Jehovah's Witnesses and the Centrality of the Deity of Christ

2 Timothy 2 .15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the Dividing Line Radio Broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360. That's 602 -274 -1360.

Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 -888 -550 -1360.

That's 1 -888 -550 -1360. And now, with today's topic, here's

James White. And good afternoon. My name is Rich Pierce, sitting in for Dr. White today, and I am joined by none other than the

Alpha and Omega crew, Benny Diaz, Simon Escobedo, and Michael Porter.

And I want to bring them up now. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome to the Dividing Line. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

All right. Everybody's, I can tell, very enthusiastic about the show today. We are, well, we're doing some shows these days that are a little bit different than they've been before, where I'm in here, as James pointed out last week,

I'm running the control room. And KPXQ has some very sophisticated computer systems here, and we're enjoying a little newfound freedom as we begin to kind of have a little bit more control over our show.

And that's something we really appreciate. But today's show, I have brought these three gentlemen in, you see, because when it comes to the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses, I, while I can take on a

Mormon with no problem at all, I have no hesitation whatsoever, I am very comfortable with that, a

Jehovah's Witness just kind of sends me into a dither. I just don't exactly know where to start, and I am just waiting for them to rope me into a corner because, well, frankly, they're very crafty when it comes to what

I believe is twisting the scriptures. And so today we're going to discuss the issue of witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses in the area of the deity of Christ, and one of the big things that we need to be able to share with them is the fact that Jesus is the one true

God of Israel. He is the one true God. Now I know a bit more than most folks do when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses, most

Christians, and I believe I know just enough to be dangerous. And this is an issue that at times, well, when it comes to evangelical

Christianity, there isn't a whole lot of teaching, a whole lot of training when it comes to the deity of Christ, I think, out there anymore, and so you will encounter within, as Hank Hanegraaff likes to put it, the pale of orthodoxy.

There are times when folks feel that it's just not necessary. And is this really important for us to be able to prove that Jesus is

God? I mean, we worship Jesus, we lift him up, we do all these things, but is it really that important,

Simon Escobedo, that we believe in the deity of Christ?

How important is that issue? Well, it's extremely important, Rich. I think that if, as Christians, we recognize the fact that any time we're engaged in conversation with other folks and we have opportunities to share our message with them, it makes no sense whatsoever to try to communicate to them the need to trust in a

Savior until first we deal with the fact that that Savior is indeed God. He is the only one that can command faith and repentance.

He is the only one that can in any way offer salvation to them. And indeed, as the calendar has turned and there are many topics that we could discuss, including the millennial rage that apparently is on everyone's minds,

I mean, prophecy certainly is a topic that is hot in most evangelical circles. I've had others who have come up to me and say, why waste your time talking about these kinds of issues when you need to be out on the streets witnessing to people knocking on doors?

So we could talk about evangelism. But I think the deity of Jesus Christ, indeed, the foundational truth of Christian belief, this week we had the opportunity of meeting with someone who is very active in evangelism, in fact, the mass evangelism that we can obviously see on TV.

And he had made a rather sad comment to us, to Mike and myself, and that was that he had noted that in many of the gospel presentations that are out there, the message and the literature that is being passed out is so lacking in biblical distinctives that basically the average

Mormon, Jehovah Witness, and certainly just about any group, would have no difficulty whatsoever embracing that message.

And I suggest that unless you have a biblical view of the person of Christ, you have absolutely no foundation to present the work of Christ.

And so many people are in such a hurry to get to the work of Christ that they just seem to fly by the person of Christ.

And so it's our desire today to have that opportunity to share with our listeners some of the biblical truths regarding the person of Christ, primarily as it relates to His nature as God.

And the title of our topic today is Son of God, Lord of Glory. And we are following an outline that those who have access to the

Internet can easily access on the AOMIN .org webpage, Son of God, Lord of Glory.

It is an outline that was done by Dr. White some time ago, and it does come with a tape that you can follow at your own leisure.

And if anything, hopefully, our discussion today will be food for thought, will compel you to perhaps do a study of your own, perhaps get the tape, follow the outline.

Obviously the outline is rather lengthy. There are massive scriptures that we could go through, and we're hoping that if anything that we just put the seed in you, and that that will eventually develop into some further study.

I was thinking of a passage that kind of brings this into perspective for us, and that passage is found in Matthew chapter 16, verses 13 through 17.

