Is Jesus God or a god? (White vs Stafford)

Debate Introduction and the Case for Biblical Monotheism

Well, good evening. How are you? It's great to have you here. And thank you, Dr. White.

Former soundman.

Yes. Current. If you're here, that means that you probably care something about the truth. And regardless of your background or what beliefs that you hold to, you believe that there is a demarcation dividing line between what is true and what is false.

Now, today we hear a lot about tolerance. We hear a lot about how we need to be tolerant of each other. And I believe in that. But I believe we need to practice negative tolerance. And that means that we can say, yes, I disagree with you.

But I am still willing to listen to your opinion and to what you have as far as facts to back up your opinion. And we can disagree on those facts. And the best way that we can really achieve finding the truth is to have scholarly, intense debate.

Do you agree? And that's why we're here tonight. And this is our third debate here. Actually, excuse me, our fourth debate here in Tampa Bay. If you've been to our debate with Dr. White and Robert St. Genes, or with either one of his debates with Dr. John Sanders, you know that what you're about ready to hear, and especially with the presence of Greg Stafford, is going to be a challenge of understanding and discerning what is true and what is false based upon the foundation of Scripture.

Well, let me introduce our speakers. First, to my right, Greg Stafford is a third-generation Jehovah's Witness, author of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, An Answer to the Scholars and Critics, and three dissertations on the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses.

He is a well-known debater and speaker on topics relating to Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society. Would you please welcome Greg Stafford. And on my left, your right, he is the author of several acclaimed books, including The God Who Justifies, The Potter's Freedom, The King James Only Controversy.

He is an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and director of Alpha Omega Ministries and a seminary professor. He and his family live in Phoenix. Would you please welcome Dr. James White. And our moderator this evening is the founder and CEO of the nationwide financial services organization, Equity Leadership Group, whose headquarters are in Tampa, Florida.

Would you please welcome Mark Graham, Sr. Just a couple of things to the folks that are coming in. If we could please use, for the rest of the evening, the entrances and exits in the back of the hallway.

Let's not try to utilize any here that are on the sides, as it will cut off the camera angles and so forth. You'll be famous forever if you do that, but let's try to use the ones that are in the back.

Also, we will also have a break in the middle of our debate tonight, where I also will share some things with the cruisers that are joining us tomorrow. And with that, would you please welcome Mark Graham.

Well, it's certainly a pleasure to be with you all tonight, and I want to thank you on behalf of the city of Tampa for coming to our fine town. And we really enjoy these kinds of events, and tonight I think we'll be enlightening on both sides, for sure.

And I am blessed to be part of the event. We have gone over the ground rules and the format at length prior to the meeting. Both Dr. White and Mr. Stafford are in agreement with the terms and the ground rules.

And if you know these two gentlemen or know their past, they are professionals, so I expect this to be a very orderly debate and an exciting one. So the only caveat we will have here tonight is toward the end of each section, I will at least give them a one-minute warning.

And that's not to be construed from the audience as some kind of a negative. That's just to let them know for a lack of clocks that we have on hand how much time is left. So the format is going to go like this, and we'd appreciate you to have patience with us and not disrupt the meeting as it goes along.

Each participant will have a 25-minute opening statement, starting with Dr. White. After those 25-minute statements, there will be a 20-minute rebuttal from both sides. At the end of that, we will have a 20-minute break.

Promptly after the 20 minutes, we will restart, and we will have two 20-minute cross-examinations in the same order. After that, we will have two 10-minute closing sessions from each of the gentlemen, and if time permitting, we will have questions from the floor.

So with that, I'm looking forward to starting the evening, as I'm sure you are, and we will start with Dr. White.

Dr. White's Opening Statement: Monotheism, Worship, Creation, and Yahweh

Well, good evening. I thank you all for being here this evening. I hope those of you in the front row received your complimentary sunglasses. OSHA has determined that sitting in the front row while I'm speaking under television lights is hazardous to your vision, and so I hope you will use those safety glasses during the debate this evening.

Our thesis this evening, Jesus Christ, God or a god? The issue is more basic than most think. We will not be arguing whether Jesus Christ is called Theos tonight. Both sides admit that fact. Mr. Stafford said in a debate only seven months ago, and so I would agree and affirm that Jesus is God both in terms of his authority and representation.

