is why they picked up stones to kill Him.

There is another message here as well, by claiming Himself as “I am” or “Ani” as it is said in Hebrew, Jesus was also declaring to be eternally existent and thus not governed by linear time. For a short time Jesus was willfully subject to the limits of linear time, but it never governed Him beyond the degree He allowed. Jesus continuously demonstrated that He was in complete control of the events of His life, and the lives around Him.

This declaration of eternal existence is also communicated in one of Jesus most famous testimonies about Himself:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(John 14:6)

The word used for life in Greek for this verse, refers to “eternal life” Eternal life without beginning, without end, but it also denotes a quality of life as well. It is not just living forever, but living forever with God. Recall that Jesus told Martha, “I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall He live.” John 11:25. Eternal life is not a place, or a length of time. Eternal life is Jesus.

Jesus cannot be the Way the Truth, and the Life, if He is only man and not God. Jesus cannot be the resurrection and the Life if He was just a man. Jesus chose His words to communicate exactly what He meant, and his enemies got the message loud and clear and on more than one occasion picked stones to kill Him for declaring to be nothing less than God in the flesh.


The above remarks have already been addressed in my foregoing address, and so I will not labor the reader with unnecessary repitition.

[quote name='shiloh357' date='Jan 17 2007, 07:46 PM' post='746007']
[quote]Deity of Jesus" - has a nice sound to it doesn't it? But is it scriptural? Remains to be seen, or demonstrated.

Let me begin by pointing out that the story of Jesus does not begin at John 1:1, nor does it begin anywhere near John's writings, but actually begins 66 books earlier, with Gen 3:15, which tells us that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the seed of the serpent. This is the first prophecy with promise, and the beginning of the "Jesus controversy." Jesus by this prophecy, predates Abraham in accordance with John 8:58, "Before Abraham became, I am." It is also in keeping with I Cor 15:45-46, in which is stated, "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterwards, that which is spiritual."

So John correctly instructs us that Jesus predates Abraham IN SOME FASHION, (Prophecy); and Paul tells us Adam predated Jesus in some fashion, dealing with "protwn," an ordinal adverb pointing out things that are first, or in order of protocol. John the Baptist further adds to the concept by bearing witness of him, saying, "This is he of whom I spoke, He that cometh after me, before me has become." [John 1:15,30] John is pointing out what Moses said in Gen, and Paul said in
I Corinthians, that Adam was first, then John the baptist, then Jesus, the latter becoming "before" John in importance or stature.[/quote]

From the preceding comments cited above, the overarching concept being proclaimed is that Jesus did not pre-exist creation but only pre-existed most of the major figures in the Bible. Adam and Eve and Satan and the Father Himself, being the only major Bible characters who pre-date Jesus in existence, whether by physical/supernatural existence, or in the form of prophecy as the author above believes. [/quote]

Wrong. That is not my claim. ALL the bible characters predate Jesus all the way to and including his cousin John, EXCEPT Jesus predates them in prophecy, as the first object of prophecy in Gen 3:15. This includes also the minor figures of scripture.

[quote]
So how much stock can we put in the above author’s claim? Did Jesus predate Abraham only "in some fashion?" Is that how Jesus meant to be understood in John 8:58? One of the greatest testimonies to the Deity of Jesus would be His preexistence with the Father.[/quote]

I fail to see why you find objection to my use of "in some fashion," as everything done in the bible is done in some fashion or another. I simply use the term to designate there are other options to any concept than the popular one. You can put any or none stock in the author's claim, it will not change the fact that things are done in some fashion or another.

[quote] In John 8: 18, Jesus said that God bears witness to Jesus. So, I believe that our Heavenly Father should be the first person we turn to for answers as to who Jesus was/is. After all, who would know his Son better than his own Father? Following, I will examine three testimonies of the Father about Jesus relating particularly to Jesus’ Deity.



The Father had something interesting to say about His Son, and we find it here in the book of Isaiah. The Father says:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Now I am not going to get into a word-by-word exegesis, as I believe this response will be almost inordinately long, without such extra burden to the reader. I do, however want to point out a few key terms in the passage:

This is once, both a prophecy of the first and second comings of Jesus, but I want to draw your attention to the terms "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father." Mighty God in Hebrew is "El Gibbor" and is not, and cannot be a reference to a mere human being. This is a specific reference to Deity. The Hebrew word El depending on the context can either be "El" with a capital E, or it can be "el" with a lower case e. "El Gibor." There is only one "Mighty God." For this child to be anything other than God, would make the attribution of any of these Names to Him in Isaiah 9:6, idolatry..[/quote]

And where do you find these "upper case and lower case Ees?" Only in the works of men. They are not in the Hebrew. The editor of the Interlinear triglot states in the preface, " Neither of the original languages distinguished between upper and lower-case letters. Therefore, all capital letters in the English translation have been supplied. We have used capitals for the beginning of all sentences and speeches and for specific events (such as the Passover) and places (the Negev). We have also used them for pronouns that refer to Deity, and here Interpretation enters."

And he is not speaking of translation, but theology. A trinitarian would use capitals differently than would a non-trinitarian if such is to be the standard for translating works from one language to another. Thankfully it is not the standard.

El is translated several ways, some of them to show with the use of capitals, God and lesser or false gods, (with a small-case g); which raises the question, if there is only one God, who is he the God of? Is he the God of Gods (Josh 22:22, or is he the God of gods?

"Jehovah is greater than all the elohiym" where "Elohiym," translated "God" several thousand times, is translated "gods" in Exo 18:11 because the translators have a problem with there being any God but God. Again, I ask, who is he the God of? If he is the God of Gods, ther emust be more than one. If he is the God of gods, then he is the deity of false gods, for it is declared there are no other Gods but God.

Gibbowr El is not equivalent to shaddai El. Mighty is not almighty. And if you will examine Lukes writings, you will discover that the prophets foresaw the resurrected Christ [Acts 2], and Paul wrote that God spoke of things not yet, as though they were. [Rom 4:17]. Why does it continue to surprise you that God gave a resurrected man names that are above every name. He said in prophecy that he would be exalted and extolled, and made very high [Isa 52:13].

As for being called "the mighty El," He is called Elohiym, Adonay, and Other names of God in the scriptures that show fulfilled prophecy.

