In this article I will refute the questions posted by Christian Apologetics & Research Center that
they feel proves that Jesus was diety. In this article I will be using the name Yahshua instead of Jesus. My response comes
second in blue to the questions posted.
1. Why Thomas calles Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas
addresses Jesus specifically)
1. Option A: Thomas recognizes Yahshua as being his supreme and addresses him as my Kurios
(Master) which is used to denote many humans in superior positions. He also addresseshim as my Theos (G-d) or "Elohim" in
Hebrew. The righteous in Yisrael were also called "Elohim" or "Theos" in Greek.
Satan is called "Theos" in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the judges of Yisrael were called Elohim
or "Theos" in the Greek in the Old Testament.
Even Yahshua uses this fact to debunk the claim of the Jews that
he was claiming to be G-d:
Option B: Just as when something shocking and surprising draws
the response of "Oh my G-d" so the response from realizing that someone has resurrected from the dead drew the response "My
Master and My G-d" which does not necessarily mean that Thomas was directing that title to Yahshua.
Option C: He was speaking to the Father concerning what he was witnessing.
Note: Everyone must be careful to study how a word was used in
it's original cultuer compared to English. In modern English we use the term "God" to only refer to a supreme being. However,
in the Hebrew the equivalent term "Elohim" was not used in a similar way.
The term Elohim was used in a much broader sense than the word
"God" is used today. In Hebrew the term could be ascribed to the Supreme Being, judges, angels, represenatives of God, and
false gods as proven in the Scriptures themselves. One should do a word usage study of the word "Elohim" in Scriptures rather
than regurgitate the same reasoning fed them by their leaders to see the truth of the matter.
Lastly, one should take note that this is a one time thing where
the phrase My Kurios (Lord) and My Theos (God) could even be mistaken for attributing Meshiach as being God. There are
no other scriptures that even has anyone making such a statement.
2. Why does G-d call Jesus G-d in Heb 1:8?
2. Heb. 1:8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O G-d (theos), is for ever and ever; And the sceptre
of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. You hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore G-d, thy G-d,
hath anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.
Again one MUST come to the realization that just as the word "Elohim"
does not solely pertain to the Father nor does "Theos" in the Brit Chadesha (NT) refer to just the Father. Notice that in
verse 9 we have a clear distinction in rank. The Father (Yahweh Elohim Adonaay) is the Elohim OVER the Meshiach (Yahshua Elohim
Adonay as he [Yahshua] is over everything but he is not G-d).
This is comparable to the situation between Pharoah and Joseph
(who was in a sense Pharoah over everyone but not equal to Pharoah nor the true and only Pharoah) and comparable to the difference
between the President and Secretary of Defense who are both Generals of Generals.
In the military you have a NCOIC (Non-Commisioned Officer In Charge)
of a section. The NCO over that particular NCOIC is also the NCOIC of the section and so on. So you have E-6 Tech. Sgt. Allen
over a section in a wharehouse (the section that receives the property). Now you have E-7 Master Sergent Bryant who is over
that NCOIC and all others for each section. He is very much so also the NCOIC over the receiving section but in a greater
sense. It goes on and on.
You could have a Chief Shephard over so many shephards. Now if
that Chief Shephard says he has someone that is Chief Shephard over him, does that not mean that the two are not equal? Yahshua
plainly states in many places that the Father is above him. Yahshua said the Father alone was the one and true Elohim. This
is an area of mass confusion for many that cross up titles and come to the conclusion that they must be equal in rank. If
this was the case then Moses, the Judges of Yisrael, and Satan would have to be considered equal to the Father because they
were all called G-d as well. They are g-ds in that they were the supreme rank over whatever it was they were made g-ds over.
However they are nowhere equal to the true g-d.
One should read the story of Yosef (Joseph) and Moshe (Moses) more
closely to understand how rank works in the Scriptures.
3. Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which
was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14).
3. The response to this is far too lengthy
to deal with here so I'll post links to other sites that deal with this quite well. Please check out the sites linked to in
the SHEMA web ring and my own article on this.
4. Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew,
YHWH, i.e Psalms 116:4) used only of G-d on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the
LORD (greek, KURIOS)" applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not G-d in the flesh?
4. This is a strange question and has nothing to do with proving
Yahshuas diety. This question is asked and would throw unlearned people for a loop who don't bother studying for themselves.