There is no question in my mind that Thomas looked at Jesus and affirmed, he said, my Lord and my God, I have no problem making the same declaration of Jesus if he stood before me now. Hence, this discussion will differ in many ways from the discussions you have at the door with your average Jehovah's Witness on a Saturday morning.

We will not be arguing about whether Jesus is given the name Jehovah or Yahweh as well. Both sides agree to that, though with differing emphases, again making our discussion different than that which you might have had on your front doorstep.

The issue tonight, I believe, is this. Are we monotheists who believe only one true God should be worshipped, should be acknowledged as our creator, and should be identified with the divine name? Or are we henotheists who believe there is one major God, Yahweh, but lesser divinities, angels and the like, who can in a sense receive forms of worship and obeisance, who can in a sense, in some sense, be called creators, and who can even be called Yahweh again in a representational, authoritarian sense?

If we are monotheists, then Jesus can only be God with a capital G, truly worthy of being called Theos, worshipped as God, acknowledged as our true creator, and identified as Yahweh, the one true God.

To believe Jesus is a God, a separate ontological God from the Father, is to deny fundamentally the truth of biblical monotheism. In fact, I wish to assert and prove this evening that to hold that Jesus is a God, small g, is to abandon not only the historic Christian faith, but it leads inevitably either to a denial of the inerrancy and coherence of the scriptures themselves, or it leaves us without any meaningful mechanism whereby we can avoid idolatry.

That is, if a creature, even a highly exalted creature, but still a creature, can be described as Jesus Christ is described in scripture, then there is no meaningful way to identify the one true God in opposition to highly exalted creatures.

No means exists to avoid the great sin of idolatry. I do not believe the Bible is self-contradictory, nor do I believe the Bible is so unclear as to leave us wondering about the nature of true worship and who our creator is.

Hence, are we biblical monotheists or are we henotheists who acknowledge the existence of ontologically distinct gods from the Father and that Jesus is one of these lesser divinities? So in the brief time I have, I shall first defend the concept of true biblical monotheism.

Then I shall establish three points that, in light of monotheism, establish the truth of the full deity of Jesus Christ. These truths are, first, Jesus is worshipped as only God can be worshipped. Secondly, Jesus is described as only the creator can be described.

And third, Jesus is Yahweh not only representationally, but ontologically. But I must needs make one more comment before entering into a defense of biblical monotheism and the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I stand before you this evening somewhat of a fossil in a modern age, a throwback in the realms of theology. I unashamedly, knowingly, and firmly confess my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. I believe with the apostles that the scriptures are God breathed, that holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I believe with my Lord that the scriptures cannot be broken, and that to read the scriptures is to hear God speaking to me. I say this for one simple reason. A consistent, pan-canonical approach to the Bible yields historic, orthodox teaching concerning the nature of God.

The vast majority of those who today teach the Bible presents differing views regarding God, the world, salvation, etc., do so from a position of denying the consistency and inerrancy of the inspired word.

Let us then consider the truth of biblical monotheism. There are few revelations more clearly enunciated in scripture than this one. Only in modern times, with the advent of destructive, unbelieving biblical criticism, has this question regarding the foundational truth been able to be entertained.

The number of passages teaching that there is only one true God, the creator of all things, unchanging and unchangeable, is far beyond our brief time this evening to consider fully. But allow me to make two important points in regard to this truth.

First, since scripture defines idolatry as such a horrible sin, then we must be able to distinguish between true and false gods on the basis of the divine truths that it gives us. We find in the great trial of the false gods in Isaiah 40 -48 just such information.

By revealing unique characteristics of the one true God, the false gods are exposed. And what do we read in this section in Isaiah 45, 5 -7? We read, I am Yahweh and there is no other. Besides me there is no God.

There is no one besides me. I am Yahweh and there is no other. The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity. I, Yahweh, am the one who does all these. Should someone attempt to limit the force of these words by saying that all God is doing is denying the true divinity of idols, not the true divinity or existence of other gods, such as angelic creatures, we simply point out that the phrase beside me there is no God makes no sense when read beside me there is no idol.