[quote]
Secondly, the Father, through the prophet refers to Jesus as "The Everlasting Father." In Hebrew it is rendered, "Avi ad," and literally means, "Father of eternity." Isaiah is not calling Jesus "The Father," he is referring to Jesus as the "Father of eternity." In other words, Jesus is the author of the ages, of all eternity. We use the term Father in similar ways, such as referring to Alexander Graham Bell as the father of modern telecommunications, but the truth is that any example we can offer still falls far short of "Avi ad" because "Avi ad" actually denotes rank and refers more appropriately to Jesus' preeminence in connection with eternity. He is "Father of Eternity" not only in the sense that he is the creator of the ages, but that he is also Lord of the ages. As creator, and architect, He is also the sustainer of that which He created. [/quote]

As for being called "Everlasting Father" (as opposed to "Father of eternity") He is a Father to God's children, because God invested them in Jesus by giving them to him.

"Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion." -Isaiah 8:18

This is applied to resurrected Jesus in Hebrews: "And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." -Hebrews 2:13

And referenced by Jesus during his lifetime: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he
hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." -John 6:39

"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word." -John 17:6

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." -John 17:9

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." -John 17:11

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." -John 17:12

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." -John 17:24

"That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none." -John 18:9

"And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." -Heb 2:13


[quote]
The same concept of preeminence is also communicated by Paul who might have had this verse from Isaiah in mind when he penned these words:

In whom we have redemption through his (Jesus') blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him (Jesus), and for him (Jesus): And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him (Jesus) all things consist. (Colossians 1:14-17)

Now Paul writes above that Jesus is the "first born of every creature" This is communicating the same thing as “Avi ad” in Isaiah 9:6. It denotes rank and preeminence in creation. You will note that I added in parenthesis, the name Jesus next to every pronoun in the passage. The context surrounding the passage makes it unmistakably clear that Paul is referencing Jesus, and I added the name Jesus to make it stand out even more. [/quote]

Jesus is the firstborn of every creature, the firstbegotten from the dead, by virtue of his resurrection. "I will declare the decree; Jehovah hath said to me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." [Psa 2:7]; Luke uses this as a proof that the resurrected Jesuws is begotten from the dead by referencing this Psalm in Acts 13 - 'And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre. but God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that HE HATH RAISED UP JESUS AGAIN; AS IT IS ALSO WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM, "THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE." So you see, it is not the begettal in Mary's womb of which the prophets spoke, but the begettal from the dead, or his resurrection. And he is the only begotten son of God from the dead. And he is the firstbegotten from the dead [Rev 1:5],

Jesus came to the Jews, not the Gentiles, Yet, the Gentile world became his inheritance by fulfillment of prophecy, AFTER his resurrection, when he sent his disciples into all the world to preach the gospel to every creature. So he came first into the world of the Jews,, but Hebrews tells us "And again, when he bringeth his firstbegotten into the oikoumeneen," [Heb 1:6]; which is no longer the world of the Jews, but "And will be declared this gospel of the kingdom, in all the (oikoumenee) iinhabited earth for a testimony to all the nations." By this time, he was already raised from the dead; was the firstborn therefrom, and was the firstbegotten son of God by that resurrection. And he is the firstborn of every creature, from the dead; the "firstborn among many brethren," those who remain faithful and are in the resurrection of the faithful.

[quote]
Paul says the following about Jesus:

• We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sin;
• He is the image of the invisible God;
• He is the first born of every creature;
• All things whether they be in heaven or earth, were created by Him and for Him;
• He is before all things;
• All things consist (are sustained) by Him.

All of we find would be true of someone bearing the titles of “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity.” [/quote]

{*}Since God cannot die, it is the blood of a man, the son of God.
{*}He was GIVEN the power to forgive sins. [Mat 28:18]
{*}Jesus is an eikwn of the invisible God; Men are the image (eikon) and glory (doza) of God. [I Cor 11:7]
{*}He is the firstborn of every creature, from the new creation whereby all things are made new. For behold, in Christ Jesus all things are made new. [II Cor 5:17]
{*}Not quite accurate. All things in heaven or eath, visible or invisible, WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES OR POWERS. [cOL 1:16] dO YOU NOT SEE THAT LITTLE LIMITING PARAMETER, {EITE} whether? It limits the "all things" to all things whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers.
{*}He, resurrected, is before all things resurrected.
{*}All things are sustained by him because he has been promoted to second in heaven,and given all power.
{*}And he is not "the father of eternity," he is the "Eternal Father" of the children God gave to him.

[quote]
Our Heavenly Father also has this to say:

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
(Isaiah 42:8)

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(Isaiah 48:11)

To ascribe the titles of Isaiah 9:6 to anyone would be give glory to that person. Those are “glorifying titles, and God will not share His glory. Yet, we find Him referring to a child by those very terms. The only logical conclusion is that the child of Isaiah 9:6 MUST be God. [/quote]

Not a necessary conclusion. If God promised to give resurrected Christ a name which is above every name, he is not "sharing his glory," he is pouring glory upon a lesser being, a "form of God" which by virtue of being a form thereof, cannot be the thing of which it is a form.

It is much the same as when a prominent man adopts a son, gives him his name, he shares his name, but not the glory of his accomplishments. The adopted son can only claim "My father did so and such. He cannot say "I did" by virtue of wearing his father's name.

[quote]
When examining the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 even closer, we see that not only are the titles attributed to the Child referring to someone who is more than human, but we also note that this Child is a King whose Kingdom shall not end and shall reign according to verse 7, upon the throne of David. One must ask: Who from the tribe of Judah (the one upon David's throne MUST come from that tribe), could possibly have a Kingdom that will marked by unending increase, and will be established with justice forever and is called the Mighty God, and the Father of all eternity if that person is not God? If the person being described is not Jesus, what member of the tribe of Judah could Isaiah 9:7 possibly be referring to? Who would make a more suitable candidate to sit upon the throne of David? [/quote]

Well how about simply a humble servant who is going to be extolled and made very high. Remember Joseph? A slave in Egypt who became second in the kingom? Who woulda thunk it? Jesus, the servant of God, raised up from among the brothers in Israel, [Deut 18:15,18]; seed of the woman of Gen 3:15; Seed of Abraham; Seed of Isaac; Seed of Jacob; Seed of Jesse; Seed of David, raised from the dead, and given a name which is above every name. Why is that so difficult for you to see?

