Jehovah's Witnesses, Deity of Christ, and Theological Balance

274 -1360, or 1 -888 -550 -1360.

Those are the numbers to be involved in the program this week. I'm back, and I like the fact that we have a full studio today.

That does not include a studio audience, but we have a full studio today, joined by the

Diaz clan over here on my left, and one member of the Porter clan on my right.

And before we get started with our topic today, I have a special guest in studio with me.

Mike O 'Fallon is sitting across from me, and I first got to know Mike by email last year when

Mike contacted me out of the blue, and it sort of scares me when people do that, and says, you know, we'd like to have you out and have you speak at a conference and then go on a cruise.

Now, I had never been on a cruise before in my life, and I had seen people like John MacArthur and R .C.

Sproul and all these big fancy people go on cruises and all, and my wife had said to me that she really, really, really, really, really, really wanted to go on a cruise someday, you know, but we've never been able to do anything like that.

We didn't take vacations. So I get this email that says, you know, we'd like to have you come down and go on this cruise with us.

And I'm like, well, okay, let me mention it to my wife, and my wife's response was, we're going on that cruise whether I have to teach or not.

And so that was a clear indication to me that it had been decided unilaterally that we were going.

So I went down to Clearwater, Florida, and had a most interesting time for a week, staying with the

O 'Fallons and learning everything there is to know about the O 'Fallons, and I had a wonderful time down there, aside from the fact that, folks, if you've never been to Florida, bring lots and lots and lots of deodorant, because it is very, very humid there in comparison to our wonderfully dry desert climate here in Phoenix.

And so anyways, we did the conference. I spoke on the

King James Only controversy. What else did I speak on? Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and how to effectively witness them.

That's right. And we had some King James Only folks that just sat there very stoically watching me give that presentation.

And waiting for the power to go out. That's exactly right. We had a thunderstorm come through right in the middle of my presentation, and I told everybody, if the power ever goes out during the middle of this presentation, it is going to be taken as direct evidence that God struck me dumb in the middle of that thing.

But it didn't. And so we had the conference, and Mike Gendron was with us, spoke on Roman Catholicism.

And then we got on the boat. Now, we were only for four days that time, and we went down to the Caribbean. I never got off the boat.

I was not a fun person at all. You said it, I didn't. That's right.

Well, I saw it in your eyes. But I just loved being on the boat. I just thought it was a blast.

And we had wonderful times of ministry and teaching there. Is it a boat or a ship?

It's a ship. It's a ship. Yeah, okay. How many tons is it? I believe it's 77 ,000 tons.

77 ,000 tons. So it was a wonderful, wonderful time. And we weren't even off the ship before everybody was talking about next year.

Well, now it's next year, and do you have a license to arrange these things?

You've all of a sudden become the cruise director, haven't you? Well, yeah, we're going as a non -profit organization that we've set up.

This year, what we're going to be doing is going on the non -smoking cruise ship, The Paradise.

So it's going to be a great time. But most importantly, the most important thing is the topic, and that's inerrancy.

And as you and I both understand, when you are going to bring the Holy Writ to somebody, that if you establish that as the authority, that's the most important thing.

And if you find within evangelical communities and within seminaries themselves, you have a problem where people are starting to take a very liberal approach to scriptures.

And that in itself is going to hurt your exegesis. It's going to determine your exegesis, actually.

All of a sudden you can start ignoring what one person says, or start interpreting one passage in contradiction to another passage, and it creates tremendous difficulties.

So other than suffering through my presentations on issues like the King James Only controversy and solo scriptura and things like that, who else is going to be going along?

Well, first of all, we have Dr. Robert Thomas from Masters Theological Seminary, who is the professor of New Testament there.

And Dr. Thomas is the author of The Jesus Crisis, which is the inroads of historical criticism into evangelical scholarship.

And Dr. Thomas, his specialty is dealing with the synoptics, and how they harmonize and work with each other instead of against each other.

That book didn't get him a lot of extra speaking engagements at various seminaries, did it?

No, as a matter of fact, I know it divided a lot of seminaries. He went ahead and named names. And at a seminary like Dallas Theological Seminary, where you have someone like Darrell Bach, who's up against Toussaint, who takes a very, very conservative view of scripture, and understands that you cannot support solo scriptura unless you take a look at the scriptures as whole and complete and inerrant, and without any dependence upon another document that we might not possibly have.

And who else is coming along? Dr. Eugene Merrill, who's professor of Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary.

And you might know him from a tremendous amount of commentaries. He's written in the Walvoord Suck commentaries.

He's also written in the New American commentary as well. Which is just now coming out. I just got a few of those volumes just recently for writing an article for them on Cale Ripplinger.

That was my pay for the article, was a couple copies of the New American commentary. And then

Mike Gendron's going to be back with us. And he has the book, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries.

