Friday, April 21, 2017

Philippians 2:6 - Examining the Greek Word "Morphe"

Philippians 2:6
hos en morphee theou huparchwn ouch harpagmon
WHO IN FORM OF GOD EXISTING NOT SNATCHING
3739 1722 3444 2316 5224 5225 3756 0725
heegeesato to einai isa thew
HE CONSIDERED THE TO BE EQUAL (THINGS) TO GOD,
2233 3588 1511 2470 2316
Philippians 2:7
alla heauton ekenwsen morpheen doulou labwn en
BUT HIMSELF HE EMPTIED FORM OF SLAVE HAVING TAKEN, IN
0235 1438 2758 3444 1401 2983 1722
homoiwmati anthrwpwn genomenos
LIKENESS OF MEN HAVING BECOME;
3667 0444 1096
Westcott & Hort Interlinear
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/phi2.pdf

Philippians 2:6 - who, though he was in the form [morphee, external appearance*] of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. -- Revised Standard Version.

Philippians 2:7 - but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form [morpheen, external appearance*] of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. -- New King James Version

*==========================
Strong's Number: 3444

morfhv perhaps from the base of (3313) (through the idea of
adjustment of parts)
Transliterated Word Morphe
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mor-fay' Noun Feminine

Definition
the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision
external appearance

---Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Morphe".
"The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/morphe.html
==========================

This scripture is not saying, as many would like to read into it, that Jesus was his God before he came to the earth. Nor does it say that he was equal to his God, but rather that equality with his God was something that he was not grasping for. Nor was it that Jesus did not grasp for equality with his God because he already had that equality, for why should such a consideration even be mentioned if Jesus was God Almighty? For Paul's words to make any sense, he has to be understood as saying that Jesus was not equal to his God, and that he did not seek to grasp such equality (unlike the one spoken of in Isaiah 14:14).

Jesus was in the form [external appearance] of God before he came into the world of mankind, in that he had the glory of a heavenly body, a body in likeness of, a body similar to, the only true God who sent him into the world. (John 17:1,3,5; 1 Corinthians 15:40) But this does not mean that Jesus was his God.

Nor does this scripture say that Jesus *became* a slave of his God when he became a man, as some have read into the scripture, for Paul did not say that Jesus took on being a slave, but rather that he took on the *form* [external appearance] of a bond-slave. In what way was Jesus externally in appearance as a bond-slave? We can see by comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. Jesus did not actually become a slave as other men, in bondage to corruption (Romans 8:21); he was never in bondage to the corruption that is in the world. (2 Peter 1:4) He was, nevertheless, in the form [morpheen, external appearance] of such a bondage, since he suffered the consequences of sin, in the likeness of men (likeness of sinful flesh - Romans 8:3), so that he could redeem mankind from sin. Thus, externally, he appeared as though he were actually as other men, in bondage to the corruption and in slavery to sin, and he suffered and died as though as sinner, but this was only external appearance, for actually, he had no sin, nor was he ever a bond servant to sin. (Romans 6:16-20; Galatians 2:17) Thus we read, that "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." -- Hebrews 12:2, World English Bible translation.

The angels, of course, do indeed have the quality of mightiness, and that quality could be expressed by forms of the word "THEOS," corresponding to forms of the Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7,9; Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) However, since the word "morphee" is used in Philippians 2:6 in relation to "theou," then the word "theou" here is probably referring to the God and Father of Jesus, and not just to an attribute of mightiness.

Jesus, therefore, before he became a human being, was indeed in the external appearance/likeness of his God and Father, in a similar manner that he was, as a human, in the external appearance/likeness of sinful man, although Jesus was not a sinful man.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

John 17:3 - Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?


Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you.... This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” -- John 17:1,3


Unless otherwise stated, all scriptural quotations are from the World English Bible translation.
There are those who claim that John 17:1,3 does not really say what we claim, that is, that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus excludes himself from being that only true God. Indeed, some have even stated that we have twisted the scriptures in order to have it say what we want it to say: that only the Father is the only true God. In reality, it is the trinitarian (and some others) who have to distort what Jesus actually did say, and then add this and that, and read what has been added into, the verses, in order to make it appear that the Jesus was not denying that he is the only true God. Did Jesus really state that only the Father is the true God, thus excluding himself from being that only true God, but rather the one sent by that only true God?