[quote]


Let’s look at what else the Father has to say about His Son:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Here we find that a Branch is referred to, as being a righteous Branch. The word used here for Branch is tsemeakh (seh-may-ahk) in Hebrew and is used commonly to refer to the Messiah. In Jeremiah 23: 5-6 it is used twice. Tsemeakh also means to grow. He will grow up (tsemeakh) unto David. This is something future and was written long after David’s death.

It is used in reference to the Servant of God referred to as tsemeakh in Zechariah 3:8, and again as the one who will build the Temple in Zechariah 6:12. Again, the word in Hebrew employed is tsemeakh.

We find that the Branch (tsemeakh):

• Is righteous. It is worth pointing out that this is not referring to righteous by faith, which is imputed to believers. It refers to personal, intrinsic righteous. The Branch is not made righteous. The Branch is righteous by nature, and thus the Branch refers to a Messiah whose righteousness is inherent to his Character and operations, and only God possesses inherent Righteousness. Christians are merely declared righteous by faith, and thus it is imputed to them. Thus, the Branch cannot be merely a man.
• Will grow up to David ;
• Will execute justice and judgment;
• Will save Judah and cause Israel to dwell in safety;
• He will be called the LORD (YHVH) our Righteousness;
• Is called the Servant of the Lord in Zech. 3:8 (Jesus is called “My servant in Isaiah four times in what are known as the “Servant Songs” which are Messianic Prophecies about Jesus;
• Will rebuild the Temple according to Zechariah 6:12-13. This agrees with the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 concerning the Millennial Temple built by the Messiah.

What stands out is that this Branch is called YHVH. This is a name that is not attributed to any single man other than The Branch which is undoubtedly Jesus since the biblical description of the "The Branch" resembles at several points, Isaiah's description of the Child of 9:6; not the least of which, the Child is called "The Mighty God" in Isaiah, and bears the Name YHVH in Jeremiah.

YHVH is the supreme Name of God. It is the Name above every Name. This is the Name to which every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD (YHVH) to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:10-11) YHVH is God’s redemptive Name. It is nothing short of a blessed irony that God’s supreme Name is also the means by which He makes known Himself, His character and operations to man. By this Name He is known as our Righteousness, our Redeemer, our Peace, our Provision and Portion, our Healer and Good Shepherd. It is by this Name that that God reveals His Will for all of those things that make for our highest good. To the baser creatures and inanimate world, he is Elohim; only to man does he stand as YHVH. Every provision for every need of the human heart is found in that Name.

Now, my opponent will argue that YHVH is also used in reference to the city of Jerusalem when it says Jeremiah 33:15:

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. (Jeremiah 33:15)

To my opponent, the fact that the City of Jerusalem will one be called by the same name as The Branch (The LORD our righteousness) this fact stands as a refutation to YHVH never referring to anyone but God. He compares the Jeremiah 3315 and 23:5-6 but fails to take into account the different Hebrew wording. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the latter half of v. 6 reads thusly: vzeh shmo asher yikro YHVH tzidkeinu. "This is what He shall be named, The LORD our Righteousness." Now Jeremiah 33:16 is worded differently. Please note the difference: vezeh asher yikra-lah YHVH tzidkeinu.

Let us look at both wordings side by side to make it easier.

vzeh shmo asher yikro YHVH tzidkeinu (23:6)

vezeh asher yikra-lah YHVH tzidkeinu. (33:16)
[/quote]

Not what I have in my source material.
2088 / 8034 / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [23:6]
2088 / ..... / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [33:16]
Let the readers verify for themselves in any original language textbook. The ONLY difference is the use of Strong's 8034 in 23:6 [shem] which references a definite and auspicious position; an appelation, as a mark or memorial of individuallity by implying honor, authority, character. [Strong]

And why is this applied to the branch and not to Jerusalem? Because God had already so honored both the people [Num 6:22-27] and the city by placeing his name in the land of Israel, [Deu 12:3-11;; and in Jerusalem [I Kings 8:29][I Kings 9:3][II Kings 21:4], the city of God. It did not need to be placed there again.

[quote]
The first phrase refers to a name; hence, the presence of the word shmo. "He shall be named" (Jeremiah 23:16) In Jeremiah 33:16, the wording is different, [/quote]

DIFFERENT HOW?
2088 / 8034 / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [23:6]
2088 / ..... / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [33:16]
The ONLY difference is the use of Strong's 8034 in 23:6 [shem] which references a definite and auspicious position; an appelation, as a mark or memorial of individuallity by implying honor, authority, character. [Strong]

And why is this applied to the branch and not to Jerusalem? Because God had already so honored both the people [Num 6:22-27] and the city by placeing his name in the land of Israel, [Deu 12:3-11;; and in Jerusalem [I Kings 8:29][I Kings 9:3][II Kings 21:4], the city of God. It did not need to be placed there again.

IT IS AN EMPTY ARGUMENT HAVING NO MERIT.

I will move on to that part of your post where you actually address the issues presented in my post.
[snip]


[quote]God tells us in Psalm 86:10 "Thou art the monos (only) and the great God." Isaiah tells us [37:16] O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who sittest upon the cherubs, thou ALONE (monos) art the God of every kingdom of the world: thou hast made heaven and earth." "Thus saith the Lord that redeems thee, and who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that performs all things: I stretched out the heaven monos (alone), and established the earth." [Isa 44:24];"

Jesus also tells us something that adds to the evidence. ""I am not alone, (ouk monos), because the father is with me." [John 16:32].

While Jehovah points out that he created all things monos (alone) Jesus tells us that when he and the father are together, they are "ouk monos (NOT ALONE.)[/quote]

[quote](The above comparison between John 16:32 and Psalm 86:10, Isaiah 37:16 & Isaiah 44:24 does not work because John 16:32 is speaking to different subject matter, and thus uses the word “alone” (monos) differently than does the psalmist and the prophet Isaiah. [/quote]

Actually God establishes in the early writings, the meanings of words as they are to be understood by the Jews in later years:
"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" [Neh 8:8]. So when John penned his epistle, the meaning and use of the words were already well established and understood by those who read them, of that generation which sought after God.

Both writers, John and David the Psalmist, are writing about the same subject matter, Whether God is alone or not alone; "monos" or "ouk monos." That is why God used the word in Isaiah, so he could place a lesson in John's writings for those who would come later, to read and learn. That is the nature of prophecy, and of the developement of scripture.

