Modalists say that Jesus’ body was operated by God in heaven, while so-called "non-modalist" Trinitarians/Binitarians claim that he is "fully God and fully human". But if Jesus was God as described by them, he would not have to see or be shown anything by God, but would already know. (Joh 5:19, 20 [pa|in]) There is also the fact that God does not die. (Hab 1:12 [pa|in])
If Jesus is God, how is it that Jesus sits at God’s right hand in heaven and why hand over the kingdom to "his God and Father" if he is already God? (Eph 1:20 [pa|in]; 1Co 15:24-28 [pa|in]) If they are the same God, then they are all the ruler of the universe. But they are not, only the Father is.
Trinitarians/Binitarians cite the headship principle to refute the claim that Jesus is subordinate to his Father though both are divine just as a father and child are both human, but they fail to recognize that the headship principle requires two separate personages, just as the congregation is different from Jesus. (Eph 5:22-24 [pa|in]; 6:1 [pa|in]) Being the same supposed race (spirit) does not make them the same. That would be polytheism. Then there is the fact that any subordination in the Trinity/Binity requires that they not be "co-equal", not be "one" and not be "the same".
The Trinity/Binity claim is so loaded with unresolved contradictions that it must necessarily be discarded for the shear weight of them as a fundamentally flawed thesis.
"This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever," (Ex 3:15 [pa|in])
"I am Jehovah; I do not change." (Mal 3:6 [pa|in])
"So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world." (Joh 17:5, 6 [pa|in])
Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is on this point? Clearly the claim is uninformed and patently false.
You decide: Did God change his name? Consider: He himself said that his name will never change. Even Jesus taught Jehovah’s name as separate from his own.
It was common practice in ancient times for world rulers on earth to take the title "king of kings" because they ruled over other kings. So does this make them the same as Jesus and God because they are also kings of kings? (Ezr 7:12 [pa|in]; Eze 26:7 [pa|in]; Da 2:36,37 [pa|in]) In fact, other people are also called "gods". (Ps 82:6 [pa|in]; Joh 10:34-36 [pa|in])
You decide: Is this clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: More than one person can share the same title. Other people are also called "king of kings" and even "gods".
. . . or to God.” It clearly does not mean "worship" in the American sense of exclusive devotion to a deity. However, when applied to a deity, it may imply worship of that sort. In Hebrew, the word is "Shachah", meaning "depress" or "push down", indicating the act of bowing down and is also not restricted to God, but to figures of authority as well. In both languages, the words express only "obeisence", the offering of one’s self to do the will of the figure of authority; to obey.
In the original Hebrew and in the Greek Septuagint, the action of these words is sometimes directed to men; for example, where the patriarch Abraham bowed down to Canaanites, Hittites, and the sons of Heth. (Ge 23:7 [pa|in]. 12 [pa|in]) Or, as when the patriarch Jacob and his wives and his children all bowed down to his brother Esau. (Ge 33:3 [pa|in], 6, 7 [pa|in])
But there are other words that are also often rendered "worship" in the Greek Scriptures. These are:
"enopion", meaning "in the face of", respect applied to those in authority, at Luke 4:7 [pa|in]
"doxa", meaning "give glory", sometimes translated as "honor", applying to rulers and parents, at Luke 4:8 [pa|in].
"latreuo", meaning "render homage", applied to gods, seen at Acts 7:42 [pa|in].
"eusebio", meaning "pious devotion", applied toward gods, seen at Acts 17:23 [pa|in].
"sebomai", meaning "adoration", applied toward a being of superior respect, seen at Acts 18:23 [pa|in].
"ethelothreska", meaning "self-imposed (service)", the doing of something not requested, apparently indicating false worship even if to an acceptable being, used in negative reference at Colossians 2:23 [pa|in].
The very word "worship" in English means "worthiness", and in America carries the meaning of homage to a god, but to the British, it also carries the concept of reverence to high officials, not just God, in the same way as proskuneo. Because of its strong association with exclusive devotion to a god in American vernacular, it should no longer be favored as an appropriate translation of the word proskuneo. Instead, "obeisance", or simply "bow down to", should suffice.
Clearly, the word proskuneo is not specific to the adoration of a god. It also refers to the respect and honor shown to a person in authority. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, some Bible translations render the word proskuneo as:
So is Jesus worthy of special honor as a man who is not God himself? Yes, because he is the one who received the kingdom from God and will wrest the world away from Satan and rule as "Lord of Lords and King of Kings" until the day he hands over all authority and power to his Father. (1Co 15:20-28 [pa|in]; Re 17:14 [pa|in]) Thus, as king of God’s kingdom, he deserves the honor due his positoin, just as with any other king. He is "the Son of the kingdom." At Re 3:9 [pa|in], Jesus promises Christians that he would make "the synogogue of Satan", that is, the Jews, to ’proskuneo’ at their feet. Are we, then, to believe that Christians are also to be given exclusive devotion in the way given to God? Of course not, but the same word is used there.