There our Lord is with His disciples, and He is having a conversation with them, and in particular with Peter.

And the text says, Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking

His disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is? And they said,

Some say John the Baptist, and others Elijah, but still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

And He said to them, But who do you say that I am? And He makes the question personal now to the disciples.

Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus said to him,

Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my

Father who is in heaven. And I suggest today that the question that our Lord asked of His disciples some time ago is a question that needs to be asked of all men, because all men have some kind of an answer to that question.

Was He a great man who perhaps was simply misunderstood in His time? Was He a prophet of God as those during that time thought

He might be? Indeed, Islam would say that He was a prophet just like Moses or Elijah. Was He the spirit brother of Lucifer, an exalted man as the

Mormons would indicate? Or was He one of God's chief created beings, as the witnesses would state?

Or was He, as Christians have maintained for centuries, God come in the flesh?

And it's our desire today to open up some of these things to you. I know that Rich had mentioned that one of our objectives is to help our listeners deal with Jehovah's Witnesses, and while that is true,

I certainly wouldn't want to take away from the fact that we're not simply here to try to give you ammunition to deal with the

Witnesses, but what we hope to do is to perhaps strengthen Christians in their own understanding of the person of Christ.

Indeed, to equip the Christian with solid biblical testimony as they deal with those who reject the deity of Christ, and possibly to inform those who are yet outside of a saving relationship with God to the only

Christ who is able to save them from their sins. So that is our desire today, gentlemen, and I hope that we can follow that.

Darrell Bock Indeed, Simon, you said it well. And I think it's really important to note that with regard to the

Witnesses, we speak of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches

Jehovah's Witnesses something quite different than what we as believers know about him according to the

Scriptures. And we want to be quick to bring out those distinctions because there's some very serious issue at hand, and that is,

I believe, the salvation of souls. Christ stated more than once that you get me wrong, you don't come to me as who

I am, you're in trouble. And I'm paraphrasing, of course, but in John 8, for instance, he told his listeners after speaking of the fact that he is the light of the world and those who follow him will not walk in darkness but have the light of life.

He points out clearly in verse 24 that I therefore say to you that you shall die in your sins for unless you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

Making sure that we believe in the Jesus of the Bible is important. I think it would be detrimental to us if we follow a false

Jesus. A false Jesus cannot save, a false Jesus cannot deliver, a false Jesus did not die on the cross.

And we will hope to demonstrate, and we welcome your calls with questions or comments to that fact that Christ of the

Bible is the one who saves and without him there is no truth, there is no salvation. Darrell Bock I agree.

I think that one of the things that Christians need to be quite aware of is the fact that a lot of times preachers, different ministries, even seminaries, a lot of times will tell you to concentrate on the work of Christ.

They will go to the work of Christ, they will go to the cross, they will talk about the great things that God has done for us, they'll talk about the blessings, they'll talk about the hope, but they won't talk about the person.

And that's the thing that we need to be talking about the most because if we do not know who Jesus Christ is, if we cannot explain with precision and be very concise about who he is, if we do not know him, then there is no hope, there is no joy, there is no benefits, there is nothing further than just simply some being dying on the cross.

Darrell Bock Mike, you said it well, but that was Mike Porter. Simon, when we talk about this outline of the

Son of God, Lord of Glory, is it just a bunch of words, is it just a bunch of little outlines, a systematic outline for people who think they know a little bit more than everyone else, or is there something important for us to see there?

Is there some scripture that we need to begin with? Is there a starting point for us, if I may?

Now mind you, when we begin to look at these verses in the Bible, and most of you probably have a

King James, New American Standard, or NIV translation, the

Jehovah's Witness on the other hand who comes to your door has a different translation, it is referred to as the

NWT, the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is pretty much provided to them by their society, the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Governing Board, a translation of their own, and you will see and you will notice some significant differences in these passages, and we're going to look at that later as to why are there differences, especially with regard to the person and work of Christ.

Are there some changes? Are there differences? Is it maybe we've got it wrong, they've got it wrong? Why are there those distinctions?

We'll look at those in a bit. Simon. Well, absolutely, Benny, there is no question that when we are going to discuss this issue there is only one source of authority that we can appeal to, and that is the scriptures.

We make no apologies about that. The Word of God as we know it to be is the final word on this issue.