[quote]
What God is communicating through the psalmist and the prophet is His uniqueness in comparison to the gods of the surrounding pagan nations. The pagan polytheists of every age had a god/goddess who was first of all, responsible for a different aspect of creation. There was a god of the harvest, a god of the seedtime, a god who governed the seas, or a god of fertility, a god of the sun a god of the moon, a god of war, a god of love, and so on.

God, through the prophet Isaiah and the psalmist in the verses cited by my opponent, and in many, many other places in the Bible, sets Himself apart in the following ways. He sets Himself apart as the sole creator and sustainer of the universe. This uniqueness, in contrast to the other gods of the surrounding pagan nations, comes out most conspicuously in the above-referenced passages of Scripture. That is really the way "alone" is being used in the OT passages cited by my opponent. God's point is not that he is "alone," but that unlike the gods of the surrounding nations, He is the only One in control of the entire order of the universe, and the governs in the affairs of kingdoms of this world as well. [/quote]

"Outw legei Kurios ho lutroumenos se, kai plasswn se ek koilias, egw Kurios ho suntelwn panta, ezeteina ton ouranon monos, kai esterewsa teen geen." Isa 44:24

Sorry my friend, if God wanted us to understand it that way he would have said "ews ou gnws oti kurieuei ho uphistos tees basileias twn anthrwpwn, kai w an dozee dwsei auteen" [Dan 4:22]. But in Isaiah he said that he "monos" (alone) created the heaven and the earth.


[quote] Unlike the gods of the pagans, who are tied to the material world and subject to the same frailties of character as those who worship them. God, in the Bible reveals Himself as the creator who is separate from His creation, and is not subject to the same human frailties and shortcomings as is common with man.

In John 16:32, Jesus is simply making the statement, albeit a sad statement, that while He knows that at His time of trial and sacrifice upon the cross, He will be abandoned, His Heavenly Father is with Him and He expresses the utmost trust and confidence in the love of His Father. [/quote]

Doesn't matter what prompted the statement, God inspired John to write it using the same terminology that Isaiah used centuries before, for a reason. To demonstrate that all the writings are tied by a common issue, and that what is true in one book remains true for the entire revealed inspired word of God. Theology being a developement of man, mostly centuries zfter the facts of the record, cannot alter the meaning of the words God uses in his revelation.

[quote]
Now, back to John chapter 8. My opponent claims that in John 8:58, that Jesus was only claiming to predate Abraham, and then only in the sense of OT prophecy. My opponent claims that this is what Jesus meant, and not that Jesus preexisted Abraham as a living person, and certainly NOT as the Divine creator of the universe. But in light of what we have seen thus far, does that “interpretation” really hold any water?

We have seen that Jesus

• Posesses personal righteousness of His own
• Is the very image of the Invisible God
• Is before all things
• Is the creator of all things be they in heaven or earth
• Is the one in whom all things consist and are sustained
• Is called “God” by the Heavenly Father;
• Has a eternal throne that is established forever;
• Has an eternal Kingdom that will be characterized by eternal increase;
• The Son of God which by definition, makes Him equal and one with God the Father in substance
• And last but, not least is the redeemer of all mankind.

So the question is, light of what we have seen thus far, how should Jesus words be understood in John 8:58?[/quote]

You got all that out of John 8? WoW!

*Possesses personal righteousness of his own? And what did you expect from one who was begotten by the Spirit?
*Image of God, so are other men [I Cor 11:7]
*Before all things? Sure, "This day" being the day of his resurrection, he is before all things that will imitate him in resurrection.
*creater of things in heaven or earth, visible or invisible WHETHER THEY BE Thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. That little limiting parameter still counts my friend.
*All things consist and are sustained by a man to whom God gave all power for a time.
*Was given a name above every name; a name which he did not have before.
*Throne established is David's throne, established by God.
*Eternal kingdom that will be returned to the Father.
*"omo-ousian?" Scripture please! One of the earliest doctrines promoting such error comes in the form of an argument about "omo-ousian" a Greek word from which is derived doctrines on "same substance" which say Jesus is the same substance as the father; equality, which states Jesus is equal with the Father; and co-essential, all are from the same Greek word "OMO-OUSIAN" made up by theologians, AND NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE..

It first appeared historically, in the council of Nicea in 325 a.d. and was still being debatd in 451, at the council of Chalcedon, at which time it was given "ecumenical recognition" as the "creed of 150 fathers" and accepted as orthodox, together with the old Nicene Creed, as "the creed of 318 fathers." And the battle was joined.

[QUOTE]
Jesus, first of all was not claiming, as my opponent says, to predate Abraham. Jesus is saying much, much more important than this.’

By saying, “before Abraham was, I am,” Jesus is declaring that He is God. Had Jesus simply declared that He was the Messiah prophesied by the Scriptures, He could have been passed off as an eccentric religionist and a Messianic fanatic. No, in this verse Jesus crossed the line in their minds, from madman to blasphemer. That is why they picked up stones to kill Him. [/quote]

I believe Jesus knew the scriptures, and how to say "I am God" if that was really his intent. "Egw eimi ho Theos" Is what God told Moses at the burning bush. "I am the God." Jesus never said such a thing in his life, or beyond.

No my friend, Jesus was telling them that he preceded Moses, in prophecy, which is verified by John who says "He who cometh after me has become before me" [John 1:15,30]; and Paul who tells us Adam was first, then Jesus [I Cor 15:45-46].

[quote]
There is another message here as well, by claiming Himself as “I am” or “Ani” as it is said in Hebrew, Jesus was also declaring to be eternally existent and thus not governed by linear time. For a short time Jesus was willfully subject to the limits of linear time, but it never governed Him beyond the degree He allowed. Jesus continuously demonstrated that He was in complete control of the events of His life, and the lives around Him. [/quote]

If that is true, then Peter must be God. "egw eimi ho Theos" [Exo 3:6]
"Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek (on umeis zeeteite), shall suddenly come to his temple..." [Mal 3:1]

Since you think Jesus proves himself to be God because he allegedly "quotes" Exo 3:6, Peter "quotes" TWO passages from the old testament, Exo 3:6 and Mal 3:1; "Ego eimi on zeeteite" (I am he whom ye seek) [Acts 10:21] This shows how flimsy are the claims made by theologians who would deify Jesus under any pretense. And he only "quoted" one old testament passage. And he did not even finish the text, "egw eimi ho hwn." If "quoting" egw eimi" makes one God, there are many "Gods" identified in the New Teatament, because many entities "quoted" "I am." They just went on to finish the thought. What a sad commentary on Christianity's understanding of their Lord and Saviour.