You decide: Does people bowing down to Jesus prove that Jesus is God? Consider: It is a sign of obeisance to authority and the nations will one day bow down to Christ’s holy ones, thus it does not exclusively refer to worship of God.
Re 22:12-15 [pa|in] is a statement by God, not Jesus, as Jesus does not begin speaking until he announces himself in verse 16 [pa|in]. Trinitarians point out that Jesus says "I am coming quickly" 3 other times. (Re 3:11 [pa|in]; 22:7 [pa|in]; 22:20 [pa|in]) However, he immediately quotes Psalm 62:12 [pa|in], which applies the word to Jehovah, not the messiah. Paul wrote something similar about God when he said, "And [God] will pay back to each one according to his works;. . . This will take place in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare." (Ro 2:5-6 [pa|in], 16 [pa|in]) Thus, God does this through Jesus Christ. just as he has always worked through him. So clearly the words are meant to indicate God, not Jesus. However, when Jesus acts, he is acting on behalf of Jehovah God. Thus Jehovah can also state "I am coming quickly" without being Jesus. Even a woe is said to be 'coming quickly" at Revelation 11:14 [pa|in], so obviously the term is not restricted to Jesus Christ, but is referring to the consequences they mean for unrighteous people.
You decide: Is Jesus "the Alpha and the Omega"? Consider: Different ones speak at different times in Revelation. Once sprious additions are excluded from the text, context indicates that "Alpha and Omega" only refers to God. Also, saying the same phrase does not make two personages the same. God takes action through Jesus, like a superior through a subordinate.
But was Jesus declaring himself to be God by using those words at Revelation 1:17 [pa|in] and 2:8 [pa|in]? No. The context of those two verses show what was meant. Jesus is called "the firstborn from the dead" in 1 Corinthians, just as Jesus himslf said at Revelaion 2:8: ". . . who became dead and came to life again" and at Revelation 1:18 [pa|in]: " . . . and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever." Paul said that Jesus was made "first in all things" by his Father. Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation," and then will become the last in "the end" when he reconciles all things to God. (Col 1:13-20 [pa|in]; 1Co 15:24-28 [pa|in]) At Mark 9:35 [pa|in], Jesus said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all."; he was also the "last Adam". (1Co 15:45 [pa|in]) So Jesus was qualified to say that he is the first and the last in a different way.
You decide: Does Jesus’ saying "I am the first and the last" prove that he is God? Consider: Two people using the same phrase does not prove them to be the same. The scriptures provide clear indicators about Jesus’ right to use the phrase that are separate from Jehovah’s right to say the words.
Thus, at John 1:23 [pa|in], Jesus represented his Father just as an ambassador represents his king, so that when Isaiah 40:3 [pa|in] is applied to Jesus, it also applies to Jehovah because Jesus is Jehovah's representative. Since Jehovah cannot be seen, obviously, a representative is needed.
Psalm 102:25-27 [pa|in] applies to the Son at Hebrews 1:10-12 [pa|in] just as the Father because God created all things through Jesus, including those described by the Psalmist. (See Col 1:15, 16 [pa|in] ; Pr 8:22 [pa|in], 27-30 [pa|in].)
You decide: Are these prophecies proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Statements about Solomon applied to Jesus do not make Jesus Solomon. Jesus represents his Father, and Jehovah made all things through him, so that what is said about Jehovah can apply equally to Jesus without them having to be the same person.
Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series
Go back to Part 11: What Proves That God is Not a Trinity/Binity?
Go to: Part 12 (2): Is There Proof That Jesus Is God? (Exodus to Isaiah)
If Jesus is God, how is it that Jesus sits at God’s right hand in heaven and why hand over the kingdom to "his God and Father" if he is already God? (Eph 1:20 [pa|in]; 1Co 15:24-28 [pa|in]) If they are the same God, then they are all the ruler of the universe. But they are not, only the Father is.
Trinitarians/Binitarians cite the headship principle to refute the claim that Jesus is subordinate to his Father though both are divine just as a father and child are both human, but they fail to recognize that the headship principle requires two separate personages, just as the congregation is different from Jesus. (Eph 5:22-24 [pa|in]; 6:1 [pa|in]) Being the same supposed race (spirit) does not make them the same. That would be polytheism. Then there is the fact that any subordination in the Trinity/Binity requires that they not be "co-equal", not be "one" and not be "the same".