ELOHIM AND EL

In our examination of this question, we remind the reader that the basic Hebrew word from which the English word “God” is transliterated is EL. Other forms of this word are often expressed as different words, but are actually simply inflections of the one word. These other Hebrew forms are built upon this basic word, and are also often translated as “God”, such as the forms often transliterated as ELOHIM and ELOAH. While technically ELOHIM is the plural of ELOAH, it appears that word was actually first used as the plural of EL, and then ELOAH was a form that developed from the use of ELOHIM. The basic meaning of the Hebrew word for "God" is “strength, power, might”, etc. (See Proverbs 3:17 and Micah 2:1, where the KJV translates EL as "in the power of ", and Psalm 82:1, where the KJV renders EL as "mighty"; see also Strong's Hebrew Dictionary for #410) ELOHIM as used of the Most High Jehovah, however, is used as what has been called the plural intensive, that is, it is used as a singular in an intensive, superior or superlative form.*
==========
*See our studies related to:
Elohim

The Hebrew forms EL and ELOHIM are not always used of Jehovah, the only true God. Remembering their basic meaning of “might, power or strength”, they are legitimately used of any to whom Jehovah has given special power or might. That the word EL is thus used may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save." (Isaiah 45:20) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Jehovah]." -- Psalm 50:1.

One should note the above usages carefully, and the application given by the King James translators; all will agree that the context in most of these scriptures indicate the meaning of the Hebrew word El to be that of "might", "power", etc. How clearly it is stated that Jehovah is the Supreme "El" and rules over all other ones called "el/elohim" - powerful ones. In the absolute sense, there is no other EL – Might -- besides Jehovah (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5,21), since he is the Might -- the source of all power, all mightiness, and there is no power or might in the universe that does not originate from him. Even the demons have their power or might from Jehovah, although they do misuse their power. It is this special quality of mightiness that determines the “nature” of what is EL. Thus idols, having no power of their own, are by nature not gods. -- Galatians 4:8

How about the Hebrew word ELOHIM; is its usage only legitimately used of the Most High, Jehovah? No. Exodus 4:16 relates that Moses was made as ELOHIM [a mighty one] to Aaron. (Exodus 4:16) In Exodus 7:1, however, we find that Jehovah made Moses ELOHIM [one of superior might] to Pharoah. Man is a little lower than the angels who are ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5 -- compare Hebrews 2:9). In Psalm 82:6,7 the “sons of God” -- while yet human -- are called ELOHIM – mighty ones. (See John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is also called ELOHIM. (1 Samuel 28:13) And there are other scriptures that are possibly referring to angels or human rulers as ELOHIM: Psalm 86:6-8; 95:3; 50:1; Psalm 82:6,7.

It should be noted that Jehovah is the one holy name applied to the Supreme Being - our Father, and him whom Jesus called Father and God. -- John 17:1,3: 20:17; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22.

What does all of the above have to do with John 17:1,3? Just this: The Father is the only true God [Might, Power] from which all might and power is derived. Jesus, being sent by this only true God, is not the only true God who sent him. Jesus -- like Moses in Exodus 7:1, the angels in Psalm 8:5, and the sons of God (Psalm 82:6,7) -- receives his power and authority from the only true Supreme Being. Psalm 82:6,7 is the scripture Jesus referred to in his defense as recorded in John 10:34,35, and he there uses the Greek form often transliterated as THEOI [a plural form of the Greek often transliterated as THEOS] – gods -- as a translation of the Hebrew ELOHIM. By this reference, Jesus shows that the narrow definition that the Jews were giving the expression “Son of God” does not mean equal to God, any more than the Hebraic usage of ELOHIM when applied to the “sons of God to whom the Word came” means that these “sons of God” are equal to God. But as used in the strict, absolute sense of Supreme Power, the Supreme Being, Jesus states very straightforwardly in John 17:1-3 that his God, his Father, is the only true God [Supreme Being, hence the source of all might, power -- 1 Corinthians 8:6], and then excludes himself as being sent by that only true God.

Our trinitarian neighbors, as well as some others, have redefined the “nature” of what the Biblical "deity" is, by claiming that it means that such must have all the attributes of the Almighty, including never having been created, as well as being the Supreme Being. They do this by a series of misapplications of scripture, and with some imaginative redefining of the basic meanings of words as given in scripture.