[quote]
This declaration of eternal existence is also communicated in one of Jesus most famous testimonies about Himself:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(John 14:6) [/quote]

That is because "In these last days spoken unto us by his son." [Heb 1:1] There is no longer other paths by which one may seek God.

[quote]
The word used for life in Greek for this verse, refers to “eternal life” Eternal life without beginning, without end, but it also denotes a quality of life as well. It is not just living forever, but living forever with God. Recall that Jesus told Martha, “I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall He live.” John 11:25. Eternal life is not a place, or a length of time. Eternal life is Jesus.

John 14:6 "zoee" (life)
John 3:15 "zoee aiwnion" (eternal life.) Can't even get that right. You keep letting theology and doctrine get in the way of truth.

[quote]
Jesus cannot be the Way the Truth, and the Life, if He is only man and not God. Jesus cannot be the resurrection and the Life if He was just a man. Jesus chose His words to communicate exactly what He meant, and his enemies got the message loud and clear and on more than one occasion picked stones to kill Him for declaring to be nothing less than God in the flesh.
[/quote]

His enemies tried to kill him because the people flocked to hear his preaching, and the leaders feared they would lose their chief seats in the synagogue. And though they accused him of claiming to be God by saying he was the son of God, they did not think THEY were claiming to be God when they said God is THEIR father [John 8:41]. As a matter of fact, these same Jews changed their testimony when they testified at the trial of Jesus, instead of saying he claimed to be equal with God, they testified "he made himself the son of God." [John 19:7]

[quote]
IF Jesus is deity, beyond being a FORM OF deity, then who is he? He is not Jehovah, he is not the Father, he is not prior to Adam, he is "before Abraham" but only in Prophecy, and he is after John in actuallity. Jesus, being a "form of God," cannot be God of whom he is a form.[/quote]

The above remarks have already been addressed in my foregoing address, and so I will not labor the reader with unnecessary repitition.
[/quote]

I must have missed that part. Please indicate where it is to be found.

This post has been edited by Matthitjah: Jan 19 2007, 02:02 PM

Well it is a minor point, and I suppose not worth laboring over, but if the “predating” only extends to Gen. 3:15, then the prophecy does not pre-date Adam and Eve nor Satan nor God since they are the only major figures in Scripture who existed prior that prophecy.

It also seems to be reaching to argue that a person can “predate” someone or something else without actually existing in the absolute sense. The sense in which you are operating here, is not how the concept of predate is used in any other context. The idea that Jesus predates in the sense of being spoken of in prophecy is a somewhat unnatural use of “predate.” It would be more logical, and probably less confusing to others if you simply said you believe that Jesus did not live or exist anywhere in time until the birth narratives in the Gospels, and left it at that.


I object to it, because the Bible does not say that Jesus predated Abraham “in some fashion.” “In some fashion.” leaves the Bible open to subjective interpretation, thus Scriptures and the meaning of Scripture become subservient to the whims of the reader. The Bible then becomes a smorgasbord where one can pick and choose what parts they want to believe according to his/her taste. It does not allow the Bible to speak for itself, but rather allows the reader the opportunity to supply his/her own meaning to any given text, thus the Bible becomes a different book for each person depending on their personal bent, resulting in no one being able to say, “The Bible says…”


I am using the concept of lower and upper case, “E” to aid in the ease of the reader not familiar with Hebrew to understand that every occurrence of the word, ”Elohim” is not a reference to God Himself. Sometimes it is used in reference to angels, false gods, and human magistrates. In those cases, English, Elohim should be capitalized (at least by Christians) when referring to the true God, but used with a lower-case “e’ when referring to non-Divine uses of the word.



I would like to remind Enquirer that the subject matter of this thread is the Deity of Jesus, and to refrain from making anti-Trinitarian arguments. While minor digressions are sometimes necessary, this is not a debate about the Trinity. Enquirer should restrict Himself to the subject matter of this debate.

Yes, it is true that El Gibbor is not the same as El Shaddai. They are two different titles that carry different meaning. El Shaddai refers to God who promises full and abundant provision and is able to make good on that promise. It communicates that idea that God is more than sufficient for all of man’s needs. This is part of the uniqueness of God that is constantly contrasted with insufficiency of gods who were limited in time and space, and only to certain scopes of human existence (god of war, god of the harvest, god of fertility, etc.) God is El Shaddai, the all-sufficient One.

Gibbor is refers to strength, power. It refers to someone of manly, vigorous strength. It is used in connection with heroes, champions in battle. In every context it is found, it is always a word that simply means great power. There are nine verses in which the phrase “Mighty God’ is used in Scripture: (Psalm 50:1; 132:2,5; Isaiah 9:6; 10:21, Jeremiah 32:18 and Habakkuk 1:12) In every single case, the phrase refers to God Himself, not to a man.
You ask the question as to why I am surprised that God gave names above every name to a resurrected man… Well “El Gibbor” is not a name, it is a title. It is a title that ascribes Divine glory to the person who holds that Title as does the title “Avi ad.” God, as I have already pointed out from Scripture (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11), does not share His glory with man, or any of the pagan deities that man has concocted. If Jesus were merely a resurrected man, He would not share the term “El Gibbor” with God Himself. Furthermore touching on Jesus as a resurrected man, I would also like to remind what Jesus said in reference to His own resurrection:

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
(John 10:17-18)

Jesus was in complete control. There are two things immediately apparent in this: Jesus had the power to not die, and the power to prevent anyone from taking His life. Secondly, Jesus once dead of His own volition, had the power in Himself to take his life back again. Jesus is, therefore, declaring personal power over death. This He would not have, were He merely a “man.” Jesus did not claim that the power came from the Father, but that it existed in Himself to do with, as He chose. That teaches that since no one could kill Jesus without His permission, Jesus was not just in control of His own life choices and decisions, but Jesus also administered control over those around Him. When Jesus was on the cross, He died exactly when He wanted to die, and not a minute too soon or too late.

