A very useful debate on Oneness Christology

Recently, on the THEOPOLOGETICS PODCAST, Michael Burgos (Trinitarian) debated James Anderson (Oneness) on the topic: "The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father."  I must say, this is probably the most useful debate i've heard on this topic.  As a matter of fact, I don't think i've ever heard a Christological debate with a topic this focused.  Usually, its just "Trinity vs. Oneness" or something along those lines.

Of course, some of my readers will disagree with the theological perspectives of both proponents.  However, I think this is a debate that anyone can learn a great deal from. Both men were very well prepared and debated in a cordial fashion.  Therefore, I feel that both positions were more than adequately contrasted.

You can download PART 1 and PART 2.

You can listen to some post-debate discussion between Chris Date (the host) and Michael Burgos HERE and HERE

Interview with Greg Stafford

Greg Stafford is a Jehovah's Witness who is no longer associated with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.  He has written SEVERAL BOOKS which both defend and criticize particular elements of the Watchtower Society.  The fact that Stafford is so critical of the organization, yet holds to many of its core doctrines, make him quite an interesting and unique apologist.

Recently, Stafford was interviewed by the SIX SCREENS OF THE WATCHTOWER TELENETWORK with regards to his stance on many issues.  Regardless of what you think of Stafford, if you are interested in Jehovah's Witnesses, you should find this interview interesting.  And yes, you'll hear his arguments against the Trinity and other doctrines held by "Christendom."  But you'll also hear his criticisms against the Watchtower Society and why he left.  On that end, any faithful JW in association with the Watchtower will be obliged to view him as an apostate and treated accordingly.  But I do hope that those same JW's will give this interview a chance and perhaps learn something new.

The interview was very disorganized and distracting, as it was held in a conference call format with many honing in to ask questions.  The interview starts at about 20 minutes in, but the full mp3 file is almost 6 hours long.  I haven't gotten through the whole thing, but I doubt Stafford was on the whole time.

If anyone has any thoughts, i'd be very interested in hearing them.  You can download or listen to the mp3 HERE.

Mormonism and multiple godheads

This video presents some very serious consequences and implications of Mormonism's polytheistic theology.  It is very short and worth watching.  Consider sharing this information with any thinking Mormons that you might know:

Discussion on Psalm 102 at Theopologetics

If you are interested in Jewish thought as it relates to Christology, then this will be of interest to you. Over at the THEOPOLOGETICS BLOG, me, DAVID BARRON, and Chris (the blog's author) are discussing some fascinating (at least we think so!) aspects of Psalm 102. The reason this discussion is interesting is because of the author of Hebrews' quotation of Psalm 102:25-27. The discussion is very long, but is worth reading. Anyone can feel free to chime in if they like, as long as it is directly related to the discussion. You can check the whole thing out HERE.

Book Review: "Jesus and the God of Israel" by Richard Bauckham

In this fascinating book, Richard Bauckham articulates his view about Jesus and the "unique identity of God."  The book makes up a series of articles that serve as an expanded version of his 1999 work, God Crucified.  In it, Bauckham analyzes a plethora of Jewish background material in establishing who God is.  That is, he drifts from the traditional "Nicene" views of ontology and seeks to focus on identity.  In fact, Bauckham seemed at times to express some level of uneasiness with regards to Trinitarian views of divine ontology.  The reason being, according to Bauckham, the Jews were more concerned with who God is rather than what God is.

The author seeks to establish his case by appealing to a wide range of Jewish texts, both Scriptural and non-scriptural (though some might infer the inspiration of some apocryphal works).  To many who read this work, including me, the non-scriptural analyses might appear to be awkward at first, given that so many monotheistic and Christological works have neglected this important background information.  However, by the end of the book, the reader will likely understand how important these texts are in establishing how the early Christians would have viewed Christ in relation to God's identity.  That is, if we seek to view the Christological texts through the lens of the modern eye, we may very well miss some very important key elements.

Of course, these key elements are in relation to what Bauckham has repetitively inferred as "the unique identity of God."  As stated previous, where many Christological works focus on the ontological aspects of God and Christ, Bauckham builds his case in establishing who God is, as second Temple Jews would have understood him.  Some of these elements of the unique identity of God to which Bauckham focuses on includes:

1. God is the sole sovereign ruler of all things

2. God is the sole Creator of all things

3. God is the sole possessor of the name YHWH 

Though there are several sub-categories to these, Bauckham argues that these are aspects of God's identity which separate Him from all other reality.  In drawing his conclusion on these matters, Bauckham then goes to argue that since Christ possesses these divine attributes of identity, he is to be included in God's unique identity.

In drawing this conclusion, Bauckham is careful to supply qualifications in that Christ isn't added to God's identity, but is included.  Otherwise, he argues, the Jews would have had no basis for which to accept such a ditheistic view.  In supporting his view of the inclusion of Jesus into the unique divine identity, Bauckham offers his exegesis of fair share of Christological texts.  One of the most prominent in his discussion is the early Christian view of Psalm 110:1.  Again, while many Christological works may focus on ontological aspects of Christ, Bauckham argues for this text as a key element in including Jesus into the unique identity of God as the sovereign ruler who sits at God's right hand.  Other texts include 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 5, Hebrews 1, and more.

Jesus and the God of Israel also includes a fair share of interaction with the scholarly community who espouse different views than Bauckham.  These critics range from liberal scholarship to conservative.  One of the more prominent interactions to which Bauckham engages are those who advocate views concerning so-called intermediary divine figures; in particular, those from the Qumran texts.  In interacting with these scholars and texts, Bauckham argues that though there are some interesting implications, they still do not place themselves as a parallel with the Christian texts as they include Jesus in the unique identity of God.

For those looking for a scholarly and insightful work on Christology and Christian monotheism, this work is a goldmine.  Even if one finds disagreement in some of Bauckham's contentions as they relate to identity rather than ontology, the footnotes provide enough information and scholarly references for the student to do his own research and come to his own conclusions.  Arguably, this is an important landmark work on Christology that will serve as a standard for years to come in the scholarly community.  And personally, I could not recommend a better work on Christology and monotheism than what Bauckham has offered here.

 

 

 

Richard Bauckham on ontological, functional, and Trinitarian Christology

"The distinction commonly made between "functional" and "ontic" Christology has been, broadly, between early Christology in a Jewish context and patristic Christology which applied Greek philosophical categories of divine nature to Christ. Even when ontic Christology is seen to begin well within the confines of the New Testament, it is seen as the beginnings of the patristic attribution of divine nature to Christ. The assumption usually is that, whereas first-century Jewish monotheists could attribute divine "functions" to Jesus without difficulty since this would not infringe Jewish monotheism, they could not easily attribute divine "nature" to him without raising difficult issues for monotheism with which only later Trinitarian developments could cope (successfully or not). However, this is to misconstrue Jewish monotheism in Hellenistic terms as though it were primarily concerned with what divinity is-divine nature-rather than who YHWH, the unique God, is-divine identity. The whole category of divine identity and Jesus' inclusion in it has been fundamentally obscured by the alternative of "functional" and "ontic," understood to mean that either Christology speaks simply of what Jesus does or else it speaks of his divine nature. Once the category of divine identity replaces those of function and nature as the primary and comprehensive category for understanding both Jewish monotheism and early Christology, we can see that the New Testament's lack of concern with the divine nature of Christ is by no means an indication of a merely functional Christology. We can see that, throughout the New Testament texts, there is a clear and deliberate use of these characteristics of the unique divine identity to include Jesus in that identity. Once we have rid ourselves of the prejudice that high Christology must speak of Christ's divine nature, we can see the obvious fact that the Christology of divine identity common to the whole New Testament is the highest Christology of all. It identifies Jesus as intrinsic to who God is.

-Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 31

Some gleanings on Systematic Theology

Too often we get focused on specific biblical issues without seeing what else is out there. That is, I know of people who seem to study nothing else other than the Biblical texts which relate to the Calvinism/Arminian debate. And there are others who seem to study and discuss nothing other than Trinitarianism; whether they are for it or against it. But one thing that people lack, including myself, is a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of Scripture as a whole. That is, if the Bible is God's Word, then we should not view it as sets of verses or different books piled together. Instead, we should view it as one book. But to do this, we need to be able to take a step back and be able to see how the Bibles eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology all work out together. For instance, if you have never taken the time to study eschatology or baptism, how do you know the manner in which this might impact your view on the nature of God? Could your understanding on these subjects impact how you understand, let's say, the identity of Christ? The simple answer is, you don't know.

This is why i'm taking the time to study SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY a little bit each day. Why? Because it forces you to systematize your individual beliefs into one cohesive unit. That is, it sharpens the consistency of your beliefs. If your Christology puts you at odds with your eschatology, then one of them needs to be corrected.

Right now i'm reading through Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I'm sure a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth when they hear Calvin's name. But there is no denying the fact that his "systematic theology" is nothing short of brilliant in offering a cohesive and comprehensive look at the Bible as a whole. Now, I certainly do not agree with everything Calvin says. But that is not the point of reading a systematic theology. As you read, you critique the views offered and formulate your own. This way, you not only research topics you never thought about before, but you sharpen and refine views you might already hold strongly to.

If you are a student of theology, pick up a systematic theology today and read it alongside your daily Bible readings. And i'm not saying this in a "Bible study aid" sort of way. In fact, forget the actual views that your particular systematic theology espouses. Look at the subject itself and ask yourself, "I see how Calvin (or whoever else) is forming his view on this, but how would I form mine? As I read through today's biblical texts, do my understandings of, let's say, ecclesiology jive with what Romans 4 teaches about salvation?"

With that said, i'd like to share what I read in Calvin's Institutes (who knows how often i'll do this) to see what anyone else thinks, whether they agree or disagree.

Book One, Chapter 13: section 20

Then, that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.” After giving the answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee,” he subjoins, “that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:8 , 9 ). For it is certain that the name of Lord ( Kuriou ) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21 ; Joel 2:28 ). Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ.

(By the way, I much prefer McNeill's translation of Calvin better than this one. But this came from my Bible software and was easier to copy and paste)

A short discussion of ego eimi in John's gospel

Recently, Dave Barron posted a discussion that took place on the Narrow Mind radio show a few years back on the "I Am" statements in John's Gospel. If you are interested in Jehovah's Witnesses and the deity of Christ, you'll want to listen to this discussion between Dave Barron and Gene Cook.

You can listen to it the 20 minute interaction HERE.

(ht: Scriptural Truths)

Discussion/debate with a non-Trinitarian

The topic for discussion is "The Trinity". The question is: Are
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all one God? Our guests are
Patrick Navas, author of the book "Divine Truth or Human
Tradition, 'A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant
Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian
Scriptures". In defense of the Trinity is Brian Garcia, former
Jehovah's Witness apologist and now Christian apologist.

I thought this was a good discussion for the most part. But towards the end it got difficult to listen to when people started calling in. However, these types of conversations are very rare, so if you are interested in hearing both sides of this issue, i'd recommend this.

You can listen to the full audio HERE

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Debate with a Jehovah's Witness on the proposition: "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?"

This is the entirety of the debate between myself and a Jehovah's Witness that took place in 2008. If you would like to ask questions or leave comments for either debater, please do so on this page.

Opening Statement by Mike (Trinitarian position)

Opening Statement by David (non-Trinitarian position)

First Rebuttal by Mike

First Rebuttal by David

Cross Examination: Questions for David from Mike

Cross Examination: Questions for Mike from David

Final Rebuttal by Mike

Final Rebuttal by David

Closing Statement by Mike

Closing Statement by David

Closing Statement from David (non-Trinitarian position) on the proposition, "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?"

This debate could not have more starkly contrasted my opponent’s position with my own, and for that I believe it was a success. Undoubtedly many will declare victor the side they had determined to be correct before the debate began. For those who were uncertain true benefit is found. What has been presented are but a few of the arguments and reasonings behind our respective positions so that such ones may more fully understand the basis for them.

The Bible clearly attests to the fact that many are properly identified as gods. My opponent has argued that these are either false gods or figuratively gods but he has offered nothing to demand such categorization. Indeed ones were gods only in that they represented the true God (Psa. 82:6), but there were also ones who were so defined because they held a nature higher than that of man (Psa. 8:5). Because of this fact there is no dilemma in identifying the preexistent Messiah as “a god” based upon, among other things, his exalted nature (John 1:1). As ‘the exact representation of God’s being’ he could be nothing less (Heb. 1:3), but he is “god” only relative to ‘his God’ (Heb. 1:8-9).

Much more could be said than has been. Numerous texts could be presented and discussed on both sides. While this would be advantageous it is not feasible. Whether you are one who believes you already understand the scriptures or you are a new student of God’s word I would encourage you to continue to pray for understanding. Ask God to direct you through his word so that you can free yourself from error and more fully understand who he is, his will and his purpose. Upon asking for this direction read from his word with an open mind and heart. Seek to understand it more perfectly and thus share it with others.

I would like to thank Mike for his time and his patience with the delay between my responses. He has handled himself professionally both in this debate and in private communication so that I would be pleased to have further discussions with him on related issues.

Closing statement from Mike (Trinitarian position) on the proposition, "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?"

I would first like to thank my opponent for agreeing to participate in this debate. Because he stuck to the topic, retained excellent candor and respect, and articulated his position very well, it goes to show that two opposing sides can discuss these topics without diverting to personal attacks. I certainly hope this opens the door for future opportunities with Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups who would disagree with, what I believe to be, essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

With that said, I realize there were quite a few points that were left untouched from both sides. Unfortunately, this is what happens with word limits, time restraints, etc. With that in mind, I hope the reader will look at what was responded to rather than what wasn’t responded to.

I revert back to my opening statement in establishing the semantic range of “God” as used in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. I believe my position to be very clear in establishing what makes one to be G/god in the ontological sense as opposed to those that aren’t. If the Scriptures are consistent (as I believe they are), we would expect only the clearest differentiation so as to avoid the most heinous sin of idolatry.

So the question I ask the reader is, which side provided the most consistent application of the semantic range of “God” as used in the Scriptures? This question is foundational to the debate proposition, “What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?” Surely, if one misunderstands the monotheistic context of the Hebrew Scriptures (as I believe my opponent does), then they are likely to also misunderstand the identity of Jesus in the Greek Scriptures.

This is perhaps one of the main reasons why Jehovah’s Witnesses find it so hard to understand why Trinitarians identify Jesus in the way that they do; because of the claims of Jesus and the New Testament writers in light of what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. That is, for Thomas to identify Jesus as, “My Lord and My God,” is only the highest form of blasphemy if, in fact, Jesus isn’t YHWH. Why? Because it is inconceivable that the monotheistic Jew would utter the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 every morning, “Hear, O Israel! YHWH is our God, YHWH is one,” and then utter the words of John 20:28 that same day.

In closing, I hope the reader will consider the words of Jesus in John 8:24, “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” In a day in age where there is widespread confusion as to the identity of Jesus, those who claim to be followers of Christ cannot be confused as to who He is. Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask questions in the comment section or email me at entrsnm3@aol.com

Final Rebuttal by David (non-Trinitarian position) on the proposition: "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus 'G/god'?"

My opponent’s suggestion that Hebrews 1:3 articulates equality with God and Christ demands more attention be given this text. For the purpose of demonstrating my position and the soundness of it I will rely upon A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (BDAG), for defining key terms, while examining a couple of cited parallels will offer further solidification.

Reading my opponent’s words I understand him to have confused ‘God’s being’ with God himself. He has apparently read “the exact representation of his being” to be “the exact representation of him.” There is a reason that the author of Hebrews chose the former over the latter.