It is in Dallas, isn't it? That's in Dallas, right. And he was, of course, he and I were the main speakers last year.

And then you're going to be there to entertain. Yeah, we all said the possibility of having a named

Christian artist. We haven't got that all sewed up yet. But I'm sure that Dr. White is going to let you all know if that happens.

And that we can actually know about that within this next week. Yes, I hope we find out this week. Because if we can get this particular gentleman to be with us, it'll be a great boon,

I think, to what we're trying to do. And this is a 7 -day cruise on the

Paradise, which is a non -smoking ship, 77 ,000 tons. It's beautiful. We were on the

Imagination last year. And these are beautiful ships. They have the stabilizers and all that stuff. For those of you who are scared of such things.

But we just went down to Cozumel and back again last year on the 4 -day cruise.

This is a 7 -day cruise. Real quickly, the basic places we're headed. Now, you've been on this one.

This is where my wife and I honeymooned last year, one year ago, tomorrow.

And where we hit, we go to San Juan, Puerto Rico. We spend two days there. Then we go to the

British Virgin Islands, Tortola and Virgin Gorda. And then we stop last in St.

Thomas, U .S. Virgin Islands. Just a beautiful trip. And the ship is gorgeous.

You and I, we worked out in the gym there. Then we ran into a windstorm.

And Mike and I tried to go jogging on the jogging track on the top deck of this massive thing.

And going into the wind, were we making forward progress?

It was really sort of hard to tell at that particular point in time. I had never experienced that kind of a...

It was great resistance exercise. It really was. And then the other way, you feel like Carl Lewis. Oh wow, look at me go.

It was incredible. These ships, now, I can't take too much more time here.

But you've got to tell folks about the fact that when you have dinner on these ships... You never saw me do this.

But you know a certain trick when you eat in these incredible dining places.

Well, first of all, when you do pay your price for the cruise, that doesn't mean that you have to pay extra for your food.

On the cruise itself, you can sit down at dinner and say, you know, I want the lobster and also the New York strip.

And you know what, go ahead and throw in the salmon as well. So you can basically have them bring out three entrees to you.

And did you ever happen to experience that, Mike? Well, you know, I would take little bits.

I think I'd finish the whole thing. Mike, I was sitting right next to you. I have photographic evidence to the contrary.

Well, it was an incredible experience, of course. I found the 24 -hour pizzeria to be just a tremendously wonderful addition to any type of situation like that.

But we had wonderful Bible studies. We had tremendous fellowship. And what's the dates? Dates is

October the 15th through the 22nd, year 2000. October 15th through the 22nd. That's coming up, and we need to have folks get hold of us.

Now, we have further information, pictures, and stuff like that on our webpage now. Finally, I got the article up there.

And then once folks take a look at it and go, hey, that's something I want to do, they call

Ann Reynolds at AAA at... 1 -800 -677 -0830.

800 -677 -0830. A number to tattoo on your brain. And they need to do that.

We need to do that fairly quick. We can't be putting this stuff off because it impacts how many cabins are available to us and things like that.

The subject will be the inerrancy, the transmission of Scripture, the canonization of Scripture, Sola Scriptura, the translation of Scripture.

I'll be addressing the King James Only issue. Tota Scriptura, things like that. All those issues that come together to form the foundation of our belief in the

Scriptures is the Word of God. And I know one thing. Gentlemen, if you're married and you haven't had that wonderful vacation with your wife yet, this is a definite thing to do.

The ladies really love these cruises. And I think the guys love them a whole lot too. But especially...

It was just so beautiful out there out on the front of that ship as it's going through this. You see nothing. Just nothing but ocean.

It's just a really, really special time. Well, thanks, Mike, for inviting me the last time.

And it's amazing that you're actually bringing me back a second time. That's the amazing part to me. But I'm really looking forward to it.

I know my family is very much looking forward to it. And it's going to be a tremendous time of ministry.

So you're going to hang around with us for the rest of the hour here? Absolutely. Especially since I'm your ride. You don't have much of a choice one way or the other.

So we appreciate your being with us. And I hope everyone who would be interested in that type of a cruise, whether it's going to be teaching.

There's a Bible conference beforehand. We haven't quite nailed down the debate yet. We're trying to get a debate with a

Roman Catholic apologist that I would be undertaking. And trying to do some stuff the week beforehand as far as the conference is concerned.

So get a hold of us. Look at the webpage and be a part of what we've got coming up there. That's something that's really exciting.

Now, last week, those of you who were listening in, noticed that we began a subject on the topic of the deity of Christ.

And we had a call that came in fairly early on, about this point in time actually, from Mr.