We have been presented with the following quote from David A. Reed:

If Jesus’ reference to the Father as “the only true God” were meant to exclude the Son from deity, then the same principle of interpretation would have to apply to Jude 4, where Jesus Christ is called “our only Owner and Lord” (nwt, italics added). This would have to exclude the Father from Lordship and Ownership. Yet, Witnesses speak of the Father as “the Lord Jehovah,” even though Jude 4 calls Jesus our “only” Lord. And the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” at 2 Corinthians 3:17. Obviously, then, neither use of the word only is exclusive with reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ being called our “only” Lord does not rule out the Lordship of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Father’s being called the “only” true God does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from deity. -- Reed, David A., Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) 1998, c1986.
Of course, we do not believe that John 17:3 excludes Jesus from deity, as that term would be defined by Hebraic usage of the Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM, but it does exclude him from being the ultimate Power Source -- Supreme Being, the Most High, the One who sent him -- not from the power as deity {EL, ELOHIM, THEOS} that is given to Jesus by Jehovah, his Father.

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. -- New American Standard Bible translation
Right away it should be plain that there is no contrast made in Jude 1:4, as in John 17:1,3. In John 17:1,3, we are directly told that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus was sent by this only true God. In Jude 1:4 there is no contrast being made, nor is there any need to think that “only” as used Jude 1:4 negates the fact that Jesus was sent by the only true God as shown in John 17:3. This should be easy to understand, except for our trinitarian and possibly our “oneness” neighbors, who insist that Jesus is the only true God.

As we have shown elsewhere, Jesus is the Lord of those who accept him; Jesus is the "only Lord"-- through whom is all -- that Jehovah has appointed over the church. (1 Corinthians 8:6) We notice that in Isaiah 61:1, it is "The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on" the Messiah, the anointed one. Notice that it is "Lord Jehovah" who does the anointing of Jesus, and thus it is "Lord Jehovah" who has made Jesus both Christ (anointed one) and lord. (Acts 2:36; 10:38) The fact that the Lord Jehovah has made Jesus the only Lord over the church does not do away with the Lordship of Jehovah. The expression “only Master and Lord” used in Jude 1:4 as the one appointed over the church does not mean that there is not another who is Supreme Lord and Master over all. Let us liken this to a certain division or department in a large company. For instance, a worker in a cabinet factory may refer to only one boss over the door finishing line. This does not mean that the boss over the door finishing line does not have another boss who is over him. -- Acts 2:36, Ephesians 1:17.

If Jesus had to be made 'lord' (Acts 2:36), then this indicates that at one time Jesus was not the 'lord', or 'master', which he became, even as he became also “Christ” by the anointing of the one who is God over him. (Psalm 2:2; 45:7 [See also Hebrews 1:9]; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 10:38) By being made “Lord” signifies that special powers or authority was given him. With this many scriptures agree that Jehovah, the only true God, has given to his Son special powers and authority. (Psalm 2:2,7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7 [See Luke 1:32]; 11:1-4; 42:1; 61:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; John 3:35; 5:21-30; 13:3; Acts 2:36; 17:31; Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1:,3;17-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,6,13; 1 Peter 3:22). The fact that these things are given to Jesus in itself shows that Jesus is not the Most High, else none of these would have to be “given” to him, for as being the Most High, he would already have these things. Of course, the One who made him "Lord" would be superior to him, and thus another Lord, a higher Lord. Thus when the scriptures say that all things have been given to him, it is evident that the Almighty One who has given him all these things is excluded. (1 Corinthians 15:27) It is with this in mind that Paul stated: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) Only Jehovah is Most High. Never is Jesus referred as the Most High.

Nor does Jesus as the only Lord and Master of the church negate the fact that individuals of the church may work as servants of an employer, who, in effect would be a “lord” and “master” over them as long as they are employed as such. Likewise, in the first century, some of the Christians were actually slaves that were owned by a master or lord. Neither Paul nor Peter exhorted slaves to be free from their master or lord so as to have only one “Lord”. (Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 3:22; 4:1; Ephesians 6:1; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:8) Thus we can see that Jesus as the “the only Lord” over the church is a specific office, an office given to Jesus by the only true God, his God, his Father, and yet there are still “many lords” that are properly so in other areas of life, while Jehovah is still Lord over all. -- Psalm 97:9; 135:5; John 10:29; 14:28.