The word hupostasis as it was originally understood in this context referred to “the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality” (p. 1040). I suspect confusion stems from the use of “nature” and “essence,” with my opponent perhaps connecting these with attributes (holiness, power, knowledge) that are aspects of God’s nature. What is here in view is more specifically “substantial nature,” which has nothing to do with such attributes. Instead we are looking at God’s “basic structure,” referring to whatever it is that he consists of. By way of comparison, the “basic structure” of man is flesh.

The meaning here intended is as cited by BDAG comparable to a text in the early Christian Letter to Diognetus. At 2:1 the passage refers to the “substance” (hupostasis) of idols, “whose basic reality is someth[ing] material like stone, metal etc” (ibid.). The notion of attributes such as knowledge, power, holiness or even age was entirely absent. In view was only what idols consisted of materially.

Regarding carakthr, my opponent may be overreaching in attempting to force “exact representation” to essentially mean “identical.” The former is not a necessary force of carakthr, as perhaps best seen when Clement spoke of man as the carakthr of God’s image (1Cle. 33:4). Far from meaning that man is identical to God or his image, or even that they were equal, man is the reproduction or that which was produced as a representation of God’s image and it is only to this extent that he is the “exact representation.”

There exists significant difficulty for the Trinitarian when one considers that Hebrews 1:3 refers to “someth[thing] produced as a representation, reproduction, representation” (p. 1078). As something “produced” or a “reproduction” Jesus is implicitly created. This is perhaps best seen when Beck’s New Testament translation renders carakthr “copy” (similarly, TestSim 5:4).

My opponent made use of a line and a line segment to illustrate what he felt was the trouble with my interpretation of Hebrews 1:3. The illustration only substantiates my position. What Hebrews 1:3 speaks of is not the line itself but what the line is made of. Were the line made of grape juice the language of Hebrews 1:3 would only mean that the line segment consisted of the same. While the line was infinite the segment was not, yet the segment still served as the carakthr of the line’s hupostasis.

The meaning behind this text might well be paralleled with Eve’s creation. Made of Adam’s rib she was produced from his substance. In such a way she was “the exact representation of his being,” having been made of the same material as he. What must be realized is that in her creation holiness, knowledge, power and wisdom were not directly transferred. Neither was age. She was newly created, but created from the substance of Adam. With Hebrews 1:3 we find Jesus as the carakthr to be a creation, but having been made so of God’s hupostasis he was made of the same substance as God. To be clear, this is not to say they share a substance in the Trinitarian sense, only that they are made of the same just as all men consist of flesh. Jesus is the very thing we would expect God’s only son to be.

I had mentioned 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a text defining a distinct difference between God and Christ. To this was given the following response:

This indicates another incorrect assumption on his part that “instrumentality (that Jesus was the agent used to create) indicates an inferiority in nature.”

What my opponent views as only an “incorrect assumption” is in fact accurate. God is by nature the source of all things. If only the Father is the source of all things I would argue that he is the only one who could be identified as God by nature. So the text refers not only to a functional difference but also an ontological one.

Finally my opponent comments on the matter of worship, but his argument repeats his earlier statements, to which I have responded. He is correct in that there were commands to only worship God, one of which Jesus himself repeated. Yet my opponent continues to ignore the full scope of my argument, which is that God came only after exalting Jesus and allowed him to be worshipped. The Bible expressly defines Jesus’ worship as based upon God’s decision and action. It is never said to be based upon Jesus’ identity or role as God Almighty. My opponent can continue appealing to passages that predate God’s exaltation of Jesus and the command to worship him, but these do not overturn what is repeatedly defined in the New Testament. I am reminded in many ways of those who argue similarly that we must today continue to observe the Sabbath.

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses on Revelation 5:11-14 (Video)

Muslim and Christian dialogue on the Trinity

Its a rare thing when these kinds of dialogues take place without either side being rude, obnoxious, or interruptive. I found the Muslim, Abdullah al-Andalusi, to be respectful and articulate (which seems to be a rarity with Muslim apologists). So I just wanted to commend this discussion to you all. It took place recently in London by a radio station titled, Unbelievable.

Final Rebuttal by Mike (Trinitarian position) on the proposition: "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus 'G/god'?"

There appears to be an assumption on my opponents part that God can “do whatever he wants.” But would he not agree that there are things that God cannot do? For example, God cannot lie. God cannot cease to exist. God can’t create square circles. He can’t create rocks so big that He couldn’t lift. Such things would be logical contradictions, and I couldn’t imagine my opponent disagreeing with any of this.

But the problem arises when he neglects to include in these “limitations” that God is also limited by what he has said in his Word. For instance, he argues:

“In reality, as a creature Jesus would be only as poor of a representation of God as he wanted him to be, for to say anything else would limit God’s creative ability.”

Jehovah is an infinite God in every sense of the word; in His holiness, power, knowledge (although many JW’s would dispute this), and eternality. If this is the case, is there not an infinite gap between the infinite and the finite? In other words, no matter how highly you exalt a creature, there is still an infinite and unbridgeable gap between the creature and the Creator. An example of this could be likened to a line. When we draw lines, they usually extend in two directions and end at a particular point. In Geometry, they extend forever in both directions. If God represents that infinitely long line, could you ever have a line segment (a line with two distinct end-points) that goes as far as an infinitely long line? Would it be fair to conclude that the finite line would only pale in comparison to the infinitely long line? Similarly, would not a creature, no matter how highly exalted, only pale in comparison to an infinite creator?

I submit that the only way one divine person (Jesus) could be the “exact representation” of another (The Father) would be a shared ontology. This is where the rubber meets the road with my opponent. He seems to be suggesting that I’m “limiting God’s creative ability” in arguing that God couldn’t create a creature who is the “exact representation” of Himself. Such is a logical contradiction, as an infinite God could not “create” another infinite being just like Himself.

My opponent attempts to justify his interpretation of Hebrews 1:3 by asserting that this text,

“does not make Jesus comparable to God who is the source of all things in contrast to Jesus whom they only come through (1Cor. 8:6)”

This indicates another incorrect assumption on his part that “instrumentality (that Jesus was the agent used to create) indicates an inferiority in nature.” But regardless, his statement is contradictory because Hebrews 1:3 states Jesus is the “exact representation” of the Father, yet this “does not make Jesus comparable to God?” How can something be “exact” and also “not comparable?” The only way this is possible is if you are speaking in functional rather than ontological terms. That is, I would agree that Jesus is not an “exact representation” of the Father in that they both play different roles; the Son entering into creation to accomplish redemption as opposed to the Father. But Hebrews 1:3 is very specific in indicating how Jesus is the “exact representation” of the Father by indicating the word “being.” If Hebrews 1:3 is speaking of His ontological exactness, then why bring 1 Corinthians 8:6 into the picture which speaks of the Father and Son’s roles in Creation? Is my opponent suggesting that God could not (hypothetically, of course) exist in three persons; all with separate roles in creation and redemption? Does the Father being the “source” while the Son being the “agent” make one ontologically greater or less than the other?

My opponent argues that,

“To suggest that Jesus could not be honored as the Father unless both are Jehovah is to suggest that Jehovah cannot exalt one and allow the worship of that one. God has no such limitation.”

This is incorrect because it neglects the assumption that God is limited by what He ordains to be. For instance, Matthew 4:10 says, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.” (Matthew 4:10) If both Jesus and the Father (in Ex. 34:14) affirm that only YHWH should be worshipped, then should we not “limit” Him to what He has commanded His followers to adhere to? Even if we had no reason behind this command, we could be certain that God only wants us to worship Him. But He clearly specifies His reason for giving this command: He is a jealous God.