Rick Stamp, who is a Jehovah's Witness apologist, a gentleman that I've had correspondence with a number of times, both in our chat room as well as by email.

He has posted a lot of the things that we have said back and forth to each other on his own website, even though I think that website does not exist anymore.

Some of his other material is being posted at another website now. And to make a long story short,

I was thinking, in light of the fact that I'd heard the topic of the conversation and called in on my cell phone from Tucson, where I was teaching systematic theology for Golden Gate Seminary, I was thinking that I want to invite the audience this week, if you can.

I realize if you're driving around in a car or something like that, that this is difficult to do.

And this presentation is not going to be easily done in the sense that you can hop in and out of your car and just sort of pick things up as you're going along.

But for those who are very serious about the study of the Word of God and serious about interacting with false teachings, with those who would present a false doctrine, who would twist and turn the

Word of God, I felt that last week's program illustrated something that I think would be very important for people to understand.

And that is, it has been my experience, that many Christians have the idea that as long as you have a certain background, let's say, for example, you know the

Greek language, or you know the Hebrew language, if you know things about the background of the

New Testament or the background of the Old Testament, or if you've memorized a lot of Scripture, that what that means is that in any one particular situation you're going to be able to demonstrate, beyond any shadow of a doubt for anyone who would be listening, the error of a particular false doctrine or false teaching.

I have experienced this many times. People will call me up and they'll say, hey look, I have a friend who is going into Mormonism or going into Jehovah's Witnesses or something like that.

I know if he could just sit down with you for just a little while that he'd be able to see clearly all the errors involved in these particular religious beliefs.

And I try to explain to people that there's much more than just simply the data that you throw out.

Those things, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that in -depth study, that knowing the original languages and backgrounds and things like that is unimportant.

In fact, it's vital. The point that I want to try to illustrate today and communicate to you is that to engage in meaningful apologetics it requires a balanced understanding of the whole truth of God.

Many people get so focused in dealing with one particular area that they lose balance.

And in fact, their apologetic is weakened because of the fact that they don't have a balance in their own understanding of their theology and in the studies that they are undertaking.

In other words, a person who is more emphasis upon understanding Christian theology and applying it is the person who will be able to do the best apologetic while the person who may spend a lot of time dealing with the specifics of one group will find that there will be, shall we say, holes in their ability to deal with that particular group.

And so we have always emphasized, and gentlemen, feel free to engage me in any type of conversation here, but I have always emphasized through the years, and I think,

Benny, you've been with us now 85, 86, somewhere around in there.

When did you and I go to see Alberto Rivera? Well, it was back in, I believe, 1983, 84.

Yeah, well, when did the Pope come? When did the Pope visit Phoenix? When was that? Because it was before then. Yes, the Pope was 85, 86.

Okay, so somewhere before then. Anyways, you and I were both much younger back then. Let's put it that way. Probably had much smaller waistlines and things like that back then.

I know, speak for yourself, James. Speak for yourself. And, Mike, you attended some of my classes many, many years ago.

What was the first class that you came into? Oh, I think the first class that I ever attended from Alpha Omega was actually on Mormonism.

On Mormonism? It was Rich Pierce. And it was Rich who was teaching. Right. And then suddenly thereafter, you covered for him and were teaching the class and was just amazed by, wow, there are actually answers to a lot of these questions

I just did not realize. And soon after that, I just became, I guess, pretty much an addict with regards to studying and learning.

And I sort of cut my apologetic teeth at the Mormon pageant that year. Right, right. And you were young.

You still are young, and that's the sad part about the whole thing. When I first met you guys, I was 16 years old. 16 years old.

I first went with you guys when I was about 17, 18 years old. Well, both of you will,

I think, attest to the fact that I have said over and over again that I would rather have five people with me in Salt Lake City who know what they believe and can share the gospel than 50 people that can rip and shred

Joseph Smith but have nothing positive to give in the place of that false faith that those people had.

That has always been our emphasis, has been upon understanding the Christian faith in such a way that you can share it clearly with those around you.

And last week, as Simon was sharing with us, we had just barely started to get into the subject of the presentation of the deity of Christ.

And one of the evidences that was brought forth was the use of a specific phrase in the

Gospel of John. Now, immediately I point out that the use of the phrase,

I am, in the Gospel of John, is one constituent part of an entire spectrum of evidences that we can derive, not only from the

New Testament, but especially in this particular situation, from the Gospel of John itself. It is not to be understood to exist separately from all these other evidences.

It is a part of a presentation that John gives to us. And unfortunately, because there was a phone call and we began to deal with the apologetics issues, we never got a chance really to finish presenting the issue and then in fact respond to the assertions that were made.