Heres the problem, in the Hebrew the word Lord is translated "Adonaay" and Adoniy" or "Adonai" and "Adoni". The term Adonaay
or Adonai is translated "Lord" and is only used of God never men. However Adoniy or Adoni is also translated "Lord" though
it is used of angels, masters, and even Yahshua. Unfortunately translators failed to copy Yahweh over into our English bibles
and simply translated it as "Lord" as well.
Ps. 110:1 does the greatest damage to any idea of Yahshua being
God. This is how it is written with the Hebrew inserted: The Lord [Yahweh] said unto my Lord [Adoniy], Sit thou at my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Surely if Yahshua was God then the title given him would have been Adonaay
or Adonai and not Adoniy which deals with humans or angels. This would have been a clear passage of Scripture in which to
show Yahshua's diety.
Now we will look at Ps. 116:4 Then called I upon the name of the
Lord [Yahweh]: O Lord [Yahweh], I beseech thee, deliver my soul. In the original manuscripts it was Yahweh used which todays
bibles have either "Lord" or "Jehovah". This passage of Scripture has nothing to do with the Messiah at all and cannot be
proven as such by the web site that created these questions. The usage of the word Kurios for the Messiah also is no proof
of him being God because it is used to define masters, rulers, lords, etc. The word itself has nothing to do with solely referring
to a diety. I suggest one do a word study with the above Hebrew and Greek words as well to see pass the bias of these questions.
5. Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was, "...calling God
His own Father, making Himself equal to God (John 5:18)
5. Again rushing to a biased conclusion is what clouds the mind of people in concerning this doctrine. Number one,
we too call the God our Father but nobody would conclude that we are then making ourselves equal to God. Number two, notice
that it is not Yahshua that suggest he is equal to God (if one thought about this, there is not one verse in the scriptures
where Yahshua clearly states being God) but his enemies. The enemies of Messiah falsely accused Yahshua of many things and
twisted his words around throughout the gospels. Number three, in John 10:33-36 Yahshua backs away from any charge that he
was making himself God and even points out that he is but the Son of God [NOTE that is not God the Son].
6. What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus
was making himself out to be God?
6. He said nothing about being God.
7. How was it possible for Jesus to know all things [John 21:17]
7. Once again we have a biased rush to conclusion without thought
for the context, what is being said, and the overall witness of scripture. First, it is PETER that states that Yahshua knows
all things not Yahshua himself. Two, the word "all" does not necessarily mean a totality of everything but is based on the
context. If I said "I ate all the ice cream" that would not be taken as meaning I had eaten all the ice cream in existence,
one would have to pay attention to the context of my speech. Three, in Matt. 24:36 Yahshua states that he did not know the
hour of his own coming but only the Father.
Obviously this is not a contradiction to what was stated in John
21:17. The problem is a misunderstanding [in rushing to a biased conclusion] of a text. Yahshua also stated that he could
do NOTHING of himself but all things he did through the Father. All the things he did know were given him to know of the Father
through His spirit.
8. How can Jesus know all men [John 16:30]?
8. This is basically answered in my above response.
9. How can Jesus be everywhere [Matt. 28:20]
9. The verse in question has nothing to do with stating that Yahshua is everywhere as in omnipresent. Yahshua said
he is with us always, obviously this statement does not conclude on omnipresence and neither does it prove a Trinity. We all
can agree that Yahshua is not with us physically in every locality, he is with us just as a captain would be with his troops
in a war. How is this so, Yahshua receives our prayers in the heavenly courts and can respond through our ministiring spirits
[angels]. Nowhere in scripture do we see Yahshua demonstrating omnipresence. Even if it is omnipresence he is capable
of doing NOW, it would have been given him of the Father.
10. How can Jesus, the Christ dwell in you [Col 1:27]?
10. Does a husbands statement "you'll always be in my heart" to his wife or a friends statement "Im with you" to
a friend have to necessarily mean that the person will be physically with the other? The verse reads: "..Messiah in you, the
hope of glory" this has nothing to do with trying to state that Messiah is praticing omnipresence by "dwelling" with us.
11. How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of
God [Heb 1:3]?
11. John 3:34-35 For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God:
for he gives not the Spirit by measure. The Father lovea the Son, and has given all things into his hand. Note first that
these things were GIVEN to Yahshua, he did not posses them of himself as he even states in various verses.
If I were to give you all of my mentality, mind set, way of thinking,
character, attitude, etc. [spirit, pneuma, ruwach] you would be an exact representation of my nature, character, attitude,
mind set, etc. We are able to reflect Yahshua and the Father through the spirit as well. Yahshua was given the spirit of God
without measure so he was capable of being an perfect IMAGE/REFLECTION. An image IS NOT the thing it's portraying just as
an mirror reflection, image stamped coin, drawing, picture IS NOT the image it is reflecting/portraying. Yahshua was the image
of God not God himself just as Adam was an image [perfect] of God before the fall.