Of course there are idols. The point is that no idol can be considered a true God because there is only one true God, maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things, sovereign over all things. As we read in Isaiah 44 -24, thus says Yahweh your redeemer and the one who formed you from the womb, I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, spreading out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone.

God alone is the creator of all things, not just in the sense that he created all things by decreeing it to be so, but while using lesser deities in the process, but in a sense that excludes any others from a role in creation.

His glory cannot be divided amongst others, for creation is his glorious accomplishment alone. Indeed, Isaiah 43 -10 quotes God as saying, Before me there is no God formed, and there will be none after me.

These words summarize true biblical monotheism. God is not merely denying that idols are worthy of worship. He is excluding from the category of God in its fullest sense anyone other than himself. To find these words then on the lips of the Lord Jesus, spoken in reference to himself in John 13 -19, and in the same context with the revelation of the future in a prophetic manner, is significant indeed.

So important was this truth that God even gave to the captive people of Israel an apologetic response in the language of their captors to those who would invite them to engage in idolatry. We read in Jeremiah 10 -11,.

But Yahweh is the true God, he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. Thus you shall say to them, The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.

Listen most especially to the standard the true God gives his people. The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth are false gods. They will perish, pass away. The fact that God is the creator separates him from all pretenders.

Here where we read that Yahweh is the true God, the chief distinguishing characteristic listed is that he is the maker of all things. If we are going to call anyone a true God with a small g, we are going to have to explain why in light of passages like this.

So in light of this truth we might rephrase the question of the debate like this. Is the Lord of glory, the King of kings, the mighty God, the one worshipped by all angels and all creation in Hebrews 1 and Revelation 5, the uncreated creator, the true God, or a changeable, non-eternal creature, a small g God?

This is our debate this evening. But as time is fleeting, let us consider why in light of the truth of biblical monotheism we believe the Lord of glory, Jesus Christ, is rightly called God in the fullest sense, one that makes him worthy of our worship and our praise.

First, Jesus is worshipped as only God can be worshipped. Those who deny the full and proper deity of Christ are very quick to point out that the term worship, proskuneo, does not necessitate in its bare usage true and full religious worship and hence does not prove the full deity of Jesus Christ when he is the object of it.

Surely if that were the extent of the argument, this response would be correct. The term proskuneo most definitely can be used in non-religious context to refer to mere obeisance or honor. The question is, can it refer to full religious worship and is it used this way of the Lord Jesus?

The answer is very plainly, yes. We know that Peter refused to accept proskuneo in Acts 10. And we know the angel who showed John many wondrous things likewise refused it in Revelation 19 and Revelation 22.

The angel instead commanded John to proskuneo God, worship God. When Satan tempted the Lord Christ at the beginning of his ministry, he desired that the Lord bow down and proskuneo him, but Jesus refused and said we are to proskuneo God alone.

In each of these instances we see the term referring to true worship. To give this kind of worship to any creature, even a highly exalted angel, is wrong. It is the religious context, the intention of the heart, that makes this form of proskuneo different from the secular, non-religious usage.

Indeed, Mr. Stafford likewise has recognized this distinction for in his debate against Robert Bowman, he made reference to the uses of proskuneo found in the Old Testament, given to the kings of Israel, but then said, not of course the same worship that God himself has given in the religious sense.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is, Jesus Christ is not only worthy of such worship, but he is clearly seen to receive it in the Bible. As time is short, I will give only one example, but it is, I truly believe, beyond refutation.

In Revelation chapter 4, verses 9 through 11, we see a vision of the highest form of worship as it exists in heaven. God is seated upon the throne and the pure, holy inhabitants of heaven are involved in constant worship before that throne.

Mirroring in many ways the vision of Isaiah, we read,. And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne, to him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before him who sits on the throne and will worship him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Worthy are you, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you create all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.

Not only does John here use proskuneo in its highest and fullest form, but we read of the ascription of worthiness, glory, honor, and power, all terms commonly associated with true religious worship, which is to be given to God alone.