Nice try, but that is wrong on two counts: Number one, the Bible NOWHERE says that Jesus is a “Father” to us. To the contrary, the Bible calls us joint-heirs with Jesus. Our relationship with Jesus is not one of father and child. None of the Scriptures you provided ever claim that Jesus is a Father, but speak of Jesus power to keep and preserve the Father’s children, namely us.

Secondly, I see that you don’t accept “Father of Eternity” as the meaning of “Avi ad.” The reason “Everlasting Father” is not the correct rendering, is because “ad” is used in Isaiah 9:6 as a noun. “Everlasting” is an adjective, and if “Everlasting had been what the prophet wanted to communicate, he would have used the word “Olam,” which in most cases serves an adjective. Olam means eternal, “ad” means “eternity”. Put them together in Hebrew and you would have a sentence like: “ Malkhutekha YHVH l’olam v’ad,” which means, “Thy Kingdom Oh Lord, is forever and for all eternity.” In Hebrew we always add extra emphasis in case you don’t get what “forever” means, you won’t miss the meaning of “eternity.” I realize you might not want to accept it, but Avi ad is applied to Jesus and He is called the Father of Eternity.

There is no point at which that touches or diminishes the Deity of Jesus. “First Begotten” is merely rank and title, nothing more. The term begotten does not touch on the issue of the Deity of Jesus. If you feel it does, please clarify that for me.




Sorry, but God says otherwise. God says that there is none like Him. For Him to ascribe Divine titles to Jesus, to imbue Him with Divine power and attributes while still a man, would be making Jesus like God. God says:
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, (Isaiah 46:9)

God says that there is none like Him anywhere. God is always teaching about His uniqueness. The Bible is very careful to make distinguish God, not only from other gods, but from man is well. The Bible makes it clear that God is not plagued with human frailties and shortcomings. There is none like Him. God wants to be the source of our salvation, and receive all the credit for it. He will not share the credit with a man.

Because that is not how the Bible portrays Jesus. The stories of Joseph and David do apply as foreshadowings of Christ but the Bible is very clear in where the limitations exist in making such comparisons. The danger in interpretation is when we begin to go beyond where Scripture goes. Joseph was promoted, as was David. Jesus was not promoted. Jesus condescended. Jesus came from Heaven and took on human flesh and became a servant. Jesus went from King to servant. The story of Joseph is the story of redemption. It shows Jesus rejected and even sold for money by one of His own, It shows Jesus betrayed, falsely accused, exalted, and finally being embraced by His own brothers who at first rejected Him (the Jewish people). I believe the picture of Joseph embracing His brothers (the tribes of Israel) and weeping with them is a picture of what will happen when the Jews finally see Jesus as their Messiah and they will fall upon each other as brothers and weep for joy. At any rate, the story of Joseph is a picture of Jesus first coming and therefore, does not apply to Jesus taking the throne of David which will occur after His return.

Remainder of Response in next post

Part Two of my Response



Well, my source material is the Hebrew language. You are relying on Strong’s, dictionary, but Strong’s dictionary does not fill you in on Hebrew grammar. Strongs’s dictionary is an exhaustive but not analytical. You are doing Hebrew “by the numbers” but that is inferior to actually knowing the language and the grammatical constructs. Actually there are two differences not just one. Not only is “shmo” missing from Jer. 33:15, but you might also notice the variation between yikro in 23:6 and Yikra-lah in 33:16. Now in Strongs, they are the same number (7121), so to you, because you don’t know Hebrew it appears like the same word is being used in both verses, but they are not the same word, they have the same base “qara,” but they are completely different words. The problem with Strong’s numbers is that they tend to give a false impression about how Hebrew works. It is not enough just to look up a word, you need to have a working knowledge of the language to accurately relate its meaning. Changing Yikro to Yikra-lah changes EVERYTHING. It changes the focus from the Branch to the one whom the Branch is calling. Yikra-lah indicates that it she (the city) is being called to. The picture painted by that construction is that the Messiah is calling to His city Jerusalem. He who is called the Lord our Righteousness calls to His people. Of course, as I stated earlier, that is one approach. The other approach, equally as valid and which I have no opposition to, is the view that the city is simply identified with the Messiah. It is His City and is she is honored by bearing His Name. Either way, Jeremiah 33:15 offers no threat to the doctrine of Jesus’ Deity.


What you are avoiding though is the way the word “alone” is used. What God is saying is that he created the world by Himself without the help of any outside agency. He, alone was sufficient to the task. Unlike the pagan gods, who because of their frailties often had to seek human assistance or assistance from one another, God is declaring that His uniqueness in the face of the pagan deities of the surrounding nations of Isaiah’s day, particularly to the Israelites who had by then, fallen into egregious idolatry. God is not saying, “I am all alone up here.” He is saying that He is the sole source of all creation.

No offense, but that does not make your point at all. You can type gibberish all you want. At least when I post Hebrew I quote it to make it clear what is being said. Just because you can type some words out of Strong’s it does not strengthen your position. Please restate the above in English and make your case.

It is not the word that is used. Just because they are the same word, means next to nothing when the context and subject matter are different. Honestly, do you not understand that you are dealing with a bonafide language. Try applying your method to the English language. When a man says, I love my wife, but also claims to love his dog, is it not apparent that even though he is using the same word (love) he is using it in different ways because of the different contexts? You can have the same word used two or more different ways and mean completely different things. Take the word “fine.” “Fine can mean, thin, it can mean, acceptable, or it can mean sexually attractive. When used sarcastically, fine actually means completely unacceptable. It is the same word, but in each case, the meaning is different depending on it use. So, just because you can find “alone” used in two different places does not give you the right to force them to mean the same thing. You need to let the text speak for itself. Your entire “alone” argument collapses on the grounds of your inexperience with the biblical languages.

The rest to follow in Part Three of My Response

Part Three of My Response


No, that is what we have gained from the entire study of the whole counsel of God. I did not say it was just from John 8:58.