My opponent answers this argument by appealing to the fact that Jesus is worshipped to the glory of the Father. I agree with this. But it doesn’t actually address the issue: the worship of the Son. I’m sure Roman Catholics who worship Mary (although they wouldn’t call it “worship”) will readily admit that their prayers and service to her are to the “glory of the Father,” but we agree that this is completely blasphemous. However, we rarely argue this simply because we can’t find any statements in Scripture which command prayer and service (which, biblically, is synonymous with worship!) to Mary. No, we refute them by appealing to texts such as Exodus 34:14 which limit worship to God alone.

Another problem I have with my opponent’s explanation is that it fails to explain what this “worship” of the Son entails. Without getting into a full lexical discussion of proskuneo, I would ask the readers to ask yourself a simple question, whether you be a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or Evangelical: “What does your worship of God entail?” Is it limited in any way? Is it possible to worship God more highly than what is due? I submit that to allow the worship of a creature will lead to nothing short of idolatry. If the worship of a creature were Scripturally permissible, would we not expect some very strict guidelines so as to avoid idolatry? If so, I would like for my opponent to explain what these guidelines are so as to avoid giving Jesus what is due to the Father.

Cross examination (part 2) of the debate: "what does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus 'G/god'?": questions for Mike (Trinitarian position)

This section is the cross-examination where David (non-Trinitarian position) has the opportunity of asking Mike (Trinitarian position) questions. The questioner also has an opportunity to give a 200 word rebuttal at the end of each answer.

1. You have argued from Deutero-Isaiah that Jehovah alone is ontologically a true God, making all others claimed to a position of ontological godship false gods. Those passages find Jehovah speaking by Isaiah who recorded and delivered his words. In Hebrews 1:1 the author speaks of this one who 'spoke by the prophets,' including Isaiah. According to Hebrews this one was only the Father for in verse 2 we learn this one came later to speak by his son Jesus. Thus, as the Father alone is the speaker in Deutero-Isaiah and per your position he claimed to alone be ontologically God, how can Jesus also possess this deity as Jehovah when the Father expressly limits this to himself?

Hebrews 1 is speaking in incarnational language. The Father spoke through the prophets concerning His Son, but has given one final word of Revelation through His Son, who came into the world as a man. In no way does this diminish Christ's deity, for the author goes on to speak of Christ as "the exact representation of His nature," as well as many other divine attributes; things that no creature could posses, no matter how highly exalted. In fact, if Christ is a representation of the Father, he could not be anything other than a poor representation if he is, as you say, a creature. To the contrary, the Scriptures speak of Him as the "exact" representation of the Father. It would make no sense for the author to describe the Son as ontologically inferior to the Father and then go on to describe Him the way He does in chapter 1.

But even if the Father alone is the speaker in the Hebrew Scriptures, this does not refute my position any more than it was the Son, not the Father, who entered into human flesh and accomplished eternal redemption. Your question claims that the "Father expressly limits this to himself," which is true. But it is not true that the Father limits the attribute of deity to Himself to the exclusion of any other divine persons. The text simply states that it was the Father who spoke through the prophets concerning His Son. And to draw from this an ontological inferiority of the Son is to go beyond what the text is saying. I submit that the whole of Hebrews chapter 1 declares the exact opposite; that Jesus Christ is none other than YHWH Himself.

Rebuttal: In reality, as a creature Jesus would be only as poor of a representation of God as he wanted him to be, for to say anything else would limit God’s creative ability. This, however, does not address the point.

According to Hebrews the God who spoke “by the prophets” was the Father, not the Son, for that one more recently spoke by the Son. Thus when we look in the Old Testament whenever it refers to the one who spoke by the prophets it is always the Father. As this is the case any Old Testament reference where God spoke “by the prophets” and limited certain things to himself would make those things limited to the Father, to the exclusion of the Son. Therefore my opponent’s view of Deutero-Isaiah limiting deity to Jehovah ontologically would result in deity being limited to the Father alone, for the Father is the speaker, expressly limiting it to himself.


2. With no ambiguity in Hebrews 1:1, it expressly identifying the Father as the one who spoke “by the prophets,” not merely concerning his son but generally, when we look to Deutero-Isaiah you have maintained that in association with your interpretation of God’s denials there is no conflict with identifying Jesus as a distinct person of God. Yet as the Father says, “I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me? (Isa. 46:9 ASV) can you provide an exegetical basis in this text for the son to be “God” when according to the Father “there is none else” and how is God Jesus like the Father when he says “there is none like me”?

With regards to Hebrews 1:1, my opponent makes the assumption that the text is “not merely concerning his son but generally.” This is an idea that he is importing into the text. But until he provides a Scriptural basis for this position, I have no reason to believe that Hebrews 1:1 is speaking of something other than “He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways. In these last days has spoken to us in His Son?” If further explanation is needed for my position, my answer to question one should be sufficient.

As far as Isaiah 46:9, I am being asked to provide an exegetical basis that this includes the Son as, “God, there no one like Me.” If by “exegetical basis” my opponent is implying that I can only engage this text without the use of outside texts, I simply cannot. Assuming that this is not what my opponent is asking, I’ll provide a brief explanation as to how this text must include the Son.

Although my opponent would disagree, the fact that YHWH claims “I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is none like Me,” (46:9, ESV) necessitates that only YHWH can be God ontologically. The following verse answers why this is so, for only God can “declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My council shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’” (46:10, ESV) If angels, or Jesus, can be ontologically identified as theos, Elohim, etc. then “I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is none like me,” makes no sense.

Hebrews 1:3 provides a sufficient basis for Jesus being included in Isaiah 46:9 because He is the “exact representation of His nature.” No one could be described in such a way and not be “like me [YHWH].” In other words, if there is none like YHWH, then the author of Hebrews is only confusing the reader by identifying a creature as “the exact representation of His nature.”

Rebuttal: That Hebrews 1 is “speaking generally” is evident based upon the lack of any qualification. It refers to God speaking “to the Fathers by the prophets,” without reference to any one subject, such as the Son. So my preceding claim is based upon what the text says.

I have demonstrated that the context of Deutero-Isaiah references idol gods explicitly and all made into gods by men and even demons implicitly, with no bearing on those made so by Jehovah even if they be such by nature. Jesus is “the exact representation of his being,” but that does not make Jesus comparable to God who is the source of all things in contrast to Jesus whom they only come through (1Cor. 8:6). In fact Jesus solidified the difference between himself as the Father Jehovah more than once (John 5:19, 30).

Here the point is really that in light of Hebrews 1:1-2 demonstrating the speaker in Deutero-Isaiah to be the Father, if we accept my opponent’s interpretation of God’s statements to mean that deity is limited to himself, there is no exegetical basis for find the Son to be an exception. Therefore his interpretation is wrong or the Bible is contradictory.


3. You have suggest that Colossians 1:19 is compatible with the Trinitarian incarnation because "the human nature had to be 'given' a divine nature." To be given something you must by definition lack it. Colossians 1:19 speaks not of the fullness coming to dwell simply in a human nature but "in him." When did Jesus exist as a human and lack deity for it to come to be "in him" and how do you justify your position when the doctrine of the hypostatic union does not allow for Jesus to be identified with the human nature apart from the divine nature, the formed being something that was only added to the latter?

My opponent is correct in pointing out that a particular angle in which to view incarnation involved the human nature being given a divine nature (with careful qualification). But I would feel much more comfortable viewing it as the divine nature being given a human nature. This is fully compatible with Philippians 2:5-7, where Christ is described as existing “in the form of God,” hence possessing a divine nature. Verse 7 describes an “emptying” where He takes the form of a bond-servant and is “given” a human nature. Without going into a full exegesis of the Carmen Cristi, it is my understanding that the passage describes Christ as being both God and man in the incarnation.

With that said, there must be a way of reconciling both Colossians 1:19 and Philippians 2:5-7. As I stated earlier, the incarnation is beyond the grasp of our finite understanding. But however incomprehensible the concept may be, I believe that it can be apprehensible through a careful explanation of the texts.