If this is not the kind of worship that is never, ever to be given to any created thing, then we have no possible way of defining true worship from the biblical texts. And yet, keeping this in mind, let us look quickly at Revelation chapter 5, beginning in verse 6,.

And I saw between the throne with the four living creatures and the elders a lamb standing as a slain. When he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the lamb, and they sang a new song, saying, Worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals, for you were slain and purchased for God with your blood, men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth. Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads and myriads and thousands and thousands, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them I heard saying, To him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.

And the four living creatures kept saying, Amen, and the elders fell down and worshiped. This is the continuation of the scene we saw in chapter four. The context is still heavenly worship. But now we see another object of this worship, the lamb who was slain.

The same complex of words, including worthiness, power, honor, glory and blessing, appear with their direct object being the worship and adoration of the lamb. He who sits on the throne and the lamb are the objects of the worship of every created thing, including the highly exalted heavenly beings.

I submit that not only here do we have worship that is utterly and completely inappropriate for any creature, no matter how exalted, but that if in fact Jesus Christ, the slain lamb, is indeed only an exalted creature, then it would have been his absolute duty to reject the worship of the created universe here given to him and instead to take his place as a creature in the adoration of God upon the throne.

But such is not what we see, for the lamb is indeed worthy of the worship of every creature. Hence, he is God, not a god. Secondly, Jesus is described as only the creator can be described. We have seen that God himself has informed us that his role as the creator of all things is central to how we, his people, are to distinguish him from all false gods.

He alone is the creator of all things and we exist solely because he has given us being. Now, there is no question that the Lord Jesus Christ was involved in creation, both sides would agree. How else can we read such words as these from Colossians chapter 1?

For by him all things are created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible. Whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through him and for him.

He is before all things and in him all things hold together. But some argue that Jesus is not the creator in the very sense that makes God, God. That is, it is argued that Jesus is a secondary creator, an instrument in God's hands, a master worker, yet himself a part of the creation.

How can such a position be maintained in light of Paul's words to the Colossians? It is argued that God is the active agent in creation, with the Son as the passive instrument, hence creation takes place through Christ.

But does such an argument stand up to scrutiny? Let's consider the doxology found in Romans chapter 11, verse 36, which says,. For from him and through him and to him are all things, to him be the glory forever.

Amen. And likewise, Hebrews 2 .10 says,. For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

There is no question the term God is here being used in both passages, in the highest absolute sense, and yet in both passages, all things, the same phrase used in Colossians 1, are said to be through him.

Does this mean there is yet another higher God above God himself who is using him as a mere instrument? Or is the whole argument based upon improperly assuming that instrumentality implies inferiority?

The Apostle Paul was a monotheist. Yes, he consistently recognized, as all Trinitarians do, the means by which the Father and the Son are differentiated from each other. He never taught, for example, the Father took on flesh to suffer for our sins.

In God's eternal decree, the Son voluntarily took that role. And so just as Paul viewed the Father as the one from whom the work of salvation issued, as from its source, and the Son as the one in whom it is accomplished, the Savior, and the Spirit as the one who applies the work to God's people, so too he differentiated between the Father and the Son in the work of creation in 1 Corinthians 8.

But it is completely arbitrary to assume that if we exist from and for the Father, that the Son is made a mere creature by our existing and living through him. These terms refer solely to the differing roles taken by the Father and the Son, not to an essential inferiority of the Son.

And so I return to the statement of Paul in Colossians 1, that all these things exist for the Son. Please, my friends, how could such ever be said of even the most exalted creature? These words describe the Creator, not a creature.

We will enforce this point as we briefly present our third demonstration of the full and true deity of the Lord Jesus. Thirdly, Jesus is Yahweh not only representationally, but ontologically. A number of times New Testament writers apply passages from the Old Testament to the Lord Jesus in such a fashion as to identify him as Yahweh, always, of course, carefully distinguishing him from the Father, as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

John teaches us plainly in John 12, 41, that when Isaiah saw Yahweh seated upon his throne, in Isaiah 6, 1 -2, that he was in fact seeing the glory of Christ. But most importantly for us, in Hebrews 1, 10 -12, a passage that can only be applied to Yahweh, a passage that refers to his eternality, his immutability, in contrast with the creation itself, is applied to Jesus.