Since Jesus was sent by the only true God to declare the only true God who had sent him (John 1:18), and since Jesus is the only way that we can know the only true God who sent him (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 14:6; 1 John 5:20), and thus be reconciled to the only true God (2 Corinthians 5:18), it is imperative that we come to know the one whom the only true God sent, else we cannot actually know God.

Below we present quotes from various ones (or from various websites) who have presented objections to using John 17:3 to show that Jesus is not Jehovah and our response to these objections. The quotes are preceded with a bullet.

  • If the same principle of hermeneutics is applied to 2 Corinthians 11:31 as anti-Trinitarians wish to apply at John 17:3, God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would necessarily be two different people, and the latter could not be God.
The distinction between John 17:3 and 2 Corinthians 11:31 should be apparent to all. The latter does not state that the Father is sent by the only true God, as we read of Jesus in John 17:3. Evidently the writer is emphasizing the Greek word “kai” meaning “and” and claiming that in John 17:3, the word “kai” is used as meaning inclusion, which it is, for both the only true God and the one sent by the only true God is included as objects of knowledge. We knowledge of both.
Nevertheless, our argument is not based simply on the usage of the word “kai” in John 17:3, but on the fact that Jesus is sent by the only true God, and is thus distinguishable from the only true God who sent him. While “kai” means in addition to what has just been spoken of, in the case of John 17:3, there are two who are being spoken of that one needs to know in order to live eternally. One needs to know the only true God, and one needs to know the one sent by that only true God. Jesus is only way by which we can be brought to God. (John 14:6; Acts 14:12; Ephesians 2:18; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:23; 2 John 1:9) Thus there are two who are included that we need to know in order to live eternally, the one being the only true God and the other being the one sent by the only true God.

  • The purpose of this statement [in John 17:3] was to deny polytheism, not to teach about Jesus' essential relationship to the Father. Note Jesus' statement in verse two about receiving "authority over all flesh." This all encompassing authority the Father could not give if He had rival gods (cp. 1Cor 8:4-6, and see comments on Matt 28:18).
However, the verse is discussing more than just denying polytheism. Jesus says that Father is the ONLY true God [Supreme Being], and he [Jesus] was sent by the ONLY true Supreme Being. And the Father is identified in the scriptures as Jehovah. -- Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Rom. 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22.
John 17:2 is referred to by a trinitarian, which states: “even as you gave him authority over all flesh, that to all whom you have given him, he will give eternal life.” According to the writer, this is supposed to prove that either Jesus is supposed would be a rival god or else that Jesus is the God who gave the authority to himself. In actuality this only proves that the only true God has given the authority to Jesus, whom he sent, nothing more, nothing less. Of course, the only true God was not authorizing Jesus to be a rival Supreme Being in the universe, nor do we know of anyone who teaches such. There is only one Supreme Power, and that is Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

  • The very juxtaposition here of JESUS CHRIST with THE FATHER is a proof, by implication, of our Lord's Godhead. The knowledge of GOD AND A CREATURE could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with the other would be inconceivable. (Henry Alford, quoted in Jamieson, p.1064; emphases in original; see Job 22:21; Isa 45:22; Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21, cp. Acts 4:12).
As best as we can determine, the author is stating something to effect that since God the Father and Jesus are mentioned together in John 17:1,3, this should be accepted as proof of the trinitarian idea of Godhead. Of course, there was and is a close relationship between the Father and his Son; this does not mean that they are the same being. As far as implying the godship of Jesus, John 17 certainly does imply such, for such power is given to Jesus by the only true source of all power. The God and Father of Jesus is the source of human life, and all human life is given through Jesus. And it is pure assumption that the knowledge of the Father and also of the Son as the firstborn creation of the Father could not mean eternal life.

  • Now you say that John 17:1,3 says that the Father is JHVH, but does it? It says that the Father isn't Jesus. It says that the Father is God. You still need to prove that "God" in John 17:3 is somehow different than "God" in John 20:28, or Titus 2:13, or anywhere else that "God" is used to refer to Jesus.
Jesus said more than just that the Father is God; Jesus plainly states that he was sent by his Father, the only true God, the only true Power. Jehovah, the God and Father is the only true Power because there is no power apart from him. Even the demons receive their power from Jehovah, although they misuse the power that they have. After stating that the Father is the only true God, Jesus then states that he was sent by this only true God, thus he is not this only true God who sent him.
Who is the only true God? Of course, the scriptures identify the true God as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets.This same God that spoke through the prophets also spoke through Jesus. (Exodus 3:15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1; Hebrews 1:1,2; Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Jehovah, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Jehovah -- the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus – who also sent Jesus, and who is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. -- Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.
See also our studies on Titus 2:13