And Mike, I believe you've had some contact with some Jehovah's Witnesses this past week, both in our chat channel and by email, that would indicate that we don't just have listeners here in the

Phoenix area, we have listeners all over the United States. And in fact, outside the United States, including people who are

Jehovah's Witnesses. Correct. Actually, because we are going live over the

Internet and we do place the recording on the Internet, people can listen to us all the time.

And it's very interesting. There are a lot of people who actually listen to us live from California, from England. It's very interesting.

And going into the chat rooms on the IRC, I had a number of conversations with different gentlemen. And they brought up this issue and a number of other things.

And they brought up the nature of the call and so forth. And it was very interesting to see how a lot of them misconstrued some of the points that we were making.

And so forth. I really had an interesting time. But of course, many of them are, and I would have to admit, many of them have studied this issue.

They have been preparing for this issue for a long time. And I will have to admit that as much learning, as much studying as I've had,

I was completely blindsided by certain points. I think that we can't be afraid to admit. We have to be honest and say, well, we'll have to do a little more research.

I have to study that issue and understand where you're coming from. And I think, unfortunately, in listening to the program and trying to put myself in the position of the callers, the calls can so quickly elevate to a high level of discussion that a lot of folks in the audience who haven't had a background in dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses and things like that can be completely lost as to what in the world was being discussed or why what was being discussed was being discussed.

But to attempt to summarize in a short period of time, it was my assertion in a paper that appears on our webpage at aomin .org

and appears in edited format in my book, The Forgotten Trinity, that when we look at the

Gospel of John, we find the writer John using many ways of communicating to us the grandeur of the person of Christ.

We have the direct use of theos used of him in John 1, 1 and John 20, 28. We have the presentation of his eternal nature that is brought out,

I believe, in the prologue of John, the fact that the Word became flesh. And we have the description of him as the monogamous theos, the unique God, in John 1, 18.

One of the other ways that I presented in a chapter called I Am He is found in looking at the following passages directly from the

Scriptures. And I will read these really quickly from the New American Standard Bible. Most people are familiar with these.

But beginning in John, Chapter 8, we have the Lord Jesus using a Greek phrase that in Greek is egoi me, which is translated

I am. And in John 8, 24, for example, Jesus says,

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that, egoi me,

I am he, you will die in your sins. Now, the first thing I want to point out is that in this passage, the phrase egoi me is said to be the object of faith.

That is, unless you believe that, egoi me, you will die in your sins.

Now, it is immediately the response of those who do not believe the deity of Christ that these passages are not significant in the sense that all he is saying is unless you believe that I am

Jesus, or I am the Messiah, or I am the Christ. So we will put that out there immediately and see if that makes any sense as we look at the other passages where this phrase is used.

But just keep in your mind, in 8, 24, Jesus says that unless you believe that, egoi me, you will die in your sins.

So whatever this is, this is an important issue. Because Jesus says to reject or disbelieve this is to result in dying in your sins.

And that sounds like a very final and important thing. Now, those who know the context of John chapter 8 know that Jesus is actually here talking to Jews who had believed in him.

And yet by the end of the chapter, what do they do? They pick up stones to stone him. Why? Because in discussing the fact that they really haven't been made free because they have not abided in his word, beginning at verse 56,

Jesus says, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. So the Jews said to him,

You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham. Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was egoi me, before Abraham was born, before Abraham came into existence, egoi me, therefore they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Obviously another extremely important use of the passage, of the phrase egoi me, and the meaning here is attached to a time concept.

Before Abraham was born, egoi me, I am. And there is not in this context a specific predicate expressed such as the idea of I am the

Messiah, or I am the Christ, or something like that. Instead the contrast is between Abraham who comes into existence and the timeless existence of the one who says

I am. Then one that I remember to this day and will always remember with great fondness and thankfulness to God for the night that I saw this, it's not that I was the first one to do so by any shape or form or imagination, but when it really came home to me,

Jesus in talking at the Lord's Supper to his disciples, beginning in verse 18 of chapter 13,

John 13, 18 says, I do not speak of all of you, I know the ones I have chosen, but it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, he who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.

Then verse 19, from now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that egoi me.

And notice the parallel between 824 and 1319. In both of these you have the phrase egoi me as the object of belief, the object of faith, so that you may believe that egoi me,

I am. And of course the American Standard inserts the word he in italics because there is no expressed predicate.

It is not I am the light of the world. All sorts of uses of egoi me in John where he says

I am the light of the world. Or the other I am sayings, I am the bread of life. This is something that Jesus used often, but here he doesn't apply any type of predicate that would explain

I am a certain person. And then very significantly, John chapter 18, here at the time of the betrayal of Christ, as the soldiers are coming to arrest him, beginning in verse 3,

Judas then having received the Roman cohort and officers and the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.

So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, again, I just have to point out, just stop there for a moment, knowing all things that were coming upon him, what was the context in 13?