I find it fascinating that when I discuss these kinds of things with people, normally

I'll ask the question, well, who do you think Jesus Christ really is? And they'll give their various opinions, and then

I'll ask them, well, how do you know that? And basically it'll be because someone else has told them or this is their subjective belief, but very rarely will anyone bother to consider that if you're going to know about someone you need to go to a source that reveals who that someone is, and there is no greater source for us, obviously, than the

Word of God as the divine revelation of God to man, indeed the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ, and it is there that we will deal with our topic this afternoon.

Having said that, I do want to take care of some, I guess what I would call some house cleaning chores and to provide some definitions for our listeners.

When we talk about the deity of Jesus Christ, it needs to be understood foundationally that we all as Christians affirm the biblical truth that there is one and only one

God. Deuteronomy 6 .4 is very clear, Here, O Israel, the Lord is our

God, the Lord is one. So that when we say that Jesus Christ is God, it is this

God that we are referring to, but it is one and only one God, and that will be developed later on.

We are not saying that Jesus has God -like attributes or characteristics.

Isaiah 46 .9 says that, Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other.

I am God, and there is no one like me. Psalm 77 .13, Your way,

O God, is holy. What God is great, like our God. So when we say that Jesus is

God, this is the God that we are referring to. Now many people obviously have some kind of an understanding of the

Trinity, and as I stated before, foundationally, we must understand the truth that there is one and only one

God. Now when I'm teaching my young people, I try to provide for them some building blocks, and we have as building block number one the fact that there is one and only one

God. Before you can discuss any other elements of the truths of the Trinity, you need to start there.

Now the second building block is that the scriptures also reveal that there are three divine and distinct persons.

We know them as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And in building block number three, they are co -equal and co -eternal.

Now having said this and provided some definitions, this is what we are not saying. We are not saying that Jesus is the

Father. An ancient heresy known as modalism or Sabellianism, today known as one is

Pentecostalism, would assert that Jesus and the Father are the same person, different stages of the one

God. That is not what we are declaring. Jesus is a separate and distinct person from the Father.

We are not teaching polytheism, that Jesus is a separate God from the Father. Remember our foundation, there is one and only one

God. So as we consider these definitions, that perhaps will allow us to avoid any confusions as we discuss the fact that Jesus is

God. Now we will follow the outline, but evidently the outline is going to be a lot longer than the time constraints that we have.

So we'll digress at certain points. But we want to get into the text as soon as we possibly can. And you had a comment.

No, well, you know, Simon, you brought up a good point. That's a really important starting point with Jehovah's Witnesses.

To establish the fact that scripture teaches that Jehovah or Jehovah is one, one true and living

God eternal and to go to the scriptures and see that scriptures teach that there is only one true

God. And the reason for that is because you'll see them go to several places, you'll have them take you to places like John 1, 1, which we will probably visit today, where they are taught that Jesus is a

God. And when you establish that fact, which is very important, that there is only one true

God, they will have a problem when they begin to reason in their minds that Jesus is a

God. Because if there is only one true God and Jesus is a God, then isn't there a problem there?

They would begin to see, I think, that you can't have two gods. Exactly. If you have one true

God, then what is Jesus? He is a God, yes, but that means he is a false God, if we are going to accept that.

We have a caller, maybe we can begin with a caller and see what a caller has to say about that.

Yes, before you bring that caller on, I did want to add a comment to what you just said, and that is it needs to be understood for our listeners that Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily

Unitarianists. That is, one of the difficulties that they have with the doctrine of the Trinity is that they begin with a presupposition that says that God can only be one person, hence any reference to Christ as a second person and also being

God obviously is a difficulty for their presupposition. So, having said that, our caller says...

Very good. We have a caller here, and let's see what I don't hear, let me see if I push the button right here.

Yes, who do we have on the line here? Yes, this is Rick. Hi, Rick, how are you? Very good. You had mentioned

John 8, 24, and I pulled out my Bible to read that scripture.

In the meantime, since I've been listening, you've brought up a lot of other good subjects. Maybe we can touch on those as well. But John 8, 24, in the

Bible that I just took off my shelf, says... So I have told you that you would die under the curse of your sins, for unless you believe that I am the

Christ, you will die under the curse of your sins. I'm reading from the

New Testament by C .B. Williams. So what I see here is that perhaps not even all

Trinitarians would agree that in John 8, that Jesus was claiming to be God, and perhaps even some

Trinitarians are guilty of a presupposition when they read the Bible as to their own doctrine as well.

Well, you would agree that that translation you have is probably not a mainstream translation? It would be probably categorized as a paraphrase?