12. How can Jesus be eternal [Micah 5:1-2]?
12. Wow, you talk about strecthing it, how come other variations
are not given so the reader can make his or her own decision? Could it be that this person did not care to try and see if
their were any other ways of seeing this verse? The word "owlam" [eternal] can be translated as: ancient, eternal, of old,
lasting, long perpetual.
This particular verse is talking about his family descent "mowtsa'ah"
[translated going forth] If you think about it Yahshua's descent is from old, ancient, eternal in that he was the son of David
who was the son of Adam who was the son of God who HIMSELF is eternal.
13. How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life [John 10:27-28]?
13. As already stated Yahshua said he could do nothing of himself
and that the FATHER had given him everything. Let's look at John 17:1-2 ". These Yahshua spoke; and lifting up his eyes to
heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that the son may glorify you: even as you [the Father] gave
him [Yahshua] authority over all flesh, that to all whom you have given him, he should give eternal life. If the Father
gives someone the ability to do something then more than likely that individual
would be able to do it.
14. How can He be our only Lord and Master [Jude 4]
14. This question makes no sense and I will not bother to answer it.
15. How can Jesus be called the Mighty God [Isaiah 9:6] if there
is only one God in existence?
15. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty [el: great, mighty, power, strong] God [gibbowr: warrior, tyrant champion,
chief, giant, man, mighty man, one, strong man, valiant man] Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. The above verse is translated
in many various ways but "Mighty God" seems to be a mistaken one at best from translators.
16. How can Jesus be called Mighty God [Isaiah 9:6] and "God" also
be called Mighty God in [Isaiah 10:21]
16. We've already look at the mistaken conclusion of the first part which basically renders this question baseless.
The word gibbowr has variations to the way it can be translated as seen in Gen. 6:4, Gen. 10:8, Josh. 1:14, Josh. 6:2, Josh.
8:3, and on and on that are dealing with mighty men, warriors, etc. This verse would be hard pressed in proof that Yahshua
is being called God in Isaiah 9:6 seeing how it could have been rendered in various ways.
17. How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead [John 2:19-21]
17. It must be repeated that Yahshua himself already stated that
he could do NOTHING of himself so though the verse reads so it is obvious it was truly the Father who raised him up as stated
in John 5:21, Acts 2:24, Acts 2:32, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:10, Acts 5:30, Acts 10:40, Acts 13, Acts 17:31, Acts 26:8, Rom. 4:24,
Rom. 6:4, etc.
Special Note: Now I don't know if this was simply ignorance on
the part of the questioner or just a blatant/willful rejection of these scriptures as showing that obviously it was the FATHER
who raised Yahshua up. Moses was told that he would split the Red Sea, it is quite okay for us to say Moses split the Red
Sea BUT we do know and agree that GOD was the one who truly split the Red Sea. HE was the source of Moses ability for him
to be able to do such a feat. Yahshua can indeed state that he will raise himself from the dead but it was the Father as the
source of such a feat as stated far too many times.
18. How can Jesus create all things [Col. 1:16-17] yet is God who
created all things by Himself [Isaiah 10:21]?
18. Col. 1:16-17 for in [en:en a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality
(medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between GSN1519 and GSN1537); "in," at, (up-)on, by, etc.:
about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-)by (+ all means), for (...sake of),
+ give self wholly to, (here-)in(-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-)on, [open-]ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly,
X shortly, [speedi-]ly, X that, X there(-in, -on), through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), under, when, where(-with), while, with(-in).
Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction,
except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) preposition.] him were all things created,
in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers; all things have been created through [dia: a primary preposition denoting the channel of
an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional): after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of
(that), briefly, by, for (cause)...fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X
though, through(-out), to, wherefore, with(-in). In composition it retains the same general import] him,
and to him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
Okay, one we must remember that there are no scriptures that speak
about Yahshua being God or any statements from him claiming to be God. Two, as you can see the possiblilities are endless
concerning how to translate those two words which dramatically alter the meaning of the verse. Three, one should study the
law of agency
[a
Jewish understanding of people who were used of God and how these represenatives were spoken of] Four,
if one would study the history of the debate between Trinitarianism and Strict Monotheism you can see that Trinitarianism
had the upper hand politically, socially, etc. to translate words biasedly. Again such a questionable verse should not be
used to think that the scriptures support Trinity. This verse is intended to support the preexistence of Yahshua and how he
played a part in creation though there is no support of such in the Tanach [OT] or even in the NT.
