Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Gentlemen, we're now going to enter into part two of the debate. This is going to be a 30-minute section. It's going to be a free-form discussion of the two positions. So I'm going to ask a series of questions, alternating between both sides.
And in this format, we're going to take approximately four minutes for a lively discussion from both sides, and then we'll move on after four minutes to the next question. At three and a half minutes, you'll hear one ding, and then at four, we'll hear the double bell and move on to the next question.
Everybody ready? Okay. Here's the first question. If the Jews of the first century didn't already believe that God existed in a triune form, isn't the Trinitarian view in conflict with Jewish thought?
Dr. Brown, our Jewish member of the panel, let's start with you.
You know, look, the fundamental thing that everyone here at this table agrees with is that the Messiah had to die and rise from the dead, and that was the one thing that the disciples missed, that they didn't understand, and that there's almost no evidence or no evidence that Jews at that time were expecting a suffering Messiah, certainly not a crucified Messiah, and yet that's the one thing that happened.
So there's no question that there were blind spots. And if we can agree that there was a blind spot on the most fundamental of all things, then the death of the Messiah, his disciples couldn't get it.
After he rose from the dead, Luke 24, he had to open their minds to understand the scriptures. In Matthew 16, Jesus says that he's going to go to the cross. Peter rebukes him. You're never going to go to the cross.
So the fact that they may not have fully understood the complexity of God's nature, that doesn't surprise me at all. But what's interesting, though, is that you do have some things developing. Philo is an older contemporary of Jesus, and he talks about the logos a lot, the very word that John uses for word in John 1.
And he even speaks of the logos as a creative agent, even as a second God. It's very, very interesting. And the targums, which are the Jewish paraphrases, they go back in some form even before the time of Jesus and then develop.
They begin to talk about the memoir of the Lord, the word of the Lord. And this memoir even takes on a distinct identity. So what they're struggling with is how to identify, how to fully understand this God who is imminent and yet transcended, who is visible and yet invisible.
So Yeshua brings it to light, John 1 .18. He makes him known. As James quoted earlier, he exegetes the Father. So number one, there are fundamental things that the Jewish people of that day were getting wrong.
Jesus explicitly addresses it on numerous occasions. And number two, there are streams of thought already developing in Jewish tradition and Jewish philosophy that fit very well in with the concept of God's tri-unit.
How do you respond to that, blind spots, Jewish blind spots?
Well, I agree that there were blind spots. I mean, even today, we have many, many blind spots. We see it through a glass door, but however, I believe that it can be firmly established that Jews of the first century did not believe in anything but the single God, Hashem.
I mean, that was it. They were not looking for it. They did not believe that there was a second God coming. When they saw Yeshua... We're not talking about a second God, though. We don't believe in a second God.
We don't believe in that. All right. But quote me a text, Joe, just so I can understand. Quote me a Jewish text from the first century that is accepted by Jews as authoritative today. A Jewish text from the first century that talks about this issue.
Well, let me give you the Birkat Hamanim. Which dates from when, roughly?
Ninety Common Era. Oh, okay. So this is two generations after Jesus. That's right.
At the earliest. That's right. But we're talking about the believers in Yeshua, and what did they believe? I submit that they did not believe that Yeshua was deity. They believed he was the Messiah.
My question, though, you said that Jews at that time were absolutely not believing in expecting anything other than the Unitarian view of God, the way you're presenting it tonight. Okay. Please just give me a first century text from a contemporary Jewish source that verifies that.
Please quote them to me. Because they don't exist. All the texts come from centuries later. So you are projecting later Jewish belief back into that time, whereas I have the witness of the New Testament, much of which is written by Jews, telling us explicitly what they believe.
And we also have in John 5 that the Jews there getting very upset with Jesus, and in John 8 getting very upset, and in John 10 getting very upset with him because of his explicit identification of himself with God.
So he's making it clear that's a blind spot they may have had. He's making it clear. But you don't even have text to support the position you're presenting.
Well, for one thing, we have Josephus, who goes into Jewish beliefs about God.
He's a generation after Jesus as well. Just give me one from that same time. That's all I'm asking. Only to say the statement you're making doesn't have text behind it. That's the only point I'm making.
Okay. In 30 Common Era, you didn't have even the New Testament. At the time that Yeshua was slain and Yeshua was resurrected, you didn't even have the New Testament.
I mean... But we have the words of those witnesses, though, who were there. Whereas any text accepted by Jews today as having authority comes from well after the time of Jesus.
We'll stay on this for one more minute. This is a very interesting topic. Let me go back to the Birkat Hamanim. Now, the Birkat Hamanim is where in the daily prayers, in the Shemoniah Israel, the 18 petitions, there was a benediction that was put against...
It was applied to the believers. In all probability.
There's debate about that. There is debate about that. Did it say specifically the Jewish believers, who are the minim, the heretics, or the... There's debate about that.
No. They're not... We know that they're not expelled from the Jewish community until after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
After 132 Common Era. I want to hear your point about this, because... Okay.
In that, all that time, the Jewish believers are active in the Jewish community. They're not expelled. When the Birkat Hamanim comes forth, if it is applied to the believers, it is applied not because they believe in an idolatrous way that they believe that Yeshua is a deity.
They would be expelled immediately if that was believed.
The first thing is, they're already getting killed in the New Testament times. How much do we have to go beyond that? They're already being killed. John 16, Jesus tells them they're going to be put out of the synagogue.
Okay? Just confessing as Messiah was enough to get them put out of the synagogue. So you're saying they weren't getting put out of the synagogue, even though the New Testament tells us they already were.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
And you're also making an assumption... The whole reason that the Birkat Hamanim comes about in 19 Common Era is because there are so many Jews that believe that Yeshua is the Messiah in the synagogue.
My point is, if they believed that He was deity, they would have been put out immediately. No, no.
Yes, they would have. That's by your interpretation of it, sir. No, that's not going to... In other words, if you were the rabbi and you were interpreting it your way, you'd put them out. No. Maybe their views were more in harmony with the general understanding that you're going.
Michael, if you believe they would not be put out of the Jewish community for believing that Yeshua was deity, I don't understand you at all.