I wouldn't call it a paraphrase, but I'll agree with you that the word Christ isn't in the

Greek. So that is his interpretation, yes. Well, the point

I think we were trying to establish is not that that particular passage confirms or teaches the deity of Christ, but the importance of believing

Christ is who he claims to be. I agree wholeheartedly. Excellent. Yeah. Well, good.

From my perspective, he said he was the Christ, the Son of God. Right.

Now, obviously, the Christ, I'm sorry, the Christ obviously is a reference to him being as Messiah.

Sure. However, I would differ that in verse 24, the actual text says, unless you believe that Egoimi, and there is a direct reference there that I don't think can be argued of Christ being aware of the connection between Egoimi and the usage that is found in the

Old Testament, particularly in Isaiah 43 .10 of Anihu, and that is a description of Yahweh, Jehovah.

So I think it can be asserted from this text and another text where there is no predicate offered for the

Egoimi construction, that Christ is fully aware of what he is asserting here, namely, that he is making a direct connection between him and Yahweh of the

Old Testament. But Yahweh in the Old Testament never used the words Anihu as a title. Actually, in Isaiah 43 .10,

if you look at that, you will see an exact parallel, not only in terms of Anihu in the

Hebrew, but in the Greek Septuagint, the term the translators use is Egoimi.

That's true, but you know, if you take the word Ani in Hebrew, that means I, if you look at the word Hu, that means he.

There's no verb there. The word Ego means I, and Emi is a verb. Even though those phrases may be translated the same, it doesn't mean that one, you know, one has a predicate.

Obviously, he is a predicate. If you look at most of the English versions of the Bible, in John, where the phrase

Egoimi is used, most of them supply a predicate, he there, the I am he.

And Rick, what would be your point? For instance, if you're in John chapter 8 still, how would you respond to verse 58?

I'm sure you're familiar with the word Christ says to those Jews that were with him.

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. Same construction, Egoimi, as he said earlier in other places.

And notice what the response was. If, in fact, he was not claiming deity, then perhaps you can help us understand why in verse 59 it states, therefore they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Sure, I'd love to do that. You know, the same Bible that I quoted, John 8, 24, says in that place, then

Jesus said to them, I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.

Now, if you look at the footnote in the 1973 Bible published by the

Lachman Foundation, the New American Standard Bible, they say that before I have been in the footnote margin.

So that scripture doesn't necessarily need to be translated, I am.

In fact, the translation I am isn't even grammatical. Do you have a New World translation there by you?

Yes, I do. Okay, perhaps you can go to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures and look at that passage,

I believe, on the edition I have is on page 463. And you'll notice that they use the Westcott and Hort text.

In the Westcott and Hort text, which is a Greek rendering of that passage, you'll see Westcott and Hort, who are the scholars that the

Jehovah's Witnesses regarded as important enough to use. In both instances, in verse 24 and also in verse 58, it is a go -I -me and Westcott and Hort translate that as I am.

However, you see that even the Jehovah's Witnesses translate it as I am, and they add the word he.

So, as you admitted earlier, the translation you're using is, in fact, a paraphrase.

Not necessarily, but not necessarily an accurate rendering of the language of the New Testament. So perhaps we could use a text that would be a little more accurate with regard to what's being stated?

You're still talking about John 8, 58? Speaking of the fact that Christ claimed to be

I am, using the same reference to himself as Jehovah did back in Isaiah 43, as well as several other places in Isaiah, as well as the fact that those who heard him understood what he was claiming.

Are you denying that the Hebrew usage of Ani -Hu is not a euphemism for Yahweh?

Yes, I am. And can you demonstrate why you can say that? Sure. For example, in some of the

Isaiah passages, when Ani -Hu is used, there is a predicate, I am Jehovah. You fail to see the direct link there.

That is obviously a euphemism, a one expression. Are you saying that our

Lord was ignorant of that expression? Because basically, the position that you're taking, either Jesus is not making the direct link to Ani -Hu, or he is ignorant of that, and is making rather a major slip -up that obviously the

Jews didn't let get by, because they picked up stones to stone him. Well, here's the thing. You know, if I say

I am Rick, am I claiming to be God? No, there's a predicate there. If Jehovah says,

I am Jehovah, Jehovah is the name, not Ani -Hu. Ani -Hu is just a copulative, it's just a way of directing attention.