Possesses personal righteousness of his own? Reference please?
Well, Jeremiah 23:5,6 for starters. He is called the Lord our Righteousness. We get our righteousness from Him. The Bible never claims that Jesus had to become righteous, and I defy you to show where Jesus was trying to become righteous. In the entire NT, Jesus is portrayed as being the source of righteousness. It is gained through Him and His finished work on the cross.
Image of God, so are other men [I Cor 11:7]
I have already answered that several pages back. I will not repeat what I have already said.
Before all things? Sure, "This day" being the day of his resurrection, he is before all things that will imitate him in resurrection.
Part of your problem here is the limited parameter that you cited as existing in the same passage as “before all things.” You have already stated that “all things” is limited to all dominions, principalities thrones both visible and invisible. Yet now, you are changing the parameter of what "all things" means. That internal inconsistency aside, how could Jesus have not existed prior to Matthew chapter 1, but still be “before all things” if “all things” refers to the spiritual, invisible dominions and principalities that existed in Scripture long before Jesus earthly sojourn? How could He create them, and without pre-existing them?
creator of things in heaven or earth, visible or invisible WHETHER THEY BE Thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. That little limiting parameter still counts my friend.
Yes, and as I pointed out, it still places you in pickle to explain how Jesus created those spiritual dominions that preexisted His birth if Jesus did not exist before Matthew chapter 1.
All things consist and are sustained by a man to whom God gave all power for a time.
Not so. God never gave a man all power, because that would make Him like God, and God says that no one is like Him.
Was given a name above every name; a name which he did not have before.
Not so, Jesus has always bore the Name YHVH.
Throne established is David's throne, established by God.
Eternal kingdom that will be returned to the Father.
No it will not be. It is an eternal Kingdom and Jesus is the eternal King because God said that there would never cease to be descendent of David upon the throne, and therefore Jesus is the eternal King and will possess said Kingdom forever without end.
"omo-ousian?" Scripture please! One of the earliest doctrines promoting such error comes in the form of an argument about "omo-ousian" a Greek word from which is derived doctrines on "same substance" which say Jesus is the same substance as the father; equality, which states Jesus is equal with the Father; and co-essential, all are from the same Greek word "OMO-OUSIAN" made up by theologians, AND NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE..

Actually it first appears in the Bible. Jesus said in Rev. 1:8:

When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. He laid His right hand on me, and said, "Don't be afraid! I am the First and the Last,
(Revelation 1:17)

Notice what God the Father says bout Himself in two other places:

Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
(Isaiah 41:4)

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
(Isaiah 44:6)

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
(Isaiah 48:11-12)

In John 1:8 Jesus calls Himself, “The Almighty,” Look it up… Jesus in the book of Revelation claims to be of one substance with the Father. God says in Isaiah 44:6, that He is the first and the last and that beside Him there is no God, God also calls Himself “The Almighty” in the Old Testament. Not “A” Almighty, but “THE” Almighty. Here is Jesus calling Himself “THE Almighty in the book of Revelation. So He is claiming to be very God.

Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove that from the text of John 8:58. In using the term “I AM” the way He used it, he is not proclaiming to predate Moses in prophecy. There is no way to get that from the text. Jesus used strongest term He could find to get His point across as to who He is. You are trying to reconcile your rejection of Jesus’ Deity with the flagship of all Bible passages that declare Jesus the God of eternity. You have redefine key terms in order to fit square pegs in round holes, and impose intent on the words of Jesus that are simply not there. Your only other option is to say the Bible is wrong about Jesus. The enemies of Jesus knew exactly what He meant as it is written:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
(John 5:18)

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
(John 10:32-33)

Jesus enemies understood Him perfectly, and Jesus did not refute them or claim that they misunderstood Him. So to claim that Jesus did not assert that He is God, is simply false. The Bible makes it clear that He did, and we have eyewitnesses recorded, even among his enemies.

You are mistaken. Zoe refers to eternal life even without the word eternal, because of the definite article present in the phrase “The Life.” It is not a reference to human life force, and in the context of John 14:6 directly refers to eternal life since Jesus presents Himself as the only way to the Father, and as the ultimate truth and The Life. Jesus came, according to Scripture to impute eternal life, and therefore, when Jesus is speaking of this life, even the casual reader of the Scriptures can deduce when He is speaking in spiritual terms, and is referring to eternal life. You are trying putting every obstacle you can in the way, and splitting every hair, but you really don’t have a case against the Deity of Jesus. It is one of the chief doctrines of Scripture.

The terms mean the same thing. To declare to be THE Son of God was a claim of actually being God. In my first post I made that point and backed it up with a quote that explains Hebrew thought and what it meant in that day, to call ones’self the “Son of…”

Part I

(1)To Shiloh357's remark: " From the preceding comments cited above, the overarching concept being proclaimed is that Jesus did not pre-exist creation but only pre-existed most of the major figures in the Bible. Adam and Eve and Satan and the Father Himself, being the only major Bible characters who pre-date Jesus in existence, whether by physical/supernatural existence, or in the form of prophecy as the author above believes."

Enquirer responded: "Wrong. That is not my claim. ALL the bible characters predate Jesus all the way to and including his cousin John, EXCEPT Jesus predates them in prophecy, as the first object of prophecy in Gen 3:15. This includes also the minor figures of scripture."

To which Shiloh357 responded: "Well it is a minor point, and I suppose not worth laboring over, but if the “predating” only extends to Gen. 3:15, then the prophecy does not pre-date Adam and Eve nor Satan nor God since they are the only major figures in Scripture who existed prior that prophecy.

Enquirer (NEW); Minor point? And all this time I though the pre-existence (predating) of Jesus was the most important major premise of the "Jesus is God" doctrine.

And your conclusion is correct; Jesus in prophecy in Gen 3:15 does NOT predate God, Adam, Eve, Satan, anyone else who predated Gen 3:15; i.e., angels, gods, whatever existed in the heavens, (Authorities, dominions, and etc).

(2)Shiloh357 continued: "It also seems to be reaching to argue that a person can “predate” someone or something else without actually existing in the absolute sense. The sense in which you are operating here, is not how the concept of predate is used in any other context. The idea that Jesus predates in the sense of being spoken of in prophecy is a somewhat unnatural use of “predate.” It would be more logical, and probably less confusing to others if you simply said you believe that Jesus did not live or exist anywhere in time until the birth narratives in the Gospels, and left it at that."

Enquirer (NEW) So now you pretend to tell me what my arguments should be? Makes it easier for you to rebutt if I do it your way. And there is nothing "unusual" about prophecy "predating" the events about which they prophesy. Or perhaps you do not know the meaning of "predate?"

Continue to part II

PART II

(3) To Shiloh357's remark: "So how much stock can we put in the above author’s claim? Did Jesus predate Abraham only "in some fashion?" Is that how Jesus meant to be understood in John 8:58? One of the greatest testimonies to the Deity of Jesus would be His preexistence with the Father."