  • You appear to be arguing that because the Father sent Jesus, Jesus can't be God. If that is the case, then wouldn't the same argument also mean that the Holy Spirit isn't God? John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. [KJV] That verse might be a bit "trinitarian" for you, what with the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus all in one verse. What do you think it means?
It is not simply our argument that since the Father sent Jesus, that Jesus can't be God, but rather that since “the only true God” sent Jesus, Jesus is not the only true God who sent him. It is the plain statement that the “only true God” sent Jesus, and thus Jesus is not the only true God who sent him. Nor do we believe that the holy spirit is God Almighty himself, but rather that it is the personal power of God that he sends to accomplish his purposes. It is our further belief that the Bible is completely harmonious without adding the imaginative story of three persons in one God.
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your memory all that I said to you. -- John 14:26
As for John 14:26, there is nothing there about three persons in one God, thus this verse has absolutely nothing at all “trinitarian”. It is nonsense to think that simply because all three might be mentioned together in some way that this is trinitarian. Of course, Jesus also mentions in context his followers, who are one with him and his God. (John 17:11,21,22) According to the reasoning given, we should conclude then the disciples are also God Almighty, since they are spoken of in the same verse with Jesus and his Father, and not only that -- they are to be one with Jesus and his Father, even as Jesus is one with the Father.
John 14:26 simply states that God will send the holy spirit as the comforter. This agrees with what Peter states in Acts 2:33: “Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this, which you now see and hear.” God gave the holy spirit to Jesus for a special purpose, that is to pour it forth upon his disciples. At present we haven't written much on the holy spirit, but one might read the following documents:
(Please note the the author of the above studies did not realize or understand that most proponents of the trinity do not claim to teach three gods in one god, or three persons in one person. This does not negate the rest of his arguments, however. Nevertheless, we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions of the above author.)

  • I've heard people say that in Greek, "and" means the same as "equal to". I wouldn't expect you to agree with this in the context of John 17:3, however, because you firmly believe that Jesus isn't God.
The Greek word that is translated “and” in John 17:3 is KAI. It means: and, also, even, indeed, but “and, also, even, indeed, but”. Some have argued that its usage as “even” means “equal to”, and that John 17:3 should be translated something like: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, even [Greek, kai] Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This kind of translation would in effect have Jesus as the only true God sending himself, which is nonsense. The Greek text however identifies kai directly with the one sent, with addition of identifying the one sent as Jesus, and distinguishing the one who did the sending as the "only true God". To see this, we present Jay Green's Interlinear: “And is everlasting life, that they may know You the only true God, and [Greek kai] whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
Some try to apply Granville Sharp's first for the usage of kai to this verse in order to make it appear that the only true God is the one sent by the only true God, which, of course, is also nonsense. Sharp's first rule is that when there is a article-noun-kai-noun construction, then one person is being referred to. Sharp's purpose is doing a study in order to formulate this rule was for the very purpose of trying to prove the trinity by such a rule. However, to do so he had to come up with a list of exceptions to the rule: a) neither noun is impersonal; b) neither noun is plural; c) neither noun is a proper noun. The argument is that there is a definite article before “only true God” but none before the pronoun hon (whom), thus supposedly according to Sharp's rules one person is being spoken of. Sharp never discussed pronouns in association with his rule, nor did he ever try to apply his rule to John 17:1,3. If such a rule would be applied applied to John 17:1,3, then this would mean that Jesus is one person with the Father whom he describes as the only true God, the supposed official trinity dogma denies. However, the context itself plainly is showing that the one sent is not the one who did the sending. There is no reason to believe that Jesus in his prayer was trying to say that he was the only true God who sent him.

  • It is correct to say that the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, or the Holy Spirit is the only true God. But it would be incorrect to say that the Father alone is the only true God, the Son alone is the only true God, or that the Holy Spirit alone is the only true God. Therefore, to say that the Father is the only true God no more disproves the Deity of Christ than saying that Jesus is the only true God disproves the Deity of the Father.
To someone who does not believe in the trinitarian doctrine, the above simply appears to be double-talk jargon. It assumes the trinity to be true, and thus filters John 17:3 to agree with the doctrine. It would be correct to say Father alone is the only true God, for that is in fact what Jesus was saying, for he disassociates himself from the only true God by stating that he was sent by the only true God.
Nevertheless, as we have stated many times, our effort is not to disprove the deity of Jesus, but rather to show that the deity of Jesus does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah or that Jesus is equal to the Almighty Jehovah.