It's a very common expression. King David said Ani -Hu. Did he claim to be God? Ani -Hu is a

Hebrew expression that's used similar to Ego -A -Me. The blind man in John 9 -9 said

Ego -A -Me. They said, are you the one that was healed, that was blind, Ego -A -Me?

Precisely, Rick, and we're going to probably have to take another call, but let me respond by this. We're going to have to take a break.

Yeah, let's go ahead and hold that thought there, Benny, and we will be right back with The Dividing. And we're back on The Dividing Line.

We are discussing Jehovah's Witnesses and the deity of Christ, and I'm going to put this right back to Benny Diaz and Simon Escobedo, who were talking with Rick from San Bernardino.

Go ahead, gentlemen. Rick, thanks for coming back. Are you there, Rick? Yes, I am. Well, sorry to put you on hold.

I didn't see a commercial coming there, so it doesn't take much to blindside me. First of all, we'd love to spend a lot more time on this, but let me just say one thing and I'd like you to comment, but you have brought up some interesting points.

We on our website, www .aomin .org, we do have a detailed discussion, a well -done paper on the term

Ego -A -Me in the New Testament. I think it would do you well, and we would be open to your responses to that.

Actually, I already responded to James White on that at one point, but he never responded to me. Interesting. Why don't you respond to it to my attention, www .bennydiaz

.org. I'd be more than happy to respond. Sure. I did pull up something here on iHoo, if you have maybe 30 seconds on it.

You know, Isaiah has many messianic prophecies, and Jehovah says that his son

Jesus Christ was the Chosen One. So when Jehovah is saying that on one hand, that his son

Jesus Christ is the Chosen One, the one that he put his spirit on, and on the other hand he says, I am he, now are you saying that on one hand that Jehovah is talking about his son, and on the other hand he's claiming to be a trinity?

Well, actually, that was the presupposition that I had mentioned earlier. In Unitarian thought, obviously

Jehovah and the Father are one and the same. One of the primary tasks that I enjoy dealing with the

Jehovah Witnesses is to demonstrate from the Scriptures that Jesus is Jehovah. Once we recognize that Jesus is

Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah, then we can demonstrate clearly what we mean by that.

I think what you're asserting is that Jehovah can only be the Father, and that certainly isn't the position that we're advocating.

And Rick, this is Rich, I want to bring James White on the line, who is driving back from Tucson right now, and you say that you have responded to him, and I want to get his comments on that.

James, are you there? Yeah, I think we're talking to one of Greg Stafford's folks here by the name of Rick Stamp, and Rick did write a response,

I haven't saved on my system, unfortunately, as I have expressed to Rick, if it is the person

I'm referring to. The problem is, as Simon just pointed out, the implicit

Unitarianism and I think the fact that the material presented in the

Forgotten Trinity and on the website really wasn't responded to in a way that was, well, both understandable and useful.

I have actually started a response to Mr. Stamp's presentation, but found it very difficult to really organize the thoughts in such a way to put on the website as yet, but since you've taken the time to call in, maybe we'll find the time sometime in the future to do that.

Yeah, I guess it would be true that we all carry our presuppositions, but one thing

I would be interested in would be how you would interpret Hebrews 1, 1 -3, because here, in the continuity of thought, we have it being said that in the past, the father had spoken through prophets like Isaiah, but now he speaks through a son.

Now if you read Murray Harris' treatment on this, especially his footnote, but he goes into great detail, it is impossible to take the

Jehovah of Isaiah as anyone but the father. There's no question of that, there's no question of that, we would agree a thousand percent.

In fact, we would use that as one of our greatest proof texts, is that the father is identified as Jehovah, and then within the same chapter, the writer of the

Hebrews identifies the son clearly as Jehovah, in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10 -12, by identifying the unique characteristics of Jehovah as being shared by the son.

The fact that that one name can be used of two persons is one of the very reasons that Christians are

Trinitarians, biblical Trinitarians. But the word Jehovah doesn't appear in the text in Isaiah. The fact that the writer of Hebrews used biblical language to describe the son doesn't prove he's

Jehovah. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by Isaiah. What are you talking about Isaiah? I'm sorry.

I was talking about... Psalms. Psalms, yeah. I'm sorry? I'm sorry, I meant to say Psalms. Actually, the name

Jehovah does, it's obviously only about Jehovah. Anyone who reads the 102nd Psalm can see there's not two different gods being addressed in the 102nd

Psalm. There's not a second god other than Jehovah, who is unchanging and immutable, the creator of all things.