I'm telling you these sayings before they come to pass that when they do, you may believe that egoi me,

I am. So, knowing all things that were coming upon him, verse 4, went forth and said to them, who do you seek?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazarene. He said to them, egoi me. And Judas also, who was betraying him, was staying with him.

And notice what John does. He's emphasized that Judas is there. But in verse 6, so when he said to them, egoi me, they drew back and fell to the ground.

Therefore he again asked them, whom do you seek? And they said, Judas of Nazarene. Judas answered, I told you that egoi me.

So if you seek me, let these go their way. Now here, at the utterance of the phrase, egoi me, the men draw back and fall upon the ground.

Now, obviously, there's something going on here in John's Gospel. The fact that he would use this phrase in a way that is extremely unusual, the way that he would use it in certain contexts, that he would make it the object of faith, that he would, in 13 .19

and in 18, he uses it in the context of knowing future events, might cause us to go, you know,

I wonder if there's something more here than meets the eye. And anyone who has done serious exegetical work in John, and here's a point that needs to be made.

When I mean serious exegetical work in John, I mean the type of exegesis that you have to do to teach and preach all of the

Gospel of John within the context of the Church. And that is the main objection that I have to Jehovah's Witness apologists that are out there, that are writing, that are writing on webpages and things like that.

And that is, their studies and their writings are focused primarily upon defending the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They're not involved in doing the type of pan -canonical or pan -New

Testament teaching and preaching that the person must do who is involved in ministry in the Church. And therefore, issues of the background, the style of John, things like that, are lost in the writings that I encounter from Jehovah's Witness apologists on these particular issues.

And so the fact that John frequently draws from the Old Testament is lost to many individuals.

And that's what we'll pick up with. We continue on the other side of the break here on The Dividing Line. If you're looking for solid

Christian books that will edify both you and your church, Alpha Omega Ministries highly recommends the solid

Bible -based titles from Calvary Press Publishing. While we find that many Christian publishers today are producing books that are long on fluff and short on the

Word of God, Calvary Press produces books that are God -glorifying, reflecting the thoughts of Scripture, not the theories of men.

Books like Elizabeth Prentice's Stepping Heavenward, A Woman's Journey to Spiritual Maturity, Thoughts for Young Men by J .C.

Ryle, a thought -provoking work that has been greatly used of God to bring many a young man and woman to trust in the

Lord Jesus Christ, The Heart of Anger by Lou Priolo, dealing with the causes and cures of childhood anger.

Find out also what true biblical forgiveness is all about in J. Adams' From Forgiven to Forgiving.

Why don't you call them right now for a free catalog? Dial 1 -800 -789 -8175.

And don't forget to ask about their latest book, a reprint of William Jay's Morning Exercises, considered to be the greatest devotional of all time.

That's Calvary Press Publishing at 1 -800 -789 -8175.

Is the Mormon my brother? Bethany House Publishers presents James White's book, Is the

Mormon my brother? In television campaigns, para -church events, and clergy fellowships all across the

United States, Mormons are presenting themselves as mainstream Christians. Is it unloving or backward to say they aren't real

Christians? In contrast to Christian monotheism, the belief in one God, Mormonism teaches that God was once a man who lived on another planet and was exalted to the status of God, and that Mormon men can also become gods upon death and resurrection.

In his book, Is the Mormon my brother? James White demonstrates how this fact alone means Mormons and Christians are irreconcilably at odds at faith's most basic level.

Is the Mormon my brother? is now available from Alpha and Omega Ministries Book Ministry for $11 including postage.

You can order Is the Mormon my brother? either by calling us at 602 -973 -0318 or from our website at www .aomin

.org And welcome back to Dividing Line, my name is

James White. We're talking today about I think a very important issue. It's important to you if you are very concerned about God's truth and about responding to those who present a false gospel, a false

Christ who would deny the Christian faith. We need to understand that when we interpret the

Scriptures we need to interpret them both along the lines of Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura, that is the

Scriptures and the Scriptures alone, and then all of Scripture, and that is we must see that, for example, the

Apostle John frequently draws from the Old Testament witness. He draws concepts and ideas from the

Old Testament. It has been well known from the very day that John penned the words that in John chapter 3 when he speaks of being born again and he talks about being born of water and the

Spirit that anyone who was at that day a believer who had a Bible in their hands had what was called the

Greek Septuagint. And the Greek Septuagint in Exodus 36 uses the exact same type of language to speak of God's work that He was promising to do in His people in what we call the

New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 this also comes out as well. And so those connections would be naturally made by the original audience.

Now, American Christians who don't know the Old Testament very well may not make the connections between the allusions that are provided by New Testament writers and the

Old Testament context from which it came, but that's one of the reasons why we need to have teaching, we need to learn, we need to study.