First thing, they were already being killed. Second thing, the New Testament explicitly says that there was reaction to Jesus. When He identified Himself as deity, they were ready to kill Him. And on top of that, you are projecting...
Where do you have that they were being killed by Jews? Oh, you know, I think of Saul.
I think his name was Saul of Tarsus. Yes. And I think the guy's name was Stephen. Stephen comes to mind. I mean, forgive me for being facetious. But... It was already happening. There was already... And then Saul has this encounter.
And what does he say? What do you want me to do?
Lord. Okay. That wasn't a man. I want to follow up on this with a question. When the Pharisees accused Yeshua of blasphemy, was it because they understood Him to be declaring Himself to be divine or deity?
Is that your understanding?
Deity. Deity. Yeah. No, I don't think so at all. He's claiming to be on a par with God, as an agent is with His sponsor. That's an enormous claim. But the worst they could say of Jesus at the trial was, you're claiming to be the Son of God.
To be Son of God in the Bible, I'm quoting now Colin Brown at Fuller Seminary, to be Son of God in the Bible, I want this quite clear, means you're not God. Are we clear about that? The Son of God is an angel.
It's a Messiah. It's not God. That should clarify the whole thing. And the worst they could say at the trial was, He's claiming to be the Son of God. He never goes around saying, I am God.
He never says, not at the trial did they say, you're making yourself to be God. Except at that same trial in John 19, when He calls Himself the Son of God, they say, we have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself ought to be the Son of God.
If that just means a representative of God, there was no law against that. The only law would be the law against blasphemy. When Jesus, Jesus does not say, I'm merely a representative. And after that last long exchange, I was going to compliment you on your tie, but that's about all you and I could get in during that last one.
But there were two texts I wanted to try to introduce there, and I would like to hear the response. Jesus said to the Jews in John 8, I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that ego I am me, you will die in your sins.
And then in verse 28, so Jesus said to them, when you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that ego I am me, and that I do nothing in my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.
So, at the end of this chapter, they pick up stones to stone Him, when He says, before Abraham was, ego I am me.
For those who aren't theologians, I am.
I am, going back to Anahu in Isaiah and the Minor Prophets. Jesus even used the very same phraseology of John 13, 19, where Yahweh is speaking of Himself, of Himself in John 13, 19, in the same context.
Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him, if all He was saying is, I'm just a representative?
You're amazingly convinced by hostile Jews. Do you not know the Jews didn't understand what Jesus said most of the time? Why are you siding with them? He quickly says, in response to the accusation, you're making yourself to be God.
He said, I am not. As the Son of God, I do what I'm told. That's John 5.
I was talking about John 8, and in John 5, He doesn't say, I am not. He clarifies the relationship between Himself and the Father, but He never says... He says He can give life. The Father has given Him the right to give life, and all the rest of these things, honor Him, even as one of the Father.
But John 8, you say you're siding with the hostile Jews. When Jesus does not correct what they're stating, but instead amplifies what they're stating, and keeps pressing the point so that they pick up stones to stone Him, it does seem that their conclusions are just.
A quick response, and we're going to move on,.
Because I threw that in. Chapter 10, He says, haven't you heard that the judges are gods? If I call myself what? The Son of God. To me, the Son of God means you're not God in the Bible,.
Colin Fuller. Colin Brown and Fuller. That's quite clear. He's claiming to be the Son of God. That's wonderful. But we just jumped from John 8 to John 10 and missed the actual meaning of John 10 of Jesus identifying them as false gods.
And may I just say something? As a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary, what the gentleman is talking about is the Son of God, not God. We are not saying that Jesus is the Father. There is a distinction.
We recognize the distinction. It is the Son who became flesh. It was not the Father who became flesh. That was something He voluntarily did. That means He had to have preexisted to voluntarily do so.
Very quick, and I'm going to move on. Yes. You made a point about Stephen. You made a point about Paul. Paul, first off, when they attacked him in the temple and they sought to kill him, the issue was not what he believed about Yeshua.
When he addressed the crowd, everyone was quiet when he told them his beliefs in Yeshua until he got to the point about that the gospel had been offered to the Gentiles.
So you're saying the Jews had no problem with the fact that...
No, no, no. I'm saying that was the issue with Paul. That was the issue with Paul.
There was an accusation that he had broken temple laws. It was a legal argument. But here's the whole question, Joe. When Saul of Tarsus was so upset with his fellow Jews for belief, he was upset because they believed that Jesus was the Messiah.
And you are telling me that Jews would have no problem with that and that they wouldn't put people out of the synagogue over that. So you're missing a fundamental truth here, Joe.
I'm not saying that many, many Jews of that period would have problems with Yeshua being the Messiah. What I'm saying is that when Paul was attacked, that wasn't the issue whether he was the Messiah or not.
That dealt with the believing community. But those are communities. It's irrelevant, though. I'm going to move it along to the next point.
We have limited time. We could go on with this for the rest of the time allotted. But I want to turn our focus to John chapter 1. How do you understand John chapter 1? The Word became God. The Word was God.
If I could just very briefly.
Three clauses. In the beginning was the Word. The term that he uses for was is a timeless verb. It is in the imperfect. So as far back as you wish to push the beginning, the logos exists. The logos is proston theon, face to face with theon, God.
And the Word was God. The position of the word theos in the sentence indicates that it is describing the nature of the logos. The logos is as to his nature deity. Now, John is very careful in the prologue to never use the word agenita, the heiress form of Ginnomai, of the logos, which would point to a point of origin, a time of creation, until John 1 .14, when the Word becomes flesh.
So everything else, there's a man who came from God named John. That uses a different verb. When you're talking about the logos, the logos does not have a point of origin in time. Then the logos becomes flesh in John 1 .14 and dwells among us.
We beheld his glory. The glory is of the only begotten Father. And then you have that beautiful text, which is the bookends. It's the end of John 1 .1, John 1 .18, bookends of the prologue of the Gospel of John.
No one has ever seen God, the monogenes theos, a fascinating phrase, the unique God, who is at the Father's side, literally at the Father's bosom, the position of intimate fellowship. He has exegeted him.