The Trinity/Binity claim is so loaded with unresolved contradictions that it must necessarily be discarded for the shear weight of them as a fundamentally flawed thesis.
DID JEHOVAH "CHANGE HIS NAME" TO "JESUS"?
One of the strangest claims made by some Trinitarians/Binitarians is that Jehovah changed his name to "Jesus". Is this true? Let’s see what the Scriptures have to say:"This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever," (Ex 3:15 [pa|in])
"I am Jehovah; I do not change." (Mal 3:6 [pa|in])
"So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world." (Joh 17:5, 6 [pa|in])
Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is on this point? Clearly the claim is uninformed and patently false.
You decide: Did God change his name? Consider: He himself said that his name will never change. Even Jesus taught Jehovah’s name as separate from his own.
DOES SHARING TITLES PROVE THAT JESUS AND GOD ARE THE SAME?
Is a regent king the same as the vassal king or the co-regent the same as the regent? Are all the presidents of a corporation the same person? Does being put in charge of a father’s properties and positions make the son the same being as the father? Does making one responsible for others with the same title and then someone above that person with the same title make those two the same? Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here?It was common practice in ancient times for world rulers on earth to take the title "king of kings" because they ruled over other kings. So does this make them the same as Jesus and God because they are also kings of kings? (Ezr 7:12 [pa|in]; Eze 26:7 [pa|in]; Da 2:36,37 [pa|in]) In fact, other people are also called "gods". (Ps 82:6 [pa|in]; Joh 10:34-36 [pa|in])
You decide: Is this clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: More than one person can share the same title. Other people are also called "king of kings" and even "gods".
DOES THE FACT THAT PEOPLE AND ANGELS BOWED DOWN TO JESUS PROVE THAT HE IS GOD?
Where people bowed down to Jesus, the specific word "pro·sku·ne′o" was used. It is most often translated as "worship". Unger’s Bible Dictionary says that it means to ‘kiss the hand of someone in token of reverence or to do homage.’ Thus, the meaning is clear: offering one’s self in subjection. In line with this, the Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says that this word “denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to manIn the original Hebrew and in the Greek Septuagint, the action of these words is sometimes directed to men; for example, where the patriarch Abraham bowed down to Canaanites, Hittites, and the sons of Heth. (Ge 23:7 [pa|in]. 12 [pa|in]) Or, as when the patriarch Jacob and his wives and his children all bowed down to his brother Esau. (Ge 33:3 [pa|in], 6, 7 [pa|in])
But there are other words that are also often rendered "worship" in the Greek Scriptures. These are:
"enopion", meaning "in the face of", respect applied to those in authority, at Luke 4:7 [pa|in]
"doxa", meaning "give glory", sometimes translated as "honor", applying to rulers and parents, at Luke 4:8 [pa|in].
"latreuo", meaning "render homage", applied to gods, seen at Acts 7:42 [pa|in].
"eusebio", meaning "pious devotion", applied toward gods, seen at Acts 17:23 [pa|in].
"sebomai", meaning "adoration", applied toward a being of superior respect, seen at Acts 18:23 [pa|in].
"ethelothreska", meaning "self-imposed (service)", the doing of something not requested, apparently indicating false worship even if to an acceptable being, used in negative reference at Colossians 2:23 [pa|in].
The very word "worship" in English means "worthiness", and in America carries the meaning of homage to a god, but to the British, it also carries the concept of reverence to high officials, not just God, in the same way as proskuneo. Because of its strong association with exclusive devotion to a god in American vernacular, it should no longer be favored as an appropriate translation of the word proskuneo. Instead, "obeisance", or simply "bow down to", should suffice.
Clearly, the word proskuneo is not specific to the adoration of a god. It also refers to the respect and honor shown to a person in authority. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, some Bible translations render the word proskuneo as:
- “pay
. . . homage” (New Jerusalem Bible) - “honour” (The Complete Bible in Modern English)
- “bow down before” (Twentieth Century New Testament)
- “do obeisance to” (New World Translation).
So is Jesus worthy of special honor as a man who is not God himself? Yes, because he is the one who received the kingdom from God and will wrest the world away from Satan and rule as "Lord of Lords and King of Kings" until the day he hands over all authority and power to his Father. (1Co 15:20-28 [pa|in]; Re 17:14 [pa|in]) Thus, as king of God’s kingdom, he deserves the honor due his positoin, just as with any other king. He is "the Son of the kingdom." At Re 3:9 [pa|in], Jesus promises Christians that he would make "the synogogue of Satan", that is, the Jews, to ’proskuneo’ at their feet. Are we, then, to believe that Christians are also to be given exclusive devotion in the way given to God? Of course not, but the same word is used there.