First, it must be stressed yet again that this “fullness of deity” is defined as “the state of being God” according to Thayer. My opponent has yet to refute this. And I only point this out because if Christ is in possession of “the state of being God,” then He is by definition YHWH Himself! Consequently, even if my explanation is lacking as to how or when the human nature possessed the divine nature, the fact remains that Christ is YHWH.

Lastly, I will attempt to answer my opponent’s question as to how the human nature could be identified apart from the divine nature. And my answer is: it can’t. This confusion might have stemmed from a few statements in an earlier rebuttal:

In order for the incarnation to be possible, God the Son had to enter into human flesh. Therefore, it could be viewed from two different angles.

1. The divine nature had to be “given” a human nature.

2. The human nature had to be “given” a divine nature.

Either way, the divine nature has always remained divine. Therefore, my statement that his “eternally possessed deity was given to Him as a man” remains correct in that Christ never “gave up” His full deity. Instead, He voluntarily gave up some of His divine privileges by “taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”

Although I am hesitant to agree with point 2, I will be open to it as a possibility since I view the incarnation as an incomprehensible event. However, I feel that my explanation was clear in affirming that the “divine nature has always remained divine.” But I was careful to qualify this by affirming that this “remains correct in that Christ never gave up His full deity.” And if that forces me to retract any implications of “the human nature had to be given a divine nature,” then I have no problem in doing so.

Rebuttal: On the meaning of qeoths I would note that BDAG defines this as “the state of being god [not simply God], divine character/nature, deity, divinity.” Further this reference along with Friberg point out that this is an “abstract noun for qeos.” This and early use generally demonstrate how the term would well apply to Jesus outside of identifying him with Jehovah.

My opponent has proven unable to defend his position for he cannot define a time when Christ lacked the fullness of deity so to have it come “in him.” He suggests that the passage in question must be reconciled with Philippians 2:5-7 as if would be some type of contradiction without doing this. These passages are not contradictory but his interpretation is. From his interpretation of Philippians 2 Christ never lacked deity but only added humanity to himself, but Colossians 1:19 dictates he at one point lacked deity so that God chose for him to have it.


4. Other than your fallacious response as what I see to be poisoning the well by your repeated emphasis of “creature,” your primary objection to worshipping Jesus if he is not God is based upon God’s unwillingness to share his glory with another even though Philippians 2:11 expressly says the worship of Christ is “to the glory of God the Father” and not “from” it. As when the Bible provides a basis for Jesus' worship the only given is the Father’s will and action resulting in it (see John 5:22-23 with the purpose clause seen in "so that" and the same in Philippians 2:10-11 with "because of this" in verse 9, providing the basis for the action resulting in him receiving this), how does this serve as evidence that Jesus is the Almighty when in fact if Jesus were the Almighty these would not be the basis for him receiving this, it instead being his nature and identity which are never given as a basis for it?

Although my opponent argues that the worship of Jesus is “to” God’s glory rather than “from” God’s glory, this does not solve the problem for him (Trinitarians would never insist that the worship of Jesus detracts from the Father’s glory). Instead, it only presents more problems and raises more questions. Allow me to restate why true biblical worship is due to YHWH alone. Although space would not permit for an exhaustive case for my position, I hope the following will suffice.

For you shall not worship any other god, for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14)

This passage presents to us a foundation as to why my opponent’s view cannot be correct. The reason YHWH doesn’t want us to worship anyone but Him is because we would be giving something to other gods that should be due to Him alone. This is why I oppose my opponents view, because he is claiming that worship is not due to YHWH alone. Instead, it is to be given to a created being “to the praise of His glory.” But I submit that this could not be to the praise of YHWH if it is given to someone other than Himself. For if this were the case, then Exodus 34:14, Isaiah 42:8, Deuteronomy 8:19 and others would have no meaning.

My opponent suggests that if Jesus were the Almighty, then His nature and identity would be the basis for it. But I argue that His nature and identity are given as a basis. Hebrews 1 is an excellent example of this.

In Hebrews 1:6, it reads, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” As I’m sure my opponent would agree, Hebrews 1 is based on the identity of Jesus. He is identified as the “heir of all things, through whom He made the world.” (v.2) He is also identified as the “exact representation of His nature.” (v.3) Thirdly, in verses 10-12, a passage descriptive and unique to YHWH Himself is applied to Jesus (Psalm 102:25-27). Hence, the worship in 1:6 is entirely centered upon Jesus as Almighty since these attributes are specific and unique to YHWH. Therefore, my opponent’s argument that His nature and identity aren’t the basis for the worship is false.

Last, the worship of Jesus “to the glory of God the Father” is completely consistent with the Trinitarian framework, given the fact that the specific worship of one divine person is equivalent to the worship of YHWH since each personage exhausts the divine nature. In the specific case of Philippians 2:10-11, it is to the “glory of God the Father” for a specific purpose. For it was the Father who “exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name.” (Phil. 2:9) But just because this worship is to the Father’s glory, does not mean it isn’t to the Son’s glory as well, since they both share the divine nature. This is why Jesus could say, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

Rebuttal John 5:22-23 and Philippians 2:10-11 both possess a purpose clause. These define the basis for what follows. In John 5 God grants judgment to Christ for the purpose of his honoring. God’s granting this result in Christ’s honoring. This too is seen in Philippians 2:10-11 where Christ’s exaltation is given as the basis for the worship defined.

In contrast to this Hebrews 1:6 provides no explicit basis for the angel’s worshipping Jesus other than God’s command. Here God is commanding the angels to worship Christ, so to say that this requires Jesus to be by nature God is unfounded. I further submit what is noted by a number of scholars, that an inclusio begins in only the final portion of verse 3 (with the allusion to Psalm 110:1) or perhaps 5, ending in 13. As such the focus within is Christ’s exalted position as spoken of throughout, resulting in 1:6 highlighting this and not his nature. My opponent’s submission that this worship is based upon nature is not explicitly defined in the text, derived from only his opinion. John 5 or Philippians 2 define the bass for worship as something other than nature and so this we should accept.

5. You have appealed to Hebrews 1 to provide a basis for Jesus' worship in his nature and identity, but in doing so you have provided nothing more than your personal interpretation of this text in contrast to the explicit basis seen from the specific grammatical structure provide in Philippians 2 and John 5, resulting in an argument on your part that is contradictory to these passages. For your position to be valid you must be able to provide an exegetical basis in agreement with the purpose clause used that would agree with your view that the basis for Jesus' worship is his nature and identity and not the basis I have suggested, so could you please do so?

This question suggests that my interpretation of Hebrews 1 is contradictory to Philippians 2 and John 5 without providing a reasoned argument. Furthermore, he wrongly characterizes my interpretation as “personal” without providing a basis. I’m not sure what “personal” means other than the fact that he might be accusing me of eisegesis. But unless my opponent proves otherwise, my interpretation of Hebrews 1 still stands as a basis for Jesus’ worship in 1:6. Simply stating that this interpretation is contradictory to Philippians 2 and John 5 will not suffice unless he provides a specific reason as to why it is contradictory.

There is another problem with his argument. He states that my interpretation is incorrect because it contradicts to Philippians 2 and John 5. This could just as easily be turned around on him, for his interpretation of Philippians 2 and John 5 could be wrong because it disagrees with Hebrews 1. However, I would not argue this unless I could provide an exegetical comparison of the two (which he has yet to do).

In my answer to my opponents last question, I argued that the worship of Jesus in Hebrews 1:6 is based upon Jesus’ identity and nature. If identifying Jesus as, “the exact representation of His nature” is not dealing with His identity and nature, then I don’t know what is. If my opponent believes otherwise, then he must provide an argument.

I thought I was clear in my answer to the last question in stating that Philippians 2 had a specific context for the worship of Jesus to the Father’s glory. I stated that this was not inconsistent with the Trinitarian position, for the glory of one divine person will always result in the glory of the others since they all share the divine nature. Again, this is why Jesus could say, “if you have seen Me you have seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

In Philippians 2, the worship is to the Father’s glory. But it is also to the glory of Christ, since every tongue will confess that, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” Therefore, both persons are glorified, and there is no reason to think that one receives less worship and glory than the other, for John 5:23 states that we must “honor the Son, just as we honor the Father.”