Mr. Stafford has argued in his writings that this does not mean Jesus is Yahweh in the fullest sense, since earlier in Hebrews 1, a passage about a Jewish king has been applied to Jesus without making Jesus that Jewish king.

While this is true, it does not address the actual point. Kingship was not unique to any one Jewish king. There have been many kings, so applying a passage about kingship to Christ would refer only to the fact that he is the king of kings.

But the passage applied to Jesus from Psalm 102, 25 -27 is about Yahweh alone. That is, only Yahweh is eternal, only Yahweh is immutable, only Yahweh remains the same while all created things pass away.

Such words cannot be applied to any created being in inspired scripture. It is plainly the intention of the writer to the Hebrews to establish the utter and complete supremacy of Christ over all the created order, and he does so by not only saying all of God's angels are to worship Christ in chapter 1, verse 6, and calling the Son God in chapter 1, verse 8, but by applying a passage to the Lord Jesus that identifies him as the eternal and unchangeable creator, God, not a God.

This is further established when we consider another passage where Christ is identified as Yahweh, that being the tremendous Carmen Christi, Philippians 2, verses 5 -11. And by reference to this passage, in closing, we can likewise provide a response to one of the most common, though erroneous, forms of argumentation against the deity of Christ.

This passage teaches us that while the pre-incarnate Son possessed equality with God in eternity itself, existing not merely in a spiritual form, but in the form of God himself, he did not consider that equality, he had something to be grasped or held on to at all costs, but instead he made himself of no reputation.

The Greek term kanao that is used here is never used by Paul literally, but instead is always used metaphorically as the text itself indicates, for this emptying is done voluntarily, that is, it is something Christ does, and it is done by taking the form of a man and by being made in the likeness of men.

Some have argued that what the passage really means is that Jesus ceased being God or a God, but such involves a terrible misreading of the text. These are actions Jesus undertakes voluntarily, and they describe for us how the glorious one, seen in Isaiah 6, could walk amongst the sons of men as Jesus of Nazareth.

He took the form of a man and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. The grand truth of the incarnation, the mystery of how the Lord of glory could be crucified, will come up in our debate tonight many times, for the vast majority of arguments against the deity of Christ are derived from noting his own divinely free act of taking on human flesh, and note that it is because of his accomplishing his task as Redeemer, in dying that substitutionary death on behalf of God's people, that he is given the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee bows in heaven and on earth, and under the earth every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Paul knowingly and purposely pulls from Isaiah 45, 23, where Yahweh speaks of his own self-glorification and applies this to the exaltation of the risen Savior. Every knee bows to Christ, and yet all is to the glory of God the Father.

Is this Yahweh's glory being divided? No more than it was divided in John 17, 5, where the Son in his pre-incarnate state shared it with the Father. You see, when someone says, why is Jesus given the divine name, they are forgetting the incarnation and humility of Christ, and the glory that was his before that voluntary self-humiliation.

We will see how important this point is many times this evening. Though some might dismiss as bogus the great truth of the incarnate Son, the Lord of glory, the Word made flesh, it is a plain and biblical teaching.

Jesus truly became flesh, but that great act of condescension does not change the fact that before time itself he shared the very glory of God alongside the Father. He was the eternal Son, fully divine.

And so what are we to conclude this evening? The debate tonight addresses the most fundamental elements of the Christian faith. Are we monotheists who proclaim to the world one true and almighty God? Do we believe God when he asks us, who is like me?

Do we dare answer that obviously rhetorical question by saying, well, there are many like you, and in fact when it comes to worship, creatures can receive basically every kind of praise and adoration that you do.

And when it comes to who the creator is, there are creatures who can be said to be the ones through whom we were made and for whom we were made. In fact, the divine name itself can be given to creatures as well.

Surely this was not the intention of the rhetorical question, who is like me? The answer to that question is simple. There is none like him. So can we truly bear to have Jesus Christ, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, beginning and end, first and last, the Lord of glory, the creator of all things, the one to whom every knee bows and every tongue confesses, the one who says, Ego, I am me, and the soldiers fall back upon the ground, the word who was in the beginning and who was seen by Isaiah, seated upon the throne, receiving the adoration of the cherubim and the seraphim, can we truly bear to see him placed in the category of the finite, the limited, the created, so that we cannot join the created order in bowing and worshiping him in the fullness of heart as seen in Revelation chapter 5?