He has made him known. He has explained him. So 1 .18 and 1 .1 together explain to us what's being said. The Word is eternal. The Word has had eternal relationship with the Father. And the Word is as to his nature, deity.
He is the one who has become flesh and has revealed to us the Father in a perfect way. You have a very different view of that. Okay.
First of all, huge assumptions being made here. In the beginning was the logos. 1 ,200 occurrences of logos in the Old Testament. Never a person. Not a spokesperson. God's Word. Your Word is not another son.
It's not your son. Until it becomes the son. This is very easy. Wisdom is with God. We know that. This is very Hebrew. The Word was with God. And it, all things are made through it, if you had an English translation all of the eight before the King James.
It. So don't assume that that capital W is right. It's not a person. In the beginning was that utterance, that intention, that plan, that promise of God. It. Walked around as that marvelous Messiah who is uniquely, by the way, unique God.
Much debate about whether that's even a genuine text. It's not the. It's more likely a. Hort says that's the highest form of derived being. Mono Yenis. Theos possibly. Very doubtful text in 118. Don't rely on the doubtful text.
Certainly not the unique God. That's wrong. Certainly not what the NIV has there. But start with wisdom and Word. And please go back to Matthew. Please note the conversations all around the gospel of John.
Very suspicious.
You know, the fact is, depending on what subject we're discussing, we look at certain texts. If we're talking about pastoral ministry, we look at Paul's pastoral letters. John emphasizes the deity of Yeshua.
So, of course, we're talking a lot about that. It's almost deceptive to say, look at the others, because the others don't contradict this in a single syllable. They reinforce it in many different ways.
But let's look at this a little further. John 1, 3 says that everything was made through the Word. Well, 1 Corinthians 8, 6 tells us that everything was made through Jesus. Colossians 1, 16 Everything was made through Jesus.
Hebrews, the first chapter as well. Everything was made through the Son. So it's telling us quite explicitly that this Word is not an impersonal it. I don't worship an impersonal it. An impersonal it didn't die for me.
An impersonal it does not make God known. This is a person, the Father creating all things through the Son. The New Testament witness is explicit. All you have to do, and sometimes it's the exact same words used in John 1, 3 and these other texts that I just mentioned.
The exact same Greek that's used. So the New Testament is explicit. The Word is the Son. The Son is Jesus who was eternally preexistent. Again, it's simple. I want to ask a follow-up question, because I'm not sure I'm understanding.
Are you agreeing with what I know. The Mormon translation says, for example, that the Word was with God and the Word was a God? That's a Jehovah's Witness.
No, no, no. You're not saying that. I'm simply saying that you are being misled by the capital W in your translations in the beginning with the Word. Take it down. Nothing in the Greek about a capital letter.
Logos is not a person until it becomes a person at the beginning of the Son. Go back to Matthew and Luke, find out when he began.
We've left all of that aside. So this Word is facing God, is with God. No, no. Why do you keep translating autu as it? Just because those other English translations before the King James, which were primarily Latin influenced.
But as you know, autu is not... You can't prove that's a neuter. It can be a masculine, right? It can be both. Okay, so why... But the point of the fact of the matter is when you say, well, it's it, you are taking an assumption there.
And I do need to correct something. Your statement is about John 1 .18. The vast majority of modern scholarship is on our side at this point in regards to the meaning of monogamous theos and the occurrence of monogamous theos.
P75, P66, Alexander, and Sinaiticus, they all read that. And so... Not all of them, not with the article. Not with the article. A, A. You said B. But, well, even... Whether it is with A. However, whether the article is there or not doesn't change the fact that theos appears in all the most ancient copies of the Gospel of John that we possess.
Is that true?
What's a uniquely begotten God? Yes, it's true. But what is a uniquely begotten God?
See, monogamous means unique, one of a kind. You keep emphasizing genao. Monogamous is not made of genao. Genao has two news. Monogamous has one. It is genos from kind or type. It means unique, not begotten.
You're reading something in it that's not there.
It's a sun word. It's just a sun word. I'm going to bring it down off the high theological level to just straightforward. How can God have flesh and bones? Isn't that what Trinitarians teach?
No, we're saying that God appears in human form, Colossians 2 .9. The fullness of God dwells in bodily form. Genesis 18, Yahweh appears in bodily form. And that's not a unique concept in the ancient Near East, by the way, for a God or the God to appear in bodily form.
The Bible says that happened with Yahweh. Genesis 3 would point in the same direction that Yahweh is actually walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the garden. So God can manifest himself in a thousand different ways.
And he manifested himself in flesh and blood form while remaining God enthroned in heaven while filling the universe by his spirit. So we are not saying that God ceased to be God and came down off the throne and became a human being like Zeus or one of these other so-called gods.
We are saying that he comes and dwells. It says in John 1 .14, he pitched his tent among us. It's the exact equivalent of the tabernacle. Scholars have pointed out that he is like an earthly walking tabernacle.
And notice Paul's words when he says in Philippians 2, describing the incarnation. When the son did not consider equality which he had with God something to be held on to, but he, and the term is literally emptied, but Paul never uses it literally.
He always uses it metaphorically. How did he do so? By doing two positive things. By taking the form of a servant being made in likeness of men. So the making himself of no reputation was done by taking on that human form.
So as I say to my Muslim friends when we do our debates, they're just scandalized by this concept. And I say, you need to understand something. You're starting with the assumption that the creator of mankind could never enter into his own creation for his own purposes.
How could Allah, for them, create mankind, but then be in essence locked out of his own creation? If he has the power to create man, he can enter into man.
As the word of God clearly says he did. I agree with that. I have a question that kind of stems from this. In Yeshua's resurrection, my question is, he's resurrected back to the fullness of God? What do you mean back to the fullness of God?
Well, I mean...
He remains the God-man. Okay. He doesn't cease being the God-man. And he is, for the purposes of redemption, subservient to the Father's purposes. His purpose is to honor the Father. The Holy Spirit's purpose is to draw attention to Jesus.
So he's not equal to the Father?
Equal in what way? You mean in participation in the divine being? Or in the position that each of the divine persons has taken in the redemption of mankind?
Well, what I'm talking about in 1 Corinthians 15, it has that he is under the Father when all things are put under his feet. He's still under the Father. That God may be all in all. That God may be all in all.