Similarly to Philippians 2, the basis for this “honoring” is that the Father has given all judgment to the Son. Again, if this is to the Father’s glory, it doesn’t negate the fact that it is to the Son’s glory as well. Furthermore, just because no specific qualifications are made for the Son’s nature as YHWH (unlike Hebrews 1, although not inconsistent with), it can certainly be inferred based upon the fact that we are to honor Him just as we honor the Father. This is completely consistent with Hebrews 1 in identifying Jesus as YHWH, for no created thing could be honored like the Creator if He unless He Himself were the Creator.

Rebuttal: It would seem that my opponent has failed to understand what John 5:22-23 and Philippians 2:10-11 explicitly define. My preceding response further explained this beyond what is given in this question. In light of this my question was not answered. He suggests that my interpretation of John and Philippians could be wrong, but what he terms my “interpretation” is not a theological reading, it is derived from a specific grammatical structure that allows for no other reading.

To suggest that Jesus could not be honored as the Father unless both are Jehovah is to suggest that Jehovah cannot exalt one and allow the worship of that one. God has no such limitation. While passages have been cited to suggest that Jesus could not be so worshipped, such commands preceded God’s exaltation of Christ for the purpose of him receiving this worship. Further suggested is that God would be jealous over what he has cleared articulated a desire for his son to receive (Heb. 1:6). Such is not the case and as it is “to the glory of God” it is not taking anything away from the Father so to make him jealous.

Cross examination of the debate "what does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus 'G/god'?": questions for Dave (the non-Trinitarian position)

This section is the cross-examination where Mike (the Trinitarian position) has the opportunity of asking Dave (the non-Trinitarian position) questions. The questioner also has an opportunity to give a 200 word rebuttal at the end of each answer.

1. If all of creation can bow before a creature, praising (or as I would argue, "worshiping," as done in Hebrews 1:6 by all angels) him with honor, glory, blessing and dominion forever and ever (Rev. 5:12-13); then how can we recognize idolatry?

Idolatry is identifiable by answering a simple question: Is that which is given based upon God's will or not? Your question cited Hebrews 1:6 where this is most pronounced with not an observation but a command. The angels are commanded to proskunew Jesus.

The Bible defines more than once that what Jesus is given is based upon the Father's will. So in John 5:22-23 when Jesus relates how he will be honored as the Father is, he does so with a Greek purpose clause. Jehovah has given Jesus judgment "so that" meaning, 'for the purpose of,' being honored just as him. Similarly in Philippians 2:5-11 Jesus is exalted because of his obedience and faithfulness as God's son and this is done "so that" or 'for the purpose of' having every knee bow to him.

When one receives something based upon God's will expressed through either action or words it is not idolatry. All other cases would be.

Rebuttal May I suggest a better definition for idolatry? "That which is given to someone or something that is due to God alone." It is important to note a few things that my opponent is suggesting here:

1. That we should honor a creature just as we honor God (John 5:23).
2. That worship is not to be given to God alone.
3. It is God’s will that we should involve ourselves with creature worship (though limited to Christ, who is still a creature according to my opponent).

It is not my intention to misrepresent my opponent with this, but to take His points to their logical conclusion. And it is my position that these points are in complete opposition to the Biblical worldview, especially in light of the following passages:

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.”’ (Matthew 4:10)

To suggest that these words are limited to a particular period of time is to ignore the reason for which God gives such a command; namely, that YHWH is a jealous God who cannot and will not share His glory with another.

2. You stated in your rebuttal that because Jesus didn’t specifically include Himself into the category of “the only true God” that He doesn’t fit into this category. Of course, you were quick to point out that because Jesus doesn’t fall into this category, that this doesn’t necessarily make Him false. It seems that your emphasis is more on the word “only” rather than “true” (thus making all other gods ontologically “false,” with which you seemingly disagree), thus placing everything outside of this category except YHWH Himself. If “only true God” places Christ outside of this category, does not “only Master and Lord” (Jude 4) place YHWH outside of this category according to your reasoning since we don't see YHWH specifically described as "only Master and Lord"?

Response: Jesus not only failed to identify himself as “the only true God,” so did everyone else in scripture. He did identify the Father as this one and in fact distinguished himself from the category by including another in it while identifying himself as one only “sent forth” by him. Further, while many Trinitarians limit Jesus’ words to his humanity, this is insufficient because he spoke in this context as one who existed “before the world was” (John 17:5). Had the New Testament authors understood Jesus’ to be either the “true God” or the “one God” I believe they would have so identified him.

John 17:3 and Jude 4 are substantially different with the inclusion of type in the former. So Jesus defined the Father as “the only true God” while Jude’s statement lacked a specific qualification. This is noteworthy considering the men recognized as “masters” over certain other Christians (1Ti. 6:1). Thus the way Jesus is the “master” of a Christian is different than how these men where “masters” over their Christian servants. One could then suggest that God be identified both as “Master” and “Lord” in some way distinct from Jesus (similarly, Jehovah is the “one Father” of the Jews while also recognizing Abraham as their father – John 8:39, 41).

Jesus is properly termed our “only Master and Lord” to the exclusion of the Father for the text says he is! It is the Trinitarian position that generally rejects this identification, including the Father and the Holy Spirit in this category. These words can be understood in light of Jesus’ own words in John 17. According to him we “were” the Father’s and yet he gave us to Jesus (John 17:6). As our God we obviously still belong to Jehovah, but in some sense he gave us up to Christ for him to be our “only Master and Lord.” Thus it is to Christ we are directly accountable as the one who mediates between us and God (1Ti. 2:5).

Rebuttal: This is an interesting admission by my opponent, for he is asserting that the focus is on the word “true,” hence, only the Father is the true God. Through this, he introduces a category of “type.” Thus, the Father is the only “type” in the category of “true,” rendering all others as false or gods of a different type?

Let’s apply this line reasoning to another text. In John 1:9, Jesus is identified as the “true light.” Are we to exclude the Father from the type of “true light?” Certainly so (according to Dave’s reasoning), for nowhere is the Father described as “the true light,” but merely “my light” (Psalm 27:1) Therefore, if my opponent assumes that Jesus is not YHWH, it must follow that YHWH is not the true light but a reflection or representation of the true one. And using his reasoning, Jesus as the “one true light” is the one reality and source from which others can only reflect or represent, but never possess. I submit that the way to resolve this problem is to affirm that Jesus is YHWH, since what is true of YHWH is true of Jesus.

3. In my opening statement, I suggested three categories of “gods.” It seems that you are focusing primarily on identification when discussing this topic. I can assure you that when it comes to identification, I agree with your position. Judges, angels, and even men can be called “god” as long as we are careful to qualify. As I also mentioned in my opening statement, my primary focus is the ontological category of true/false gods and not the figurative category in which practically anything can be “god” with qualification. Assuming you agree that there is a unique ontological distinction between YHWH and everything else, how do you explain the ontological distinction between YHWH as “Almighty God” and Christ as “God” or “a god?” Is deity (as I define as “that which makes God God") not a unique attribute to the Creator alone? Is it not the case that the Biblical authors are trying to communicate to us that only YHWH could be ontologically described as “God” whereas everything else would be deemed “ontologically false” as compared to God Himself?

Response: That you feel we must be “careful to qualify” the sense various ones are termed gods strikes me as theologically motivated as the Bible and other early Jewish writers did not feel the need to do as much. Obviously each identified as a god was one in his own sense, but it was not necessary for early writers to qualify it with each occurrence. Further, you are in error to say “practically anything can be 'god' with qualification,” for such is entirely untrue unless one includes false gods, which I don't believe you are doing. If so then I apologize for the confusion. The appellation “god” is used in a very limited sense as I have argued, either of those having been given divine authority or who possess a nature higher than humans.