Anyone who allows Psalm 102 to be interpreted in its own context knows that the psalmist is still addressing

Jehovah when he speaks of Jehovah as the unique creator of all things, and therefore the application of that terminology to Christ cannot be understood in any other way.

In fact, it would totally destroy the argumentation of the writers of the Hebrews, if that is not the meaning, because the thesis of the writer of the

Hebrews is to demonstrate the superiority of Christ to all things, and in this case, to all angelic creatures, which as one of Jehovah's witnesses, you actually would disagree with Paul at that point, because you make him one of the angelic hosts, a creature who was made by Jehovah, a second, therefore a derivative creature rather than one through whom all things were made.

Well, if you read through between 3 and 10, the part that describes how the

Christ is better than the angels, you find that he's been made better. That's genomi, that's a transitive verb, and it's based on being given a name.

So it's true that the Christ is being held way above the angels, but it's based on not his nature, because the word kraton means better in terms of position or authority, not in terms of nature.

Actually, the nature is very clearly what is being addressed there. Genomi is not being used as a reference to creation at that point, and I don't think anyone interprets it that way, when it says he is made better than the angels, it's talking about the position he holds above them as the

Incarnate One, but the fact remains that it is a complete, eisegetical assertion to say that there is nothing about the nature of Christ there.

It says when he brings the Protodacost into the world, he says that all the angels of God worship him, and it is,

I think, an artifice to say that this is not religious worship, because angels are obviously involved in that very kind of worship, the very same worship that the

Lamb receives in Revelation chapter 5 from all of creation. And it is his nature that is summarized in verses 10 through 12 as the one who does not change.

That is clearly an ontological superiority to the angels, right there in verses 10 through 12, derived directly from the description of Jehovah in Psalm 102, 25 through 27.

Of course that's true of Christ now, because you have to admit that when Christ died, that was a change, but now that he's been resurrected, he's been resurrected to immortality.

When that was written about, when that was written of Jehovah in Psalms, Christ had yet to die. So that couldn't have been applied to him...

Rick, I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. If it says in Hebrews 1, 10 through 12, that he is eternal, that he does not change, that his essence does not change, that's applied to Christ, then to say, well that somehow has something to do with after his death and resurrection, again, it is his ontology, it is his nature that is being addressed in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10 through 12, with the unique attributes of Jehovah God, where Christians believe that Jehovah and Jehovah alone is unchanging, that he is alone and not affected by the passage of time, and that he alone is the creator of all things.

That therefore is about nature, opposite of what you said earlier, and it is applied to the

Lord Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1, and that therefore does demonstrate that that's what he's talking about.

I disagree that it talks about eternity into the past. It's talking about that he would never die in the future, and at the time that that was written by the writer of Hebrews, the only two persons alive that that applied to was the father and the son.

At that point, he was the only one that would never die. Again, Rick, that's a complete misuse of the passage.

It is not... I guess what that means, then, is that when the writer to the Hebrew, I'm sorry, the psalmist to Psalm 102, refers to the unchanging nature of God, and how the universe itself passes away, but God does not, that we are therefore improperly interpreting that to believe in Jehovah's immutable nature, both his eternal existence in past and future.

If that means that he was unchanging in the past, so the application means the same thing to the incarnate

Lord Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1, and that it refers to the period before the incarnation as well, because it refers to his nature.

No creature could be described as those words describe him. I have no problem with attributing eternity to the father in both directions, however,

I wouldn't go to Psalms 102 to prove it. I'd go to Psalms 92 to prove it. Well, the problem there,

Rick, is you can't go to Psalm 102 to prove it, because if you do go, you end up contradicting the teachings of the

Watchtower Bible and tract society forces you to accept. It's not exegetical.

I as a Christian can go to Psalm 102, and it very clearly presents the immutability of God and the transience of the created order over against his timelessness.

But the very fact that you cannot do that demonstrates, as I've said to you many times in written correspondence and have logs posted on our website of those correspondences, that you are not engaging in exegesis of the text, you are engaging in eisegesis of the text and the external authority that you're using is the authority of the

Watchtower Bible and tract society. And I said all that while dodging a semi -tractor trailer, too. And with that, gentlemen,

Rick, we have several other callers on the line right now, and we need to move on because we only have a few minutes left in the program, but we certainly appreciate your call today.