  • John 17:3 is better understood including Christ's Divine Nature with the Father's in the term "God" and the phrase "and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," as a reference to His human nature--since that was the only nature that was "sent." (The Divine nature being omnipresent -- John 3:13.)
This assumes the trinitarian doctrine of two “natures” -- two different planes of being -- at the same time, and then seeks to thwart what Jesus plainly says by reading this doctrine into the verse. The "dual nature" docrine, that is, that Jesus possessed two planes of being at once, has to be imagined, assumed, and then, based on what has been imagined and assumed, such imagined assumptions have to be added to, and read into, the scriptures. There is no reason to add the story that Jesus existed in two planes of being at once.

  • "And" is not a contrasting word. Since other verses clearly show that the Son has all the incommunicable attributes of the nature of God.
As already stated, our argument is not based on the word “and”, which is used in John 17:3 as the common word “and”, denoting a copulative in that the word “know” includes knowingboth the one true God and his Son. The contrast comes from the fact that the Son is sent by the first personage being spoken of, that is, “the only true God.”
While many have attempted to show that Jesus has some alleged incommunicable attributes of Almighty God, in reality all we have seen is many scriptures presented where such a thought is “read into” the scriptures. As shown earlier, the “nature” of godship is mightiness. Only Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has this nature in the Supreme sense in that only he is the source of all might. There is no source of power or might that is not derived from him.
While some claim that we are twisting John 17:3, it is actually the trinitarians that have to twist John 17:3, to make it appear that Jesus is Jehovah who sent him, for Jesus, by stating that he was sent by the only true God, plainly disassociates himself from being the only true God who sent him. And, it is the trinitarian that has to assume, and based on those assumption, add to the scripture so as to make what Jesus said appear to be in harmony with the trinitarian assumptions.
See also:
Below we present links to sites that present opposing viewpoints as represented by the numbers that follow. Of course, we do not agree with the conclusions being presented on these sites, and this one study does not address all of the conclusions given. However, most of the arguments presented have been discussed somewhere on this site.
1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10




  • The Interlinear Bible Jay P. Green: The only complete interlinear Bible available in English--and it's keyed to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance! Thousands of pastors, students, and laypeople have found The Interlinear Bible to be a time-saving tool for researching the subtle nuances and layers of meaning within the original biblical languages. Featuring the complete Hebrew and Greek texts with a direct English rendering below each word, it also includes The Literal Translation of the Bible in the outside column. But what truly sets this resource apart are the Strong's numbers printed directly above the Hebrew and Greek words. Strong's numbers enable even those with no prior knowledge of Greek or Hebrew to easily access a wealth of language reference works keyed to Strong's--Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, analytical lexicons, concordances, word studies, and more. CLICK HERE for latest pricing. FREE shipping worldwide