I would agree that Jehovah uniquely stands on his own. He is one of a kind, the only being uncreated and eternal from which all others derive their existence. Your definition of deity, however, is lacking, because it provides identification, telling what makes God who he is not what he is. This is because “God” has taken the semantic force of a proper name, meaning that through use when unqualified “God” has become no different than “Jehovah.”

It is important that we not redefine terms to form our own theological language, so we work with what words actually mean. To account for various early uses of “deity” the word is better defined as “that which makes a god a god.” With this broader definition I find no issue identifying angels as deities, though they are not worthy of worship and not deity/gods of themselves. This identification is limited to their possession of a nature higher than mans. If we restrict the definition to characteristics unique to Jehovah then they would be excluded.

The Bible does not speak of all other than Jehovah as “ontologically false” gods. You have apparently imported this idea entirely on your own out of theological necessity. There is the true God, there are those gods who are false, but then there are those as are 'types of the true,' to borrow from Origen, meaning that they are neither the true God nor false gods, but they are modeled after the prototype who stands alone as the true God.

RebuttalAllow me to clarify what I meant by “practically anything can be called ‘god’ with qualification.” Yes, this primarily is in reference to false gods. So the apology is mine if there was confusion.

My opponent suggests that my definition of “deity” is lacking. Interestingly, Thayer has no problem in defining theotes (as used in Colossians 2:9) as “deity, the state of being God.” Instead, my opponent asserts that a better definition is “that which makes a god a god.” I am unaware of a lexicon or dictionary that would define theotes in such a way, so the burden of proof is on him to substantiate his claim.

Assuming my definition is correct (and I believe it is), the fatal flaw comes when my opponent fails to acknowledge the infinite, unbridgeable gap between the deity and the creature. This is not only affirming who God is but what He is as well, for I submit that no creature, no matter how highly exalted, could ever be identified as deity. The reason being, deity is a distinction unique to the Creator alone that describes not only who He is, but also what He is (that which makes God God).

4. John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as literally, “The Lord of Me and the God of me.” If someone came up to you and asked, “Dave, who is your Lord and God?” how would you respond in light of John 20:28 and texts such as Psalm 16:2, "I said to YHWH, 'You are my Lord.'" and 1 Kings 3:7 where Solomon says, "Now, YHWH my God, You have made Your servant king..." Can Psalm 16:2 and 1 Kings 3:7 not stand alone as establishing the full deity of YHWH in the same way that John 20:28 can in respect to Jesus?

Response: I embrace identifying Jesus as “my Lord and my God,” but I would not identify Jesus as God. As I have noted in my previous response, God through use when lacking qualifiers (such as an adjectival modifier or an English possessive pronoun) has become semantically equivalent to Jehovah.

I do not agree that the words “My Lord” or “My God” can “stand alone as establishing the full deity” of an individual without a context. For example, the apostle John did not object to addressing one of the 24 elders with the words, “My Lord” (kurie mou, the same words used of God and Christ. - Rev. 7:14), yet he was not attempting to establish deity. Further, David prophetically spoke of Jesus long before Thomas with the same words “my Lord,” (Psalm 109:1 LXX) while distinguishing him from Jehovah.

The apostle John did not offer any commentary on Thomas' words to define the intended meaning. He did, however, write his Gospel in a way that would present qualification for his readers much as the psalmist did in Psalm 45 as I have noted Murray Harris observing. Only several verses prior did Jesus speak of his own God (John 20:17), giving John's readers the notion of Jesus as one other than and less than God, just as would be the case if any other uttered his expression. Only if one assumes the Trinity or a similar doctrine is this qualification not apparent. Recognizing Jesus as one who has his own God, John's readers would come to Thomas' words in verse 28, understanding Jesus' position as one who is Thomas' god (or, God. The use of a capital is insignificant as only a matter of personal preference. Thomas' words would agree with the notion of Jesus being 'a god over Thomas' and so 'his god.') relative to the Almighty as Jesus' God.

RebuttalJohn 20:28 provides us with a contextual justification as to which “Lord” we are referring to (as did Psalm 16:2). And this is why these texts can “stand alone” in identifying which “Lord” and “God” they are referring to; because the verses themselves specifically tell us. And just because the divine name is not used in the New Testament, is that a reason to fail to identify YHWH when only the designation “Lord” or “God” is used?

Mark 12:29 is of interest because it identifies God without the use of the Tetragrammaton, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.” Of course, there would be no doubt to the mind of any Jew that this is a quote from Deuteronomy 6:4. But why would this be so obvious to a Jew? Because “our Lord” and “our God” are sufficient in identifying which God is in reference (for it would be unthinkable for any Jew to refer to anyone but YHWH as “our God”). Similarly, Psalm 35:23 identifies YHWH as “My God and my Lord.” Would there be any question in the mind of a first century Jew as to who is being referenced, even if we didn’t have YHWH in the surrounding verses as qualifiers?

5. With regards to Colossians 2:9, you stated that “Jesus’ deity is not possessed from eternal existence as Almighty God but the Father chose to give it to him.” This is in the context in which you stated that Colossians 1:19 implies a “choosing” or “willing” for Christ to possess this deity; to which, I agree. But what you failed to mention is that 1:19 does not address the pre-incarnate state, thus making your statement of "Jesus deity is not possessed eternally" a moot point. Robert Morey argues, “The verb katoikei ‘dwells’ is in the present tense and indicates that Christ was, is, and always shall be the embodiment of Deity….[otherwise] he would have written the verb in the aorist tense. But the present tense clearly indicates that absolute deity resides bodily in Christ permanently.” (Dr. Robert Morey, Trinity-Evidence and Issues [Grand Rapids, MI; World Publishing Inc., 1996], pp. 359-360) If the Trinitarian incarnation is true (as well as the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11), then what else would you expect than for Christ's eternally possessed deity to be given to Him (as a man) so that He would be both fully God and fully man for the rest of eternity? Furthermore, if “deity” means “that which makes God God” then how could anyone other than YHWH possess this attribute?

Response: I cannot help but observe a distortion of what Trinitarianism actually teaches. The doctrine of the hypostatic union finds Christ to have always existed as God, never ceasing to be such and having only added humanity to himself while laying aside his divine prerogatives. The Athanasian Creed explains: “Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.”

Similarly Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology: “That it is so is the plain doctrine of Scripture, for the Son of God, a divine person, assumed a perfect human nature, and, nevertheless, remains one person.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, org. pub. 1872], 390. Emphasis added.)

So too the Moody Handbook of Theology: “When Christ came, a Person came, not just a nature; He took on an additional nature, a human nature—He did not simply dwell in a human person.” (P. P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology [Chicago: Moody Press,1989], 227. Emphasis added.)

According to this doctrine Jesus never lacked deity, making Colossians 1:19/2:9 incompatible by necessitating that he did regardless of whether or not Colossians 1:19 addressed his preincarnate state. To say that his 'eternally possessed deity was given to Him as a man' is an oxymoron for either he eternally possessed it or gave it up, became a man and had it given back to him or never possessed it and had it newly given to him.

Understanding Colossians 2:9 by 1:19 proves then extremely difficult for Trinitarianism. It is hard to imagine that Paul had a different “fullness” in mind come 2:9, but as Peake confesses, what is taught from this connection is “an Arian view,” or more simply, a non-Trinitarian view. (A.S. Peake, “The Epistle to the Colossians,” The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed. by, W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. 3, Reprint from the edition originally published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pubishing Company, [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002], 508.)

I am admittedly uncertain of your purpose in citing Morey. This may only be due to a lack of his words' context. If by saying that Christ “was... the embodiment of Deity” Morey means that it was eternally possessed, he is either displaying great creativity in his interpretation or woeful ignorance. In fact katoikei is used of both men (Rev. 2:13) and wicked spirits (Mat. 12:45). This does nothing to indicate eternal possession. If his intention was only to say that Christ possessed this prior to when Paul wrote his words, when he wrote them and after he wrote them, I do not object but fail to see the relevance.