And so in the same vein, when one looks at this phrase, Ego, I, Me, one discovers that the phrase is used in the

Old Testament. And specifically, and this is where the connection comes out, it is used in contexts that happen to be very relevant to what we've already seen in the

Gospel of John. For example, we looked at John 13, 19, and I mentioned to you,

I remember the night very well when I saw the connection that exists here. Remember that in John 13, 19, on the night of his betrayal, the

Lord Jesus says, I'm going to tell you what's coming to pass so that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am, that Ego, I, Me.

Now, obviously, he's not telling to his disciples that you may believe that I'm Jesus, or that you may believe that I'm the

Messiah, because they already believe that. They already understood that. There's something more here, and it's in the context of the prediction of future events.

And interestingly enough, anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows in the book of Isaiah, God there demonstrates the foolishness of idolatry, and demonstrates

His own perfection as God in what's called the trial of the false gods in Isaiah 40 -48, where He basically, in using sarcasm, says, bring forth your gods, and let's put them on trial.

Let's ask them some questions. And the single main proof that Jehovah God presents, that demonstrates that He alone is

God and all the idols of the people are not true gods, is the fact that He is the

Creator, and therefore He knows both the past and the future.

The false gods cannot tell us what the future is about, because they're not the true Creator.

And so it is in that context that we have a verse that ironically is the very verse from which

Jehovah's Witnesses derive their name, Isaiah 43 -10. "'You are

My witnesses,' declares Yahweh, "'and My servant whom I have chosen, "'so that you may know and believe

Me, "'and understand that,' and in the Hebrew it is Anahu, but in the

Greek Septuagint, which would have been the translation that the original readers of the

Gospel of John would have been reading themselves, it says, "'and understand that, "'Ego,

I, Me.'" The Hebrew is Anahu. "'Before Me there was no God formed, "'there will be none after Me.'"

Now here in the passage, and you read through the whole section of Isaiah, and over and over and over again

God says, I am God, there is no other, I'm the one who's created, I am the one who knows the past, the present, and the future, and the ridicule of the false gods that's found there, in this very passage you find more than once the use of this phrase,

Ego, I, Me, in the Septuagint, and interestingly enough, just as in John 8, 24, it is the object of belief.

The object of belief. "'So that you may know and believe Me, "'and understand that, "'Ego,

I, Me.'" Now, the point is, if John, in all the rest of his

Gospel, draws from the Old Testament, he draws allusions, he draws words, he draws phraseology, so that his readers who know the

Old Testament will automatically hear what he's saying, and he'll understand, I am the light of the world,

I am the bread of life, the bread of life discussion going back to the Old Testament, and the discussion of the manna from heaven, and all these other things, since John's doing it there, isn't it very, very obvious that in this type of context, when

John, in John 8, 24, and in 8, 58, and the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus after he says these words, and in 13, 19 with his apostles, and then finally in 18, 5, and 6, where by saying, "'Ego,

I, Me,' the men fall back upon the ground, is it not obvious that these passages need to be taken together and seen to be a device the apostle

John is using to communicate to us the truth of the deity of Christ?"

One element, this isn't all that John says about the deity of Christ, but one element of the presentation concerning the deity of Christ.

Now, having said all of that, you might say, well, of course, but last week a question was asked on the air, before I had the opportunity of getting on the air myself, and Mr.

Stamp called in, and he was objecting to what Mr. Escobedo was saying concerning the identification of Jesus in John, the use of ego,

I, me, in the specific context that demonstrates and present to us the connection between the

Old and New Testament in the words of ego, I, me, that demonstrate to us the deity of Christ. And this was,

I think, an excellent example of why we need to think very clearly and very cogently about what people are saying to us.

This objection was raised, well, if Anahu means that you're

God, if saying Anahu is a claimed deity, then what about the other places in the

Old Testament where someone, for example, like David? And there was another one mentioned, Mike. Do you remember? Was it

David and who else? Moses? I believe it was the blind man in... Well, yeah, the blind man in John 9 uses ego,

I, me. But in regards to Anahu, it was said, well, what about the use of Anahu by David in the

Old Testament? I believe someone else was mentioned, but anyways. What about the use of Anahu by King David?

Well, how do you respond to something like that? Well, in so many situations, if you just allow a moment of reflection, you'll see that the question being asked is based upon a misrepresentation of what's being said.

You have never heard me say that every use of the word Anahu, or even every use of the phrase ego,

I, me, is a title to deity. Nowhere in my books, nowhere in my papers, nowhere in the presentation

I've given you today am I saying that every time ego, I, me, is used is a title of deity. It is used.

Ego, I, me, is used in John of someone who isn't deity. And who was it? It's the blind man in John chapter 9.