I say that we cannot, and the Bible prohibits our doing so. Thank you very much.

Stafford's Opening Statement: Jesus as a Second God and the Limits of Monotheism

It's my pleasure to be here tonight and speak with you on this subject. I'm very grateful to Dr. White and Alpha Omega Ministries, Michael Fallon in particular, for helping arrange this evening. The subject is obviously of critical importance to Christians and those interested in the study of Christianity and Judaism.

But why is it a question at all?

Why, after 2 ,000 years, do we still ask the question, Is Jesus God or a God? Why does anyone still even take the side of those who would suggest that he's anything other than God after a presentation such like Dr. White gave or after the many councils that have taken place over the years that have established traditions in Christendom that uphold that teaching, that Jesus is in fact God, Jehovah, part of a triune being.

The subject this evening, of course, is something that will help explore the reasons why that is still a subject of debate and why I deny that Jesus is in fact ontologically equal with the Father and is not in fact Jehovah God.

That may sound strange, and it may sit uncomfortably with some of you, and the reason for that is because the whole concept of monotheism, polytheism, carries with it a lot of baggage, a lot of negative thought and connotation that unless you're able to get past, you're really not going to be able to give a fair hearing to some of the subjects or texts that we discuss.

What might some of these texts be? Well, we've heard some discussion, and part of my opening statement does overlap with some of the things I'm going to bring up in my rebuttal, and that's not by design.

It's simply my intention to bring out to you in the beginning of my opening statement some reasons why I need you to try to give some thought as to why it might be possible that Jesus is a second God.

It's a foreign concept to many who don't accept that because I've talked to thousands of them over the past 15 years, but it's not that difficult to grasp when you look at the Scriptures in light of what I'm going to say this evening.

Let's talk, for example, about a specific scriptural text, and I'm going to quote a few Scriptures directly because sometimes when I quote them from memory or when others do so, we leave out certain points that are just essential in conveying the actual idea.

For example, in Isaiah 43, starting in verse 10, Jehovah says, You are my witnesses, is the utterance, even my servant whom I have chosen, nor that you may know and have faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same one.

This is the key point, and I'm going to get right to it because there's so much important information we need to cover that I'm going to try to just stick with that, which I want you to focus on directly.

But notice this point. Before me there was no God formed. After me there continued to be none. I am Jehovah, besides me there is no Savior. A couple points of interest here. When we read this text, we might come away with the idea that there's only one God because before God there was no other God formed, and after him there continued to be none.

But what's this idea of formation have to do with the point? If you read the context of scriptures like this, you will in fact find that they are very specific in addressing idols or particular gods of religious groups and nations surrounding Israel.

To think any other way is to deprive this text and others like it of its context. And if you don't read it in its context, you're going to be able to look at it in light of a variety of different views.

Not many of which might have anything to do with its historical intent. What else might you notice here? Besides me there is no Savior. Now that might just be something that you would think is simple to understand.

Only one Savior, God. And yet in the Hebrew scriptures we find various references to Israelites like Ehud and Benjamin who are called saviors. Exact same Hebrew word, Moshia, used here of Jehovah, used of them.

And yet there is no other Savior but Jehovah. So you start to see how the Bible speaks at times using negative phrases when in fact it's not trying to exclude all others from being considered or described the same way as the subject here.

But what we're talking about is a different type of application, a different degree of usage. It's something very common actually in ancient and modern literature. But the point here is that there are a lot of scriptures that do deny the existence of other gods.

And for me to get up and try to explain or defend my position as to why Jesus is a second God and ignore texts like these would be futile. So I'm going to get right to it and discuss these texts and explain to you why I consider all of these texts and not only will do so this evening but in my writings.

But the reason we have to make this point is because unless you see that these texts do not in and of themselves deny the possibility that a second God can exist alongside Jehovah, then there's no point in going any further.