You decide: Does people bowing down to Jesus prove that Jesus is God? Consider: It is a sign of obeisance to authority and the nations will one day bow down to Christ’s holy ones, thus it does not exclusively refer to worship of God.
IS JESUS "THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA"?
Careful study reveals different people speaking at different times throughout Revelation, including God, Jesus and an angel. The use of "alpha and omega" at Revelation 1:11 [pa|in] in some Bibles is a spurious (fake) addition that was introduced in the revised Latin Vulgate in the fourth century, commissioned by the early Catholic church, and which its translator, Jerome, admitted to being pressured to add, and was perpetuated in the Authorized (King James) Version. The Good News Translation (TEV/GNT) egregiously adds the words "says Jesus" at Revelation 22:12 [pa|in]. Revelation 1:8 [pa|in] refers to "the Almighty", a title never once applied to Jesus and always applied to God, and it says that he was "on the throne", which could not be applied to Jesus at that time as Revelation 5:5-7 [pa|in] shows. Revelation 21:6 [pa|in] is referring to God, as verse 7 [pa|in] refers to those who would be His sons in line with John 1:12-13 [pa|in] and Romans 8:14 [pa|in], a relationship never applied between Jesus and his anointed followers, but Jesus called them his "brothers".Re 22:12-15 [pa|in] is a statement by God, not Jesus, as Jesus does not begin speaking until he announces himself in verse 16 [pa|in]. Trinitarians point out that Jesus says "I am coming quickly" 3 other times. (Re 3:11 [pa|in]; 22:7 [pa|in]; 22:20 [pa|in]) However, he immediately quotes Psalm 62:12 [pa|in], which applies the word to Jehovah, not the messiah. Paul wrote something similar about God when he said, "And [God] will pay back to each one according to his works;
You decide: Is Jesus "the Alpha and the Omega"? Consider: Different ones speak at different times in Revelation. Once sprious additions are excluded from the text, context indicates that "Alpha and Omega" only refers to God. Also, saying the same phrase does not make two personages the same. God takes action through Jesus, like a superior through a subordinate.
DO THE WORDS "I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST" PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?
As said above, Revelation 22:12-15 [pa|in] was spoken by God, just as at Isaiah 44:6 [pa|in]. In fact, Jehovah is "the first and the last" because of his being "from everlasting to everlasting". (Ps 90:2 [pa|in]) Confirming this, at Isaiah 41:4 [pa|in], God says, "I, Jehovah, am the First One; and with the last ones I am the same." While at Isaiah 44:6 [pa|in], he says, "‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me." What this means is explained in the previous chapter where Jehovah said, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none." (Isa 43:10 [pa|in])But was Jesus declaring himself to be God by using those words at Revelation 1:17 [pa|in] and 2:8 [pa|in]? No. The context of those two verses show what was meant. Jesus is called "the firstborn from the dead" in 1 Corinthians, just as Jesus himslf said at Revelaion 2:8: "
You decide: Does Jesus’ saying "I am the first and the last" prove that he is God? Consider: Two people using the same phrase does not prove them to be the same. The scriptures provide clear indicators about Jesus’ right to use the phrase that are separate from Jehovah’s right to say the words.
DO PROPHECIES REFERRING TO GOD APPLIED TO JESUS PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?
Prophecies applying to one person can apply to another without meaning they are the same. For example, at Hebrews 1:5 [pa|in], Paul quotes 2 Samuel 7:14 [pa|in] about Solomon and applied it to the Son of God. (Compare Lu 11:31 [pa|in]) That even shows that Jehovah ’became’ Solomon’s/Jesus’ Father, and was not simply his Father by virtue of his birth.Thus, at John 1:23 [pa|in], Jesus represented his Father just as an ambassador represents his king, so that when Isaiah 40:3 [pa|in] is applied to Jesus, it also applies to Jehovah because Jesus is Jehovah's representative. Since Jehovah cannot be seen, obviously, a representative is needed.
Psalm 102:25-27 [pa|in] applies to the Son at Hebrews 1:10-12 [pa|in] just as the Father because God created all things through Jesus, including those described by the Psalmist. (See Col 1:15, 16 [pa|in] ; Pr 8:22 [pa|in], 27-30 [pa|in].)
You decide: Are these prophecies proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Statements about Solomon applied to Jesus do not make Jesus Solomon. Jesus represents his Father, and Jehovah made all things through him, so that what is said about Jehovah can apply equally to Jesus without them having to be the same person.
Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series
Go back to Part 11: What Proves That God is Not a Trinity/Binity?
Go to: Part 12 (2): Is There Proof That Jesus Is God? (Exodus to Isaiah)
Comments