RebuttalThere is no discrepancy between my position and the hypostatic union. My entire point was to stress that neither Colossians 2:9 or 1:19 address the nature of the Son prior to the incarnation. In order for the incarnation to be possible, God the Son had to enter into human flesh. Therefore, it could be viewed from two different angles.

1. The divine nature had to be “given” a human nature.
2. The human nature had to be “given” a divine nature.

Either way, the divine nature has always remained divine. Therefore, my statement that his “eternally possessed deity was given to Him as a man” remains correct in that Christ never “gave up” His full deity. Instead, He voluntarily gave up some of His divine privileges by “taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”

But I suggest a much bigger problem for my opponent than my apparent lack of being able to explain something as infinitely magnificent as the incarnation. That being; theotes, “the state of being God,” as applied to Christ. As incompatible an idea that Colossians 1:19 might seem for a Trinitarian (according to my opponent), he has to admit to the fact that the “state of being God” dwelt bodily in Christ.

Rebuttal from David (non-Trinitarian response)

My opponent’s suggestion in the opening of his response I submit is the foundation of his error. In studying the scriptures it is our obligation to ascertain what they teach, yet he has sought to prove a teaching assumed a priori, namely, “absolute monotheism.” Undoubtedly one can “establish” this teaching in scripture, but doing this does not indicate such was the authors' intent and it is not without contradiction. Indeed, by seeking to “establish” a doctrine rather than to interpret the text almost any teaching can be argued as correct regardless of whether or not it really is.

Instead of taking an a priori position of “absolute monotheism” I propose a new look at the question, are we monotheists or henotheists? It is better to ask what early writers both of the Bible and extra-biblical monotheistic Jewish literature considered monotheism to be. It is that doctrine we should seek, not looking to “establish” anything determined a priori. Larry Hurtado is one to have commented on this issue in his work How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?:

“It is mistaken to assume that we can evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs in terms of whether or how closely they meet our own preconceived idea of ‘pure’ monotheism… If we are to avoid a priori definitions and the imposition of our own theological judgments, we have no choice but to accept as monotheism the religion of those who profess to be monotheists, however much their religion carries and may seem ‘complicated’ with other beings in addition to the one God.” [Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? – Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 113-114.]

Deutero-Isaiah presents a specific attack against idols as I have highlighted, yet my opponent seeks to narrow the meaning above and beyond this when examining my position. Referencing the Babylonian captivity there were undoubtedly certain false gods in view within the text, but the text did not so narrowly define them, instead referring to the creation of idols generally (cf. Isa 40:19-20).

A second example of contextual qualification allows us to better understand how it here applies. A command in Exodus 20:4 forbade the making of carved images of things on the earth and in heaven. Some have understood this to prohibit the creation of any images at all, yet Calvin rightly calls this “foolishly imagined.” The context is addressing “gods” that they should not “bow down and serve” (Ex. 20:3, 5). With a narrow reading of this passage one could rightly “establish” a strict prohibition against the making of statues and forms of any type, yet even Solomon made these things in building of his temple (1Ki. 6:29).

Both Isaiah and Exodus are qualified by their context, yet did this mean that those that preexisted and were not formed into idols by men such as the sun, moon and stars could be recognized as gods? What of men such as emperors who claimed to be gods? While these may not have been formed through the casting of metal or the carving of wood it is the principle provided in these texts that extends to cover all those established by men as gods. In contrast those such as the judges of Israel, angels and even Jesus himself were/are gods in their own respective ways because Jehovah has so made them. They are gods because they have been given divine authority and as possessors of that which is divine they are so termed, or God has created them with an exalted nature so that the appellation is appropriate.

I will also comment on the ongoing misunderstanding of Isaiah 43:10. Not only are these false idol gods in view, but one must inquire of when there was a time “before” Jehovah and when there will ever be a time “after” him. There was not and there will not be, the text placing emphasis on God's eternity. Some ancient religions held to the notion of successive gods, where one group succeeded another and then another [Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, Book 6, sec. 2, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005. Repr. from the 1847 ed. published by Blackie & Sons, London), 118.]. Jehovah was not among this order and in his eternity there would be no god before or after him.

The interpretation of Psalm 8:5 my opponent has presented ignores both my clear argument contradicting his view and the plain interpretation I have provided. Implicit by his admission of insufficiency in his first argument is the speculative nature of his position. Having offered two contradictory interpretations it would seem that his basis in these is his inability to accept the most straightforward reading and not because of something actually defined in the text. What I have advanced is directly from the text as understood by not only the LXX paraphrase and the author of Hebrews, but also the Targum and the Syriac. I submit that to claim man is only “a little lower” than an infinite Almighty God even as his “image” is the pinnacle of absurdity. God is vastly beyond man in every sense imaginable. Further, the psalmist had spoke to God directly with continual second person references throughout the chapter: “Your name... Your glory... You have ordained... Your heavens... You are mindful... You have made... You made him... Your hands... Your name...” In verse 5 elohim stands apart as a third person reference.

The idea that angels were so properly termed gods is noted in extra-biblical Jewish literature contemporary to the Bible. In the story of Joseph and Aseneth, a work likely dated between the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D., an angel who is “the chief of the house of the Lord,” is identified as “a god” (17:9). From the Dead Sea Scrolls another example too has reference to angels:

“And exalt his exaltation to the heights, gods of the august divinities, and the divinity of his glory above all the august heights. For he is God of the gods … Sing with joy those of you enjoying his knowledge, with rejoicing among the wonderful gods … Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the main vault of the heights … The spirits of the holy of the holy ones, the living gods, the spirits of everlasting holiness.” [4Q403, The Dead Sea Scrolls – The Qumran Texts in English, second edition, trans. by Wilfred G. E. Watson, ed. by Florentino Garcia Martinez (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996) 426-7.]

With respect to Psalm 8:5 there is no reason not to accept the appellation of elohim to angels in a true and proper sense other than theological predisposition. The author of Hebrews and the early translations did not shy from this understanding and it is consistent with early Jewish monotheism. These angels and the earthly temple were types of the true, the true God and the true temple in heaven, respectively.

Regarding John 17:3 it seems that my point was missed. The Bible identifies only the Father as the “true God” and the “one God.” It was not necessary for Jesus to expressly categorize the Father and then identify himself outside of that category, but he did. My opponent suggests we should not go about “assuming something the Bible doesn't say,” but this is the very thing he does in identifying Jesus as “the only true God.” Instead we should “read what the text is actually saying,” which is that it is the Father who falls into this category. To say then that Jesus is either “the only true God” or the “one God” necessitates reading one's theology into the Bible, the text lacking such identification. In John 17:3 Jesus had the opportunity to include himself within the category of “the only true God” as the one who existed “before the world was” (John 17:5). Rather than doing this he distinguished himself from this category, assigning only the Father to it. The prayer was that his disciples would know both him and his Father, yet he classified only his Father as “the only true God.” Had Jesus only used “us” instead of “you” the matter would have been resolved.

I must object to my opponent's claim that I “assume that if there is any difference between the Father and the Son, then the Son is not truly deity, which denies that a difference in function does not indicate an ontological inferiority in regards to the Son’s nature.” Never once do I make such a claim, nor would I. My arguments are generally based not on function but identification.

Finally the question is again raised of what kind of god Jesus is if not the true God. In my opening I noted that the Greek word translated “true” did not always mean the opposite is false, and such is the case with gods other than the true God that are so properly termed. This expression is not limited to “gods by nature” as my opponent must again import into the text. There is no problem with identifying Jesus as a god as in John 1:18 he is the “unique god.” He is “God” not without qualification, but in a relative sense with one who is 'his God” (Heb. 1:8-9). Hopefully the comments I have made on these texts and others will come to be responded to