19. How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people [Rev.
2:23]
19. It should be obvious by now how this is possible. A person can be given knowledge of something [visions, dreams,
prophecy, etc] by the spirit that he or she could not have possibly known of themselves. A study on the spirit of God not
being the third person in a Trinity will require another study at another time.
20. Why was Jesus worshipped?
20. Many men were worshipped throughout scripture. Biased translators took the same word they translated "worship"
when it came down to God but changed it to something else when it came to men though the same word is in the original thus
showing that men [kings, rulers] can indeed be worshipped. That being so, surely the Messiah "King of Kings" can be worshipped
in the sense of paying homage, reverence, bowing before him, etc.
21. In the OT God was seen [Ex. 6:2-3, Ex. 24:9-11, Num. 12:6-9,
Acts 7:2,] yet no man can see God [Ex. 33:20, John 1:18] It was not the Father that was seen in the OT [John 6:46] who, then
were they seeing? See John 8:58
21. This is a difficult subject and many opinions are available.
Some feel that God was the one that appeared in these passages of scriptures but not in HIS normal state. Some would say that
he appeared but only a part of HIM and HIS glory. Others would say that it was only the Angel of the Lord. Regardless of which
is correct we see NOTHING here that states that it was Yahshua. Neither Yahshua, the Apostles, nor any verse in scripture
says anything about Yahshua being on the scene in the Tanach or being the one to appear in these particular
verses. There are only handful of verses misinterpreted that appear to say he preexisted which we already dwelt with.
22. Then why did Jesus claim the divine name, "I AM" for Himself
in [John 8:58]?
22. There is far too much information out there to counter this claim. I suggest one check out the SHEMA web ring
sites for another perspective on this issue. In the books I recommend one reads "One God & One Lord" and "Trinity Christianity's
Self Inflicted Wound" they present valuable information in countering this Trinitarian claim. In John 8:28, John 9:9, John
13:19, and John 18:5 all use the phrase "ego eimi" translated as "I am he" and sometimes translated as "I am" in scriptures.
Please read the article "I AM"
23. Then why did Jesus say you must honor him even as you honor
the Father [John 5;1]
23. This is such a stretch to prove a hard to prove doctrine. Is the honor Yahshua is speaking about the exact
same as the honor the Father is given him? He stated that we must honor him just like we honor the Father. Is he speaking
about same as in type or same as in the action itself [not necessarily similar]? We see in Revelation that the Father and
the Son are given different worship and praise. It is only the Father who is worshipped as God! Yahshua is only worshipped
as being the Lamb of God and the one who opened the doors for salvation.
24. Then why is it that both the Father and the Son give life [John
5:21]?
24. This has already been refuted earlier with the scripture that states that the Father GAVE Yahshua the ability
to give life [John 17:1-2]
25. Then why did Jesus bear witness of himself [John 8:18, 14:6]?
25. Is there anything about him bearing witness to himself that
equals being God? Is there a law somewhere that states that in doing so makes one God? Here again as with numerous times is
another example of harsh Trinitarian stretch to prove a doctrine through force. Forcing biased rules, laws, and logic into
a scripture is the wrong way of going about interpreting scripture.
In conclusion it seems Trinitarians are hard pressed to find any
scriptures or statements from Yahshua himself in which he is clearly calling himself God. There are no scriptures creating
such a doctrinal statement. All we have is supposed proof text, misunderstanding in what was stated, or questionable translations
of single verses. In all this, Trinitarians are still very vehement in their demand that people accept such a mysterious and
unproven doctrine.
Why is it that Trinitarians question our salvation and accuse us
of all manner of evils over rejecting what they cannot prove. Why is it that people hold on with such a death grip to that
which is not clearly stated in scriptures? The above shows the intensity of biased intepretation of single verses, there's
not even a context that Trinitarians can conjure up as supporting the Trinity, only single verses. Does not that make you
wonder from where did this doctrine originate? It does not have the support of scriptures as much as people would like to
have us think.
There is more push behind it from preachers, organizations, etc
than there is for it in scriptures itself. A demand is put on people to believe on this at the risk of their salvation being
in danger though the scriptures NOWHERE demands such. Scriptures instructs us to believe on Yahshua as the Messiah and as
the son of God, not a Trinity that is mysteriously there for us to grasp without understanding.