Enquirer responded: "I fail to see why you find objection to my use of "in some fashion," as everything done in the bible is done in some fashion or another. I simply use the term to designate there are other options to any concept than the popular one. You can put any or none stock in the author's claim, it will not change the fact that things are done in some fashion or another."

To which Shiloh357 responds - I object to it, because the Bible does not say that Jesus predated Abraham “in some fashion.” “In some fashion.” leaves the Bible open to subjective interpretation, thus Scriptures and the meaning of Scripture become subservient to the whims of the reader. The Bible then becomes a smorgasbord where one can pick and choose what parts they want to believe according to his/her taste. It does not allow the Bible to speak for itself, but rather allows the reader the opportunity to supply his/her own meaning to any given text, thus the Bible becomes a different book for each person depending on their personal bent, resulting in no one being able to say, “The Bible says…”

And Enquirer responds - (NEW) "Well, the bible certainly is open to subjective interpretation; "trinity doctrine" for example, unitarianism, Mormonism, Baptist doctrine, Methodist doctrine, Catholic doctrine, and etc., even "Jesus is God," is from subjective interpretation."

"And you still object to "in some fashion" though you seem to feel free to make your own original arguments using words not found in scripture. I did not say the bible said "in some fashion" as you pretend, I said the event under consideration speaks of Jesus being before Abraham in some fashion. The quotation marks are YOUR addition to my remark."

I may observe that the bible tells us things in small letters, but that does not mean the bible says "in small letters." It is a straw-man argument."


(4) To Enquirer's remarks: "And where do you find these "upper case and lower case Ees?" Only in the works of men. They are not in the Hebrew. The editor of the Interlinear triglot states in the preface, " Neither of the original languages distinguished between upper and lower-case letters. Therefore, all capital letters in the English translation have been supplied. We have used capitals for the beginning of all sentences and speeches and for specific events (such as the Passover) and places (the Negev). We have also used them for pronouns that refer to Deity, and here Interpretation enters." And he is not speaking of translation, but theology. A trinitarian would use capitals differently than would a non-trinitarian if such is to be the standard for translating workss form one language to another. Thankfully it is not the standard."

Shiloh357 responded: "I am using the concept of lower and upper case, “E” to aid in the ease of the read not familiar with Hebrew to understand that every occurrence of the word, ”Elohim” is not a reference to God Himself. Sometimes it is used in reference to angels, false gods, and human magistrates. In those cases, English, Elohim should be capitalized (at least by Christians) when referring to the true God, but used with a lower-case “e’ when referring to non-Divine uses of the word."

To which Enquirer responds (NEW)- "Sorry, my friend, you need to focus on what you actually said. Your reference was to "El/el" not "Elohiym/elohiym." Try to stay focussed on what you said, or maybe print it out for reference.

And if you can use E/e to describe your point, why is it wrong for me to use "in some fashion" to describe my point? Right for you, wrong for me. H'mmm?? Neither is scriptural, both are tools used by the authors of the arguments."

This post has been edited by Enquirer: Jan 20 2007, 06:55 PM

PART III

(3) To Shiloh357's remark: "So how much stock can we put in the above author’s claim? Did Jesus predate Abraham only "in some fashion?" Is that how Jesus meant to be understood in John 8:58? One of the greatest testimonies to the Deity of Jesus would be His preexistence with the Father."

Enquirer responded: "I fail to see why you find objection to my use of "in some fashion," as everything done in the bible is done in some fashion or another. I simply use the term to designate there are other options to any concept than the popular one. You can put any or none stock in the author's claim, it will not change the fact that things are done in some fashion or another."

To which Shiloh357 responds - I object to it, because the Bible does not say that Jesus predated Abraham “in some fashion.” “In some fashion.” leaves the Bible open to subjective interpretation, thus Scriptures and the meaning of Scripture become subservient to the whims of the reader. The Bible then becomes a smorgasbord where one can pick and choose what parts they want to believe according to his/her taste. It does not allow the Bible to speak for itself, but rather allows the reader the opportunity to supply his/her own meaning to any given text, thus the Bible becomes a different book for each person depending on their personal bent, resulting in no one being able to say, “The Bible says…”

And Enquirer responds - (NEW) "Well, the bible certainly is open to subjective interpretation; "trinity doctrine" for example, unitarianism, Mormonism, Baptist doctrine, Methodist doctrine, Catholic doctrine, and etc., even "Jesus is God," is from subjective interpretation."

"And you still object to "in some fashion" though you seem to feel free to make your own original arguments using words not found in scripture. I did not say the bible said "in some fashion" as you pretend, I said the event under consideration speaks of Jesus being before Abraham in some fashion. The quotation marks are YOUR addition to my remark."

I may observe that the bible tells us things in small letters, but that does not mean the bible says "in small letters." It is a straw-man argument."
Part II

(4) To Enquirer's remarks: "And where do you find these "upper case and lower case Ees?" Only in the works of men. They are not in the Hebrew. The editor of the Interlinear triglot states in the preface, " Neither of the original languages distinguished between upper and lower-case letters. Therefore, all capital letters in the English translation have been supplied. We have used capitals for the beginning of all sentences and speeches and for specific events (such as the Passover) and places (the Negev). We have also used them for pronouns that refer to Deity, and here Interpretation enters." And he is not speaking of translation, but theology. A trinitarian would use capitals differently than would a non-trinitarian if such is to be the standard for translating workss form one language to another. Thankfully it is not the standard."

Shiloh357 responded: "I am using the concept of lower and upper case, “E” to aid in the ease of the read not familiar with Hebrew to understand that every occurrence of the word, ”Elohim” is not a reference to God Himself. Sometimes it is used in reference to angels, false gods, and human magistrates. In those cases, English, Elohim should be capitalized (at least by Christians) when referring to the true God, but used with a lower-case “e’ when referring to non-Divine uses of the word."

To which Enquirer responds (NEW)- "Sorry, my friend, you need to focus on what you actually said. Your reference was to "El/el" not "Elohiym/elohiym." Try to stay focussed on what you said, or maybe print it out for reference.

And if you can use E/e to describe your point, why is it wrong for me to use "in some fashion" to describe my point? Right for you, wrong for me. H'mmm?? Neither is scriptural, both are tools used by the authors of the arguments."

This post has been edited by Enquirer: Jan 20 2007, 06:15 PM