We're going to try to bring Dr. White back up and chat with him in just a minute here.

Benny? Yes, as a matter of fact, the lights are blinking here. We've got someone else here, but let me bring

Dr. White back in. Dr. White, are you on the line? I'm still here.

Okay, good. Well, thanks for your call, boy. I tell you, it was unexpected, to say the least.

Well, actually, I've sort of wondered why Mr. Stamp, maybe it's all by name,

Mr. Smart, Greg Stafford and others haven't called in before. I find it interesting that the call would come while I'm not available there.

But I've had extensive dialogues with these folks, either in our chat room, which is available through our web page, or in email situations, and so it's interesting that the call would come in today.

But I only called simply because I knew who it was. You all were handling the situation just fine.

Oh, no, I'm sure we would have answered the same way, James. In fact,

I was getting ready, James, just to say those things. Well, you have a safe trip, and we'll move on.

Okay, I'll let you guys do that, and I'll be listening in. Thank you. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. And we need to take a quick break here today, gentlemen, and we will be right back with The Dividing Line.

We're back on The Dividing Line, and we're here. Time to wrap up the program in our last few minutes of Saturday afternoon, and we certainly appreciate

Dr. White dialing in and sharing with us, and that certainly was a very entertaining discussion, and I want to let you guys get a chance to get in there and try to finish your material.

We do have two other callers online, so Benny, go ahead. Well, welcome back. This is Benny Diaz. I'm here with Mike Porter, as well as Simon Escobedo, and we have two very patient callers, which we're grateful for.

I hope that they're not too frustrated with us. Let's pick up line three here. Who do we have here?

Hello? Hello. Hi, guys. It's Boston. How are you? I'm very well, thank you. How are you? Very good.

Just picking up on where Rick left off, he makes the comment about that Jesus is only superior because he's been given a position.

I'm reading through chapter one of Hebrews, and it clearly makes a distinction between Jesus and the angels.

I mean, you know, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is just, you know, the angel Michael? Yes. Verse 7 clearly said, to the angels, he says, and then verse 8 goes on to make a distinction, but to the

Son. I mean, that to me clearly makes a distinction between Jesus and any created being, but especially any sort of angel.

What do you think? Oh, absolutely. I appreciate that input. That's true. I mean, Simon, if you were to look at the distinctions there, are they as clear as, or are we trying to stretch something here?

No, absolutely. In fact, there is a nuance that can be brought out in those two verses that might be lost in the

English translation. That is the men de construction, which basically you could say on the one hand, and then the reference to the angels in verse 7, but on the other hand, and then the reference to the

Son in verse 8. Clearly a contrast between the two. I think that's an excellent point. Well, one of the things

I wanted to say, Garth, is that I've heard on the Divided Line a couple of times people mentioning that the Jehovah's Witnesses book,

Should You Believe the Trinity? Yes. I mean, I've got two copies of it, because I speak to Jehovah's Witnesses in England more often than I speak to any other cult group, and there are a couple of very, very good books out.

There's one available in England, probably not in America, called Why You Should Believe the Trinity. It's by the Reach Out Trust in England, and the other one is by Robert Bowman, Jr.,

and you'll probably be able to get that one in America. I believe if you get the website www .reachouttrust .org,

you might be able to get hold of the antidote, if you like, to the Should You Believe the

Trinity by the Watchtower. Yes. But it actually takes – to bring the conversation down slightly – it actually takes passages that the

Watchtower claim disproves the Trinity, and shows you how out of context and how badly misquoted that booklet is.

I mean, it's horrendous. And if people, you know, take that book, then take it on to the local library, and take the time to read the quotes the

Watchtower have given, they will find it's just torturous what they've done to the quotes. I mean, I'll give you one example, and then

I'll get off the line. In the book it says that the Trinity is beyond the grasp of human reason, and apparently that's in the Encyclopedia Americana.

What the quote actually says is, it is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended, though it may not be comprehended by the human mind.

I mean, that's completely different to what they claim in the book. Well, a tremendous – I'm tremendously appreciative of that.

You're right. The Should You Believe in the Trinity document put out by the Watchtower, I know I've got right by me a binder of all the actual photocopies of that particular document, and looking at them in context, you find that they were, in fact, the majority of that document by the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a total misrepresentation of the actual authors or those citations they give you through that.

I think there's very little that you can really believe in that document, or that booklet called

Should You Believe in the Trinity, and there is a very good work out there that counters that. Mike?