We have a greater God than we have a lesser God. Where does that put the Holy Spirit?
No, we have one God. See, that's where you guys keep coming up with multiple gods. We're worshiping one God. That's what it sounds like. Because you're hearing it through either one ear, as James said, through one eye closed.
We keep talking about one God, Father, Son, Spirit, but one God, I am one human being, body, soul, spirit. Do you believe that Yahweh's essence is limited in time and space? Absolutely not. So why can't that unlimited essence be shared by three divine persons?
Because you're assuming, because your assumption and all of your interpretation is, that's not possible. You know, my assumption is that.
Since you describe God as a one what, let me give your description of God. He's three whos. I want you to be clear about this, in his very interesting book on the Trinity. Three whos in one what. I do not find the singular masculine pronoun he to describe a what.
Let's talk about an it. Let's be fair. Let's talk English. Let's speak the language.
If he's going to be one what, then he's not a he. You're giving me he, and you're asking me to believe he's three. You're not allowing even me to define my own language. I am talking about the being of God, and I am talking about the persons that share that one being.
That being is personal, but not a person. You're turning that into some type of impersonal thing, like an object, a rock, or something like that. You're calling it a what. To make the distinction between the persons and the one being, that one name Yahweh, describing each of the three persons, that one being then is unlimited that they share fully.
One what, you said. The being of God. Can I just ask a clarification question? You want to bring things back into English. I'd rather keep them in Hebrew and Greek, which you're very happy with, ultimately.
So, in Hebrew, what would be the word for he versus what would be the word for it? No difference, probably. It.
Who? In masculine. That's right. But it's a singular personal pronoun, and one God is one father in Malachi. Very clear. Have we not all one God?
Have we not one father? You just made a big point about the difference between he and it in English, but whether it's in Greek or in Hebrew, it could be the same term used for both. But a father is not an it.
We agree it's not an it, but you said the word was an it. You said the word was an it, and an it is the thing that came into the circle. We said no, the word is a person, a son.
But Logos is an it, until otherwise.
Okay, we're going to move on. I think we'll all agree this is a highly complex topic. We have a question on Matthew 3, 16 and 17. One of the more well-known examples of the existence of three persons is the baptism of Yeshua recorded in Matthew 3, 16 and 17.
Here the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is being baptized, and it is again described as being the object of the Father's love, and the Spirit is descending as a dove. How is this not a clear identification of the triunity of God?
We all believe in the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father. The issue between us is, are they all the one God?
Of course I believe in the Son of God. I don't think it's God, because he began in the womb of Mary. That's quite clear. You can't be God. You cannot die, by the way, if you're God. That's quite clear.
The immortal God cannot die. By definition, Jesus could not be God. He died. God doesn't die. So that's entirely clear to me. The idea that he is God is simply contradictory to every possible idea about immortality.
That's clear. Did his spirit die? In your view. The Son of God died, Paul said.
Did the spirit die? The spirit... Depends how you define the spirit. Did the spirit immediately go into... You believe that Jesus had a spirit? Everybody has a spirit. Okay, did the spirit die?
The Son of God died. Oh, so your whole argument then really goes nowhere with that. The Son of God died. It's supposed to be God the Son in your language.
The Son of God as a human being died? As a human being, you said. This is amazing to me, because this is the exact argument that my Muslim friends make, and they say, God cannot die, and I take them to John chapter 10.
What did Jesus say? No one takes my life from me. I give it of my own accord. Jesus voluntarily gives his life, but he doesn't cease to exist. He says to the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise.
So people say, well, who was running the universe when Jesus was dead? And I'm like, he didn't cease to exist. He gave his life as a sacrifice. And that's the same thing here. You said by definition, Jesus cannot be God.
So what you're saying is, by definition, God could not enter into his own creation so as to give his life as a ransom for his people. That's by definition. That's assuming the end of this argument, rather than allowing the Word of God to define the parameters of the argument itself.
I disagree with so much of that. It would take a while to unpack. I don't think you're alive when you're dead. That's a different point of view. No argument on that point. So Moses and Elijah are really dead, but they appear on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Well, they can work that out easy. Hebrews 11 says they all died. That's quite clear, including them. Everybody died. But they didn't cease to exist. They died. But they didn't cease to exist. Lazarus is dead.
He's not the God of the dead, but of the living, because all live to him. But when the Son of God dies, he doesn't live. I have a problem with that. But you misunderstood. Let's get back to the beginning issue.
It's spirited. You keep coming back to that. The beginning language occurs most clearly in Psalm 2, which is a coronation psalm. It doesn't speak of the creation of the king. It speaks of when the king is coronated.
Who said that? Psalm 2. Because this is the decree. The Lord said to me, you are my son, speaking first and foremost of the Davidic king, and then by application to the Messiah. Psalm 2 rightly understood, historically understood, as the vast majority of scholars, since you like to cite scholars, would agree.
So, this day I begotten you, does not speak of bringing him into existence, but of his taking on the role of son, just as in 2 Samuel, the 7th chapter, God says to the descendants of David, I'll be a father to them, they'll be my sons.
So at the time of coronation, they were recognized as that role of son of God. So as Jesus comes into the world, he is now designated son of God. At his resurrection, Romans 1, Acts 13, he is recognized as son of God.
And the son, the other thing, just to remind those tuning in, and maybe that missed the other point, all the references we gave to the pre-existence of the son, they haven't been shot down, they haven't been touched.
The explicit references, like Isaiah 6, like Genesis 18, like these other passages, the other verses that we quoted, that speak of the pre-existence of the son, tell us now that he was not created when he entered Miriam's womb, but now he takes on the role of son of God as he comes into the earth in that form,.
And at his resurrection, declared the son of God with power. When he entered Mary's womb. Did you hear it? When he entered from outside. Is that what Luke and Matthew describe? I beg you to go back and read the Synoptics and see if there's anything about anybody entering.
No, no. That which is begotten in her, Matthew 1, 20, I want you to read the Greek carefully. Not conceived only, it's the same thing, but begotten. That which is fathered, brought into existence in her, is the son of God.