But when you look at the context, you understand why he says what he says. The question is being asked, is this really the blind man?

And some people are saying, yeah, it's him. But other people were saying, no, it's someone who's like him. And then in John 9, 9 it says, and he was saying, elegant, it's the imperfect use of lego, he was saying over and over again the iterative use, he was repeating himself, no, it's me, it's me.

It was self -identification, emphatic self -identification. None of the contextual clues that we have in 8 .24,

8 .58, 13 .19, or 18 .5 through 6, appear in 9 .9. So it's pure eisegesis to say, well, if ego,

I, me, in these contexts, where John specifically gives us the fact that this is the direct object of belief, that this is in the context of predicting future events, to say that ego,

I, me, there has a reference deity means that everywhere it's used, even in a completely foreign context, it must have the same meaning.

No one's saying that. That's ridiculous. In the same way in the Old Testament. No one has ever said that every phrase on a who means that this is

Jehovah God. So if King David says, on a who, in a context completely different than what you find in Isaiah 43 or 44, then how can anyone make the argument that, well, since King David said, on a who, then when

God says, on a who, in Isaiah 43, and He says that He wants His people to understand, to know and believe and to understand that on a who, ego,

I, me, He is the only true God, well, that actually doesn't have anything to do with deity at all. Just must be self -identification.

Of course not. You have to allow these passages to be interpreted in the context of the person who wrote them.

And so therefore to say, well, what about King David using it? That's irrelevant because no one has ever said the bare phrase, on a who, is a title to deity.

What we have asserted is, in Isaiah, and then ego, I, me, and John is used in context that when you allow the writer to speak for themselves, communicates the essence of what we've been talking about and that is the deity of Jesus Christ.

But I think it's a part of the fact that our society has so deeply influenced the

Church that just as in our society we are not encouraged to engage in critical thought.

We are not encouraged to listen closely to the statements of people and to hold them to a standard of consistency and to think through the argumentations being presented.

Can you imagine? I mean, this is political time in our land and listening to the political ads and debates is extremely frustrating for me because I judge what people say on the basis of consistency.

The basis of, if this was a real debate, if the issues of real truth were at stake here, some of these people would be instantaneously disqualified from ever saying anything again in an actual real debate.

But, unfortunately, our society is not focused upon that ability to listen to what someone's saying, analyze what someone's saying, and take it to the fullness of the counsel of God in Scripture and see where, for example, false assumptions and presuppositions are thrown out there that actually have nothing to do with what's actually being said.

Now, right before I came on the air, an argument was presented in regards to, well, if, how is it that if the

Fathers identify as Jehovah that Jesus can be Jehovah? And Mr. Escobedo was responding to that and he very clearly said exactly what

I've said in my books and that is that involves the assumption of Unitarianism and he very clearly identified that underlying presupposition.

And that's what we all need to learn to do as we live in a more and more post -Christian, non -Christian, in fact, anti -Christian society because just as it was in the days of the second century when people were writing entire books against the

Christian faith that were based upon falsehoods, were based upon bad information, misinformation, lies, we're entering back into that phase in our own society.

And we as Christians need to be people who think straight. And we can only think straight when we know the

Word of God and are able to interact with those arguments that are presented against us. Did that make any sense at all?

Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, Jim, one of the things that might be said too is the attempts by the apologists of the

Jehovah's Witnesses would be considered as many before them who make every attempt to defend their faith at all costs even to the point of not really looking at the context or the totality of John's gospel.

They begin to do something that the society has warned others to do and some who are excommunicated for and that is what was called running ahead of the brethren or being presumptuous.

Their arguments, they may think their arguments are effective but do they truly represent the argumentation that would be used by the society?

By the society. And of course, I have discussed this on the air before the big question concerning gentlemen such as Greg Stafford who has published a book in defense of the

Watchtower Society and those that he is training. How far will society allow these people to go? Are they really representational of Jehovah's Witness Orthodoxy?

And will not the same fate come to them eventually that has come to those in previous generations who, to use the terminology you did, have run ahead of the brethren in providing apologetic responses?

Well, if they go a direction society hasn't planned to go in providing responses. Those are interesting things but an important thing is this.

The difference between myself and a Watchtower apologist when we interpret the scripture is that my ultimate authority is the scripture itself and its context.

The ultimate authority for the Watchtower apologist is the Watchtower Bible and tract society.

Not the New Testament. It is the Watchtower Bible and tract society. You know how easy it is to prove that?

Ask them if they can come to any conclusion separate from or against that which has been concluded by the

Watchtower Society itself. That's the question. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the...

Well! I was going to say you know I'm normally given a little bit of head start to know when

I'm going to take my break and that was sort of when we were going to take the break. But we do need to take a break and we have three lines lit up and I'm not sure who's on line two yet but I think that's probably being worked on even now.