Well, in reference to Hebrews 1, verse 8, of course, anyone familiar with Jehovah's Witness argument might recognize or realize that they would take that phrase and they would translate it differently.

They might reference it differently. They would say that it's, God is thy throne forever and ever.

Something along those lines. And, of course, if you really look at the context, and it comes out very clearly in the Greek, that the word for God there is being a statement of address, directly referencing

Jesus Christ. And so it says, to the Son, he says, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.

It's very hard to get around that, especially when you see the direct contrast between the angels on the one hand, and you see

Christ or the Son on the other hand. Yes, and that's not to speak of, let's say, Revelation 5, where we see who's being worshipped there on the throne, as well as who receives worship or prosecute throughout the

New Testament. You find that term used of Christ receiving worship by not only disciples, but others.

It's interesting, if you look at the New World Translation and look at their interlinear, you find that that word, in older versions, was translated properly as worship in Hebrews 1.

However, the newer translation that they have out there, they changed the word to did obeisance to Christ, which to me is interesting to say the least.

Let's take our next caller here. I want to make sure these patient people get an opportunity to ask their questions, share their point here.

We have... Who do we have here? Hello. Hi. Hi, how are you? This is...

I'm fine. This is Jennifer. I think that most of the confusion lies with the translators substituting other titles for God's name, because to my

Hebrew professor, God's name consists of four consonants, Y -H -W -H.

They don't write words with vowels in them, they just... when they speak. And as for Elohim, it may not be appropriate, because whenever you add him to the end of the word, that makes it plural.

So that makes it look like God, instead of, you know, one God. Well, Jennifer, I would suggest that it...

except given the context, because given the context of how it really kind of impacts whether or not it's plural or not, because there are circumstances in the

Old Testament where it is Elohim, but because the construction of the verbs around it are singular, it is to be translated as a singular term, not as a plural.

So that would be the one exception to what you just said, but I would agree with you. So what is your relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jennifer?

Actually, I have studied with them. I've gone to the Kingdom Hall and stuff. And that's one thing

I have a problem with, is the Trinity thing. I think

I need to study more. Have you had an opportunity to read Dr. White's book on the Forgotten Trinity? No.

It's really easy reading. I would suggest going to our website at www .aomin .org.

And I'm sure there's also some other information that might help you with that as you begin using Simon's starting points, which are very good points, which maybe we can get back to you,

Simon, now that we've gotten past some of the hurdles here. Thank you for your call, Jennifer. Thank you.

Yes, it's been most interesting. We didn't anticipate getting that many calls, and certainly we didn't anticipate getting a single call before we had a chance to give a single presentation of our material.

But I think given the few minutes that we have left, obviously there's just absolutely no way we can get into the material.

Perhaps Dr. White will allow us the opportunity of joining him in this discussion again. Obviously, given the interest by our callers, it is a relevant topic and, indeed, a needful topic.

But I'd like to close our discussion this afternoon looking at John 20 .28. Normally most people are familiar with John 1, verses 1 -3,

I'm sorry. We have a tremendous passage affirming the deity of Christ in John 20 .28.

But as I was stating, normally a lot of people like to run quickly to John 1, verses 1 -3, and that is a fantastic passage.

But because I believe it is a passage that literally you could spend an hour on, in fact, just a couple of weeks ago we, in our young people's class, went over that passage discussing the deity of Christ, the logos, the eternal word as it's presented there.

But that would take quite a bit of time. But John 20 .28 is, indeed, an interesting passage.

It's pretty straightforward. And it is a passage that I can remember when I was first starting to deal with witnesses.

This was a passage that I used, and I can remember the witnesses at my door apparently had not seen this passage. Obviously many have.

But it was a passage that caused great confusion, I remember, especially to the rookie on the team as he looked at it. Obviously this is a passage dealing with our

Lord and His disciples, specifically Thomas. And the text is pretty straightforward. It says that He answered

Thomas and said to him, My Lord and My God. I'm sorry, Thomas answered and said to him, that is the

Lord, My Lord and My God. And you'll notice that in verse 29, our Lord commends him for his belief, his faith.

Let's throw a circle around the two words, Thomas answered and said to him, and I trust that that will be the testimony of any

Christian today, affirming the deity of our Lord, indeed, My Lord and My God. And that's going to do it for our show today.

We sure appreciate you three gentlemen coming in and sharing with us today. Thank you very much for listening today.