It's the human being. It's the son of God. And the son was eternally pre-existent. We've seen all the texts that say it. So I read, no, what I do is I don't start reading in Matthew, I start reading in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures.
By the time I get to Matthew, I already see the pre-existence son. So again, it's very clear, and John 1 makes it abundantly clear for anyone that might have missed it.
Here's my favorite question of part two. We understand. On the cross, Jesus was separated from God. How is this possible if he is himself God? How can one God be divided?
I don't remember anything in the Bible about Jesus being separated from God. When Jesus cries out, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, that is from Psalm 2. 22. 22. And when you read the 22nd Psalm, what do you discover there?
You discover it is a deeply messianic psalm, and how does it end? It ends with the vindication of the suffering servant. And so, unlike many strong sermons I've heard, the fact of the matter is that on the cross, when Jesus does that, everybody knows the Psalter was the hymn book of the Jewish people.
And you didn't have to sing the whole psalm to remind people of what it was about. If I said, Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, I don't have to finish it for everybody in this audience because they already know what the rest of it is.
In the same way, when Jesus says this, the very next words from his lips are, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. So the Father is still there. That's in the second person. This idea that when Jesus is offering the greatest obedience to the Father, when he's doing exactly what the Father has sent him to do, he's drinking the cup, that somehow there is a fundamental disturbance of the Godhead and a separation of the Father and the Son, I have absolutely no reason to believe that.
If there was something like that, the book of Hebrews would have picked up on it. It's not there.
I think it's just a fundamental misreading of the quotation from Matthew. So you don't understand the sacrifice to be that Yeshua, when he bore the sins of the world, that he experienced a separation from the Father.
He experiences the wrath of God. That's a vast difference from an actual... The question is asking, in essence, was there a fundamental separation of two divine persons from one another? And that would create ditheism.
That would create a separation of Godhead that would just be absolutely impossible. I think that's a misreading of Psalm 22. Yeah, and the Psalm 22 point is quite clear. The forsakenness is that I haven't been delivered from this deathly situation, but then he is delivered to the praise of the entire earth.
So by quoting that, he's drawing attention to Psalm 22. If there was any type of a spiritual separation that you just wanted to talk about symbolically because of him taking the sins of the world on his shoulders and feeling the weight of that, that's not an issue.
But a separation between Father and Son in terms of a reality of separation is another story.
Now that's your question, so do you want to comment on that? Do you believe there was a separation on the cross?
I can agree with what they said that there was on the forsaken thing. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have, I do have a major problem with the idea of Yeshua being deity and being killed. I want to separate between being dead, eternally dead like the soul being dead and being killed, because I don't believe God can be killed.
I don't believe that God can be limited. You asked me a moment ago about can He be limited in any way. I don't believe God can be limited in His knowledge, in His understanding in all things. I do think He can be limited by His own word.
In other words, it says God cannot be a man or God is not a man. Yeah, it's a different statement. Yeah, it is a different statement, but it definitely says God is not a man.
Do you think we believe that He is in His nature?
I think that you believe that when Yeshua came, that He was God.
Yes, but you see the difference.
Between saying that the essential nature of God.
He pitched His tent among us. Numbers 23, 19.
God is not a man, but He's alive. I have no problem with Him pitching His tent among us, but I don't see that as a reference to Him being deity.
But if He pitched His tent, who lived in the tent? His agent. His agent lived in the tent. That's right. No, no. It says that He, the fullness of God, dwelt in Him in Babylon. And let's also remember that the apostles and all these others...
Who redeemed the people out of Egypt? The apostles and all these others were called agents, but nobody worshipped them, and the worship due to Jesus couldn't go to them. Who redeemed the people out of Egypt?
God. That's right. Okay. Who was His agent? Moses. Okay, and that's the first redemption. But they did not worship Moses.
Absolutely, they don't worship God. But they worshipped the Son.
And God did not pitch His tent in Moses. He pitched His tent in a tabernacle, and His glory dwelt there. So, let's just look at the analogy. Think for a second. God pitched His tent. Exodus 25. Make for me a holy place, and I will dwell in their midst.
God dwells in the tabernacle. Who dwelt in the physical tabernacle of the body of Jesus? God. God incarnate. That's the only possible way to read it.
I'm going to go to the worship. Okay? You say, well, they worshipped Him. Revelation 5. Revelation 5. And I'm sure you could go to Daniel in chapter 7, where the Son of Man came and gave Him praise and honor and all of this.
But I see this exactly as what we saw back in Chronicles. And I see it as a homage to, which is exactly the same word, a homage that is given to the King. And the King sits on the throne of God. And we have a precedent in the Tanakh.
We see the same thing followed out. And now we want to change what it means. We want to change the direction.
I'm going to jump in with another question, because you talked about the throne of God. I would really like to talk about Psalm 110, verse 1. The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make you a footstool.
These two have been probing for this for a while. Okay, so let's talk about that one. I love that text. Psalm 110 is quoted more often than any other verse from the Old. Very important, right? Do not go away without pondering.
Psalm 110. Jesus used that to silence all questions. 110. 110, verse 1. Jesus used that to silence all objections. Marvelous. Jesus has just discussed the Shema. Listen, Israel. The Lord our God is one Lord.
One Lord, I repeat. One Lord. One single Lord. Kirios, east. That's clear. Echad, one single. One Lord. Then he discusses, well, who is Jesus then? Certainly not that one Lord. He's now going to talk about two Lords in Psalm 110, verse 1.
I want you to be very careful looking at the Hebrew here. It says that Yahweh, 7 ,000 times the name of God. Adonai. The personal name of God. Yahweh, by oracle, speaks to Adonai. Adonai. I want you to look it up very carefully.
Go to the rabbi. If you can't read the Hebrew, read it. Because it's been misreported in some of your commentaries as being Adonai. Even in the margin, may I say, of the New American Standard updated version.
It's not Adonai. It's not Yahweh speaking to Adonai. That would be God talking to God. The universe would collapse. It's Yahweh speaking to Adonai. Check Adonai 195 times. It always is a non-deity title.
Yes, it's only a difference of pointing. But it's so important that Jesus used this psalm to settle all issues. God speaks to non-deity. There's one God and one Lord, Jesus, Messiah, the man Messiah Jesus.