So we're going to take a break that leaves one line open at 602 -274 -1360 or 1 -888 -550 -1360

We'll be right back. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White. We have only about twelve minutes left at the most actually about ten.

So we're going to try to get to as many of our callers as we can. So if we can get your comments and move from there that will help a lot.

Let's start off with Steve all the way up there in the nice warm climes of Ottawa, Canada.

Steve, I need to tell you we're going through a really cold spell here.

I think we're only at 74 today? I think it's about 74. Boo! James, we have like three feet snow banks over here and obviously we have a barrage of snowfall here.

And incidentally my parents are actually just left today to go on a cruise in the same area that you have your cruise in October.

So my parents are like, oh, fend for yourself. So they left me in the house for three weeks.

So anyways, I have my homework to keep me busy and I need to get some sleep.

and I need to get some sleep.

I need to get some sleep. I need to get some sleep.

I need to get some sleep. I need to get some sleep.

I need to get some sleep.

I need I need to some sleep.

to some sleep. I get sleep.

I need to get sleep.

I need to get some I need get some sleep. I need to get some sleep. I need to get some

Yes, indeedy. Well, what did you think of today's topic?

Did it make any sense to you? It did, yes, excellent. I've just got a quick word of encouragement, really. I was talking to the

JW, she's a second -generation, non -practicing JW at work, and a Muslim girl, and I was talking about Jesus, and I actually said at the end of one evening,

I said, you know, I was doing a resurrection, so the worst priest that proved that Jesus was who he claimed to be, proved that Jesus is God, they both turned around and spat at me, and said, no way,

Jesus couldn't possibly be God, from their perspective. I carried on talking to the JW, and I gave her a couple of books, and she came back to me, she said, yes,

I now understand it, I see, you know, what the Trinity is. She's currently reading your book, God and Purity.

But yeah, the one question that she did have, she was slightly hung up on, is she wants to know why

Jesus is referred to as the Son, when we say, well, Jesus is

Jehovah, and the Father is Jehovah, the Spirit is Jehovah, why is Jesus referred to as the Son? That seems to be her hang -up.

Well, for the same reason the Father is referred to as the Father. It is a relationship term between the

Father and the Son. The Son is the one who is sent by the Father. It is a way of distinguishing between the

Father and the Son that we, as human beings, must needs have, or we would be confused as to which of the persons of the

Godhead we are addressing or that we are referring to. And so, just as the relationship between Father and Son was understood by the

Jews in John chapter 5, to indicate an equality on the basis of nature, so too the

Jehovah's Witness, or the former Jehovah's Witness in this case, needs to be reminded that that is a term that refers to a relationship between two divine persons, and it also communicates to us the equality on the nature, on the basis of nature.

That is, my Son is a human being because I am, and if Jesus is the unique Son of God, then that cannot mean anything that He is a creature or something like that.

Those are terms that could not be used of a mere creature. So I would turn that around and use that in a positive way to demonstrate that these are words that could never be uttered of Michael the

Archangel or some other created being. And that, of course, is where the Jehovah's Witnesses are coming from.

Sure. Okay. Okay. That's good. All right, Martin, thanks for calling in. God bless. Bye. Bye -bye. All righty, 602 -274 -1360, we're moving through the lines here fairly quickly.

Let's talk to one of our regulars. Hey, Dennis, what'd you think about today? Howdy. For some reason popped in my head how people talk about Elohim being used as something other than God, like the human judges representing

God and presenting His law and applying His law, and I think even when context Joseph said,

I am as Elohim to Pharaoh or something like that. Actually, it's Moses. God said to Moses in Exodus 7,

I have made you as an Elohim to Pharaoh, yes. Yeah, but I think that Joseph saying to his family something about his position in regards to Pharaoh.

But in any case, you know, context. Just context. Well, context is obviously the important thing in each one of these situations, and you're right.

People will make reference to those types of things. They will say, well, God can't, doesn't necessarily mean

God because it's used of angels or it's used of men or things like that. But in each situation, we have to look at the scriptures, and we have to look at the context in which the scriptures are using that term.

And that hopefully is what everyone has learned from our discussion today, and we very much appreciate your joining.

Thank you, gentlemen. I'm sorry that I talked so fast and so much, but Mike Porter and Benny Diaz for being with us.

Thank you, Michael Fallon, for coming all the way out here just to have 10 minutes on this radio program. It's amazing that you would do that. Actually, that's not really the case.

I am very much looking forward to October. I think the Lord's really going to bless during that period of time.

Hey, next week we'll be back here on The Dividing Line. We invite your participation. Tell your friends about it.

Tell your friends about the internet address, aomin .org, everything else, and be with us again next week here on The Dividing Line.