That's exactly what Paul said in 1 Timothy 2 .5. One God, one exalted Adonai. That's what Sarah calls Abraham. Adonai. That's what Abigail calls David. Got it? That's the non-deity title. Adonai, Adonai, Adonai.
You know Adonai. It rhymes with El Shaddai, El Shaddai. You know it. Adonai. That's not the word there. It is not, not, not the word. Although you will find it misreported. Amazing. In many commentaries.
You cannot apparently read the Hebrew. Please check Psalm 101. Vow to yourself to check that out and resolve what it says.
James, you have a different reading of that.
Or the people translating the American Standard actually read the Hebrew as it appears in the Qumran scrolls that existed at that time. And we recognize that the vowel pointing came hundreds of years later.
I have here a section from the Isaiah scroll that has the word Adonai in it. Turn it this way. I want to see. You can see the Hebrew right here. Sorry. I'll show it this way too. There we go. There we go.
All right. Do I get a kickback from Apple for this? What is it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But this has no vowel pointing. This would have been the Hebrew of the day when the New Testament was written. The difference between Adonai and Adonai was added hundreds of years after the New Testament was written.
There is no distinction whatsoever. I can show it to you. I can show you where Adonai is. It's right there. You cannot tell the difference between Adonai and Adonai as the Hebrew was written at that time.
Now, Sir Anthony has said that this particular text should be the governing text for reading the entirety of the New Testament. You said that in your debate with Fred Sanders. The problem with that is there is nothing in the original text that differentiates between these two terms.
The Greek Septuagint does not differentiate between those two terms. When you and I dialogued on a radio program in London just a few months ago, you said the Septuagint differentiated between the two.
The reality is that the very same Greek language that translates Adonai is translates Adonai in Psalm 3523 and Psalm 162. And so both of those texts indicate there is no differentiation whatsoever. Therefore, when this comes into the New Testament from the Greek Septuagint, there is none of the distinction that you have so strongly emphasized, as far as I can tell, in every single text.
Just to make it clear, you're talking 250 B .C. when you talk about the Septuagint, roughly.
Septuagint, 250, 200 years before Christ. No differentiation found there. Nothing in the original that differentiates between the two. All you're telling me when you're telling me that the Mazarites pointed this differently is that 500 to 900 years after Jesus, they rejected the deity of Christ.
That's not a news flash. We know that at that time that they did.
Where did you get. 500 to 600 years later they rejected the deity of Christ? The Mazarites. All he's saying is that that reflects.
The Mazarites. That the pointing, as we can see right here, demonstrates that that was not a part of the text at the time.
Let me mention something on the Isaiah scroll. Now, you've mentioned several times Isaiah chapter 6, which, by the way, I believe is a vision. But not to go into that right now. But in the Kedushah, you have holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.
In that scroll, it only has two. Holy, holy. Now, this has been the basis for all I'm saying is I find the text questionable. There's errors that are in that text.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. No one argues. Are you arguing that there was a differentiation?
I'm just saying that I have a problem with this particular text. That's all I'm saying.
Using the Isaiah scroll. Let's just look at a couple other issues, though. Isaiah 6. Who did he see? Adonai, sitting on the throne. That's what it first says. Then he's identified as Yahweh. John 12 tells us that was Jesus that he saw.
So that's the first thing, that it was Jesus that he saw. And yet he uses Adonai there. The second thing is that the whole argument you're using, with all respect to what you're saying, even aside from what James has pointed out, the whole argument has no significance anyway.
If it's written by a court poet, okay, it is a court poet speaking about David. If it is written by David, as the New Testament affirms, it is David speaking about his master, the Messiah. That's the only point being made there.
He doesn't have to be arguing for deity there. Which you both agree about. He's simply referring to his master, the Messiah. And Jesus is saying, he's trying to explain the opposite point of what you're making.
That he can't only be the son of David. If he is a created being that is a physical descendant of David, then he's not greater than David. His whole point is that he's greater than David, which is why David calls him master.
He's greater because he's the preexistent one. But I must find out from Sir Anthony. Yes, of course. In the Septuagint, at Psalm 34 .23, there. Hatheasmu kai hakuriasmu. Does that sound familiar to you?
Of course. Where do we find that in the New Testament? You've got a couple of examples. I've got 449 occurrences of Adonai. Which always, in the Masoretic pointing. And I hear you saying.
This is after the New Testament.
Are you saying the Hebrew text is wrong here?
I'm saying the vowel pointing is a commentary. But you're saying it's wrong. I'm saying it's a commentary that reflects the viewpoints of the people who made it. And it's wrong. I just showed you the Isaiah scroll that does not contain it.
It is a later commentary. Wrong, right isn't the issue. Does it represent what would have been taught by Jesus at that time? That's what we should be concerned about.
Yes, and I'm very concerned with that. Because the argument in the New Testament is that Jesus is superior to the angels. If he's God, you don't need to say that. They argue in the Hebrews on the basis that Adonai is the word there.
Clearly. They're saying this is better than the angels. That's silly. If the word is Adonai.
If it were. Okay, we just moved to Hebrews 1, didn't we? We're just explicitly called God and the one who created everything in the beginning. But my point is, there is no differentiation in the Greek Septuagint, is there?
In? In the Greek Septuagint. There is no way of knowing whether it was Adonai or Adonai, is there? No, there absolutely is. You've got 449 examples of that. There absolutely is or absolutely isn't? There absolutely is.
How? How do you tell that? A couple of exceptions which for linguistic reasons occur. The two that you quoted. I've got 195 occurrences of Adonai distinguished from Adonai 449 times. That's what the rabbis have done.
Not in the Greek Septuagint. Yes, Kilios Mu. Look at Adonai. You won't find Adonai as Kilios Mu other than Kilios Mu. It's getting technical. You won't find Adonai other than Kilios Mu anyway.
In sum though, the whole point you're making proves nothing because David was simply speaking about the Messiah as his master. He didn't have to confess him as God everywhere.
Not every confession. Never did. Never imagined Messiah was an anointed one was God.
That's incredible. The fact is all the texts that we present, just to emphasize again, that pointed to pre-existence, not one has been shot down or even really touched. We haven't had time. At the same time we've had.
Well, we don't have time to continue with this question. We have to move on to the next one. In John 5, 19 -24, Jesus clearly differentiates himself from the Father, yet claims attributes that are only proper of deity, life, judgment, and honor.
In John 5, 30, the son says he can do nothing of himself, yet in verses 37 -39, he identifies himself as the one witnessed to by the scriptures who can give eternal life. Can any being do this other than Yahweh of the Tanakh?
That's the issue.
That's the exact issue. You want to do that one? Well, to begin with, it states that Hashem gave him that power. Yes. Okay? So, it's an automatic thing. He had the power that was given to him from above.
It's not something that he had of his own. The words that he spoke. These were the words that were given to him to speak. And the actions that he did. These were the actions that he was empowered to do.
In each one of these, over and over and over, he makes this statement, especially in John 6, John 7. I'm the sent one. I'm the sent one. I'm the sent one from heaven. To reject me is to reject the one sent from heaven.
The word there, of course, in Hebrew is the shaliach. He's the agent. He says over and over, that's who I am. Now, the agent isn't understood. As far as I know, at any point, we find the shaliach all through the Tanakh.
And one of your main places is the case of Moses in Exodus chapter 3, where he's the agent of the first redemption.
How would you say apostolos in Greek? I don't read much Greek. Excuse me. How would you say apostolos in Hebrew? Shaliach. Shaliach. Okay. So, your whole point about Jesus being this unique shaliach, the word for apostle in the New Testament.
Yes. Would be the quote shaliach. That's right. People don't worship the shaliach. People don't bow down to the shaliach and worship the shaliach lord.
You shouldn't worship Jesus either. Of course not. Here, here. Not with Latrevo.
Not with religious worship. We haven't done that. Daniel 7 they did. The servants of the son of man in Daniel 7 received the truth.
That's the term in Septuagint. And also the son of man, corporate. The saints, the same thing.
Same word. No, no. At the end of that chapter, the worship is to the individual at the end of Daniel 7. That's right. That's right. So, then you're saying that people worship a group that people worship.
Oh, okay. So, hang on. You quoted John 5. All right. That everyone should honor. Anthony did. Everyone should honor the son the way they honor the father. Of course. Do you honor the son exactly the way you honor the father?
Could you get down on your knees right now and as everything created does in the book of Revelation and say praise and honor and glory belong to you, oh God, and to you, Lord Jesus. Could you do that, Joe?
And do you do that? In that context, in that context, the way you stated it right there, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Do you do that?
Do I do that? Is that in your hymnology? Is that you spend time worshiping Yeshua in those? Well, you spend time praise, honor, glory. You pray to him the way Stephen did.
Let me ask you something. You pray to Leinu? No. I don't follow Jewish tradition. That's later. Although I respect it, I don't follow it. The Leinu has exactly that text. Now, whenever I go through that text, whenever I go through that prayer, what do I have in my mind?
I don't know. In my mind, I have exactly what we read in Philippians, okay, that every knee will bow to him.
All right. So how about if we just do this exercise here?
I see Yeshua as the Lord of Lords, as the King of Kings, that he has been put there. Okay. Now, don't make God a God.
Can we just say Lord of Lords? Can we do this together? I'm the master of masters. Can we worship him as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, and say to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb, can you join me in doing this now?
Be praise and honor and glory and power forever and ever to you, Lord Yeshua, and to you, O Father. You can join with me in doing that without compromise, without hesitation. Absolutely. I can do that.
I can do that. I can do that. But it is with my understanding that Hashem has elevated him to that position.
I will not give that glory to a human being. God forbid that I give that glory, that praise, that honor to a human being and, sirs, you should not do it. That is defiling. That is wrong in the sight of God.
That glory, worship, and honor only belongs to a divine being. When you worship God and the Lamb side by side as one, and when Revelation 22 tells us that his servants forever will serve him, the one God, God and the Lamb, that tells me that we don't want to mess with those truths, and you do not want to give that kind of glory and praise to a created fleshly being.
It is a serious error. But, Michael, you have not given us the word, talk about the word Latrevo. There is a word for religious worship in Greek, not the general word, proskuneo, is to worship. You can worship human beings in the Bible.
You can't. Proskuneo. We gave you Daniel 7.
We've done it. Daniel 7 explicitly says it. There is your answer. The saints are also worshiped. Same word. No, no, the best reading of that is recently demonstrated in a good article on it. The Aramaic is referring back to the hymn, namely the sun.
Otherwise, your whole point defeats itself that religious worship can be given to a group of people. Therefore, the word itself proves nothing. Or it shows that worship belongs to God and the sun is also God.
You haven't given us the word Latrevo, though. You haven't told me the word. We have. We've said it. We've said it repeatedly. Daniel 7. But since the question asks this, very, very quickly. We jumped away from John 5, unfortunately.
But please, make sure people understand. The interpretation I heard of John 5 is exactly what I hear from my Muslim friends. It misses the context. Jesus said to the Jews, my father is working until now and I am working.
What about those words caused the Jews such anger? Because they recognized Jesus was asking, was claiming the same prerogative that God himself has to keep the universe functioning on the Sabbath day itself.
And notice, this is why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own father, making himself equal with God. The interpretation given was, well, the Jews were all wrong and Jesus goes on to correct that.
That is not what John chapter 5 is about. John chapter 5 is a demonstration of the absolute unity of the father and the son. The son is not some separate renegade deity out there doing his own thing. And when he says the son does nothing, off health to, from himself, that does not mean that he is not deity.
What that means is, he has perfect unity with the father and he has been sent by the father to accomplish a specific task. And thank God, he accomplishes that perfectly.
Okay, you want to quickly respond? I have three questions and I want to ask. Stone, we're really running out of time.
And as God, I do what I'm told, he said. As God, according to your reading, I do what I'm told. What sort of a God is this?
Sir, think about what you just said. You are giving me the only other possibility is to have two gods that fight with each other, instead of a son who is doing exactly what glorifies the father and what he was sent to accomplish.
You don't even allow for the possibility of the reading that we ourselves have established from many other sources. And that he took on human form. He humbles himself so he is functioning in a certain way and is designated in a certain role here.
That's what Philippians 2 says. He stripped these things off. If he didn't previously exist, why did he have to strip off all these divine prerogatives?
But to both of you, I'm hearing a subordinate, as Trinitarians, I'm still hearing you say both a number of times that Yeshua is still subordinate to the father.
This is the eternal covenant of redemption. The father, the son, the spirit take different roles in redemption. It's not the father who became flesh. It's not the spirit who became flesh. Each takes the role that they take freely in the self-glorification of the Trinitarian majesty and the redemption of God's people.
So the son voluntarily, it's so beautiful to see this repeated over and over again. Who emptied himself? He emptied himself. He gives himself. These are all voluntary actions on the part of the son. He does these things voluntarily.
And so he has taken that role. That's a different role than the father. He subjects himself. That's why in John 14, 28, he says to the disciples, if you'd loved me, you would have rejoiced when I said I'm going to the father because the father is greater than I am.
He's walking the dusty roads of Galilee. He's constantly under the attack of the Jews who were trying to trip him up. And if they were thinking of something other than themselves, they would have rejoiced when Jesus says, I'm going back in the very presence of the father.
They would have rejoiced at that. And you see that as an argument that he's not in fact deity.
I don't accept the assumptions here. In Philippians 2, I want you to read Kuschel. I want you to read Olich. I want you to study German if you can. Read the scholars. We haven't got nearly a broad enough vision here.
We're hearing a rather limited vision. Read Philippians 2 in some of these modern scholars. Please do it. Kuschel, born before all time, question mark, the arguments about the deity of Jesus and his preexistence.
Fine book. Read it. We're assuming he's talking about God. I'm going to get this question in. Yeshua serves as the one mediator between man and God. Scriptures define that the mediator is a man. Wouldn't this disqualify Yeshua as the mediator if he is God himself?
Actually, it's the opposite. What God was, the word was, this is the word that becomes flesh. And he's fully man. So there's one God and one mediator between God and man, the man, Messiah, Jesus. In fact, that's why it explicitly has to call him the man, Messiah, Jesus, because he is not only man.
It speaks of him as a man in the second chapter, that God accredited him, the man, with signs, wonders, and miracles. In Acts 2 .36, God has made this Jesus whom he crucified, both Lord and Messiah. So he takes on a certain role and he lives out that particular role.
There's no argument there. But if he's merely a man, if he doesn't carry divine nature, if he's not the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form, he can't redeem us. Even if he's a perfect man, he does not have the power to redeem us, because God alone is the Savior and God alone is the Redeemer.
And that's a universal testimony. So God comes into our midst so as to save us in the person of the Son, thereby joining himself with humanity in Jesus. Respond to that.
How can he atone for our sins if he is not, in fact, God, rather than just atoning for his own sins? If he's just man, how can he atone for our sins?
As he sends forth his Son as an agent, he empowers him to represent him, to act for him. He becomes, according to the law of agency, the agent becomes the one that has sent him. And that's exactly the way it reads.
And you're substituting every place that it has that with...
I'm not substituting. Look, I know the saying, you know, that the Adon is like the Shaliyach, I mean, the well-known Talmudic saying. No one's arguing that. But your application of it is 100 contrary to the way it's used.
For example, if I send you as my representative to collect a debt, then you carry my authority, just like an ambassador. All right? However, like I said earlier, you cannot come and be the grandfather of my grandchildren or the father of my children or the husband of my wife because you are not me.
And nor are you identified as me. You are simply representing me. So everyone understands what the text means. But when you have the worship to God and the Lamb, all praise, honor, and glory, when you have every tongue bowing down and calling him Lord, and the text explicitly speaks of Yahweh, when you have it said explicitly that he is the one that was seen, Yahweh was seen, it was Jesus, that's not the agent, Joe.
I mean, you can keep throwing it out and quoting it ad infinitum. I know what the concept means, but it utterly falls short of what's said about Jesus in the New Testament, that he's called Elohim in Psalm 45, that he's called El Yebor in Isaiah 9 -6, and in these various other passages.
I mean, it's straightforward. Let's come back to he tabernacles, he pitches his tent. God dwells in the midst of a fleshly body. Not the agent dwells, but God dwells in a fleshly body. The New Testament makes it, as plainly as it can be said, it's said.
Question for you, throughout the Tanakh we read of the angel of the Lord, and performing all types of various things, giving all types of messages, appearing to different individuals and so forth. Are you saying that each of these, each time, that this is going to be Yeshua in a pre-existence?
I haven't cited one of those.
I'm not asking. It's possible and uncertain, because angel, malach in Hebrew, angolos in Greek, can just mean messenger. So it's possible in certain cases, it's a theophany, it's a real divine appearance, but I have no problem with being an angel, because when I get to the end of Revelation 22, when John goes to worship the angel, no, no, no, don't worship me, only worship God.
And yet we see worship offered to Jesus in this very same way. So you can bow down and worship him in a way that you can't worship an angel.
So which of the theophanies are the Son of God speaking, where Hebrews says that he did not speak in the Son, please listen to this one, God did not, not, not speak in the Son in the Old Testament period.
He spoke in various ways. In these last days, in New Testament times, he speaks in the Son. That would surely suggest he was not speaking in his Son. I'll tell you why, because the Son didn't come into existence until Matthew and Luke prepared it.
I think that's a very exaggerated reading of Hebrews chapter 1, which is simply telling us that the revelation that has come in the Son is superior to that which came before. The idea that that means the Son did not exist, I don't think would have even crossed the minds of anybody who read Hebrews chapter 1.
Hebrews 1 explicitly refutes it as it goes on. Since it says he created all things by him, yes, not for him, but by him. It says he spoke through the prophets, well, he spoke through angels too, okay?
But he doesn't say that. He spoke through the prophets many times in various ways. But now the primary way he's speaking is not through the prophets, but through the Son. That's all it's saying. And then he explicitly identifies the Son as pre-existent, from the beginning, God,.
Gentlemen, I'm getting the wind down from my floor manager. That is the conclusion of part two. I want to thank you all for a very spirited debate, and I think we should give another hand. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.