Tuesday, April 18, 2017

2 Corinthians 5:19 - God in Christ

"But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through [Greek, dia, Strong's #1223] Jesus Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; namely, that God was in [Greek, en, Strong's #1722] Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation." -- 2 Corinthians 5:19, World English Bible translation
The thought many would like for us to see in this verse is that God was in Christ, and being in Christ this makes Christ God Almighty. This, of course, is not what the verse is saying. The Greek word *en* -- translated "in" -- has many variations of meaning, and by context we understand that this is saying that God by means of Christ was reconciling the world to himself.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1722
Yes, God was in Christ, by means of Christ, reconciling the world to himself. That is all that is says. The idea that this is saying that Jesus was God Almighty in a human form is a thought that has to be read into what Paul was saying.
The Greek word *en* -- translated "in" -- has many variations of meaning, including "through", "by" [often with the meaning as "by means of", "in" [still often with the meaning as an instrument being used], and it is by context we understand what this word is saying. God by means of Christ was reconciling the world to himself.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1722
Some translations make this plainer to see:
That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. -- 2 Corinthians 5:19, New Revised Standard Version
That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. -- Holman Christian Standard Bible translation
That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation --Revised Standard Version
Our message is that God was making all human beings his friends through Christ. God did not keep an account of their sins, and he has given us the message which tells how he makes them his friends. -- The Good News Bible in Today's English Version
hws hoti theos een en christw kosmon katallasswn
AS THAT GOD WAS IN CHRIST WORLD RECONCILING
5613_5 3754 2316 1511_3 1722 5547 2889 2644
heautw mee logizomenos autois ta paraptwmata
TO HIMSELF, NOT RECKONING TO THEM THE FALLS BESIDE
1438 3361 3049 0846_93 3588 3900
autwn kai themenos en heemin ton logon tees
OF THEM, AND HAVING PUT IN US THE WORD OF THE
0846_92 2532 5087 1722 1473_9 3588 3056 3588
katallagees
RECONCILIATION.
2643
Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as obtained from the Bible Students Library DVD
In other words, God was using Christ as the instrument to restore his relationship with humanity. This agrees with the similar expressions in Romans 3:24: "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in [by means of] Christ Jesus." Romans 6:11: Thus also consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in [by means of] Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:11: "Thus also consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in [by means of] Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in [by means of] Christ Jesus our Lord."
Nevertheless, the idea that God is in Christ is also expressed elsewhere in the scriptures. Jesus says: "But if I do them, though you don't believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38) And again he says: "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." (John 14:10,11) Does this mean that Jesus is God Almighty? Hardly. Even our trinitarian neighbor would shrug at the implication that this means that Jesus is the Father and that the Father is Jesus. Yet if the expression as it is used in 2 Corinthians 5:19 means that Jesus is God because, as it reads in some translations, Paul states: "God in Christ", then we would reason from these scriptures that Jesus is the Father, since the Father is in him, and he is in the Father. This, of course, is not what Jesus is saying. Nevertheless, it would take some imagination to read into this that Jesus is God Almighty. But what does it mean?
Jesus himself gives us a hint as to its meaning, when he tells his disciples: "In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (John 14:20) Here Jesus likens his relationship to his Father to his relationship to his disciples. Now if his being in his father means that he is God, then his being in his disciples and his disciples' being in him, would make the disciples God Almighty also, since, according to trinitarian philosophy, Jesus is God Almighty. Of course, none of these scriptures mean that Jesus is God Almighty, but it does show a closeness, a harmony between God and Jesus, and between Jesus and his disciples.
But, someone says, Jesus doesn't say that he is in his disciples and that his disciples are him in the same manner that he is in Father and that the Father is in him. Let us read further. In John 17:21, we read of Jesus praying to his God (John 17:1,3), that his disciples "may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us." Here it is plainly stated that the two unions are the same kind of union.
It is to the disciples as individuals that Jesus said: "Remain in me and I in you. As the branch can't bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me." (John 15:4) And also he says: "If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, you will ask whatever you desire, and it will be done to you." (John 15:7) These words are not speaking of Christ as being in his disciples collectively, but as individuals. There is something that we can learn from this: that we need to "remain" in Christ, and there is the possibility that the one who is in Christ may not "remain" therein.
We read in Romans 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." Does the believer's being "in Christ Jesus" mean that the believer is Christ Jesus? If Jesus is God because God is in Jesus, then this would make Jesus God, thus to be in Christ Jesus, would mean being in God, and thus the believer would be God. Most, we believe, would recognize this kind of reasoning as nonsense.
Another relevant scripture is Romans 8:9: "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if it is so that the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man doesn't have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his." Here we see that it is necessary for the spirit of God to dwell, live, in the believer if he is walk by the spirit. Some see into this verse trinity because it speaks of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Of course, God gave his spirit to Jesus without measure, and then he sent his spirit through Jesus to the church. (John 14:26; 15:26; Acts 2:33) Thus, since Jesus is given charge of the holy spirit, it is God's spirit, but it is also the spirit of Christ. This can be likened to fact that Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh (1 Chronicles 29:23) and yet Solomon sat on the throne of David. (1 Kings 2:12,24) And yet it is also Solomon's throne. (1 Kings 1:37,47) All three statements are true relatively. Likewise, the spirit of God, being given to Jesus, can also be referred to as the spirit of Christ.
Nevertheless, one's having the spirit of Christ could also mean having the same disposition as Christ. See our discussion on Romans 8:9.
Romans 8:11 reads: "If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness." Again, reference is made of Christ being in the believer, the same reasoning applies as given for Romans 8:1.
While we do not believe that 2 Corinthians 5:19 is speaking of the same thing as these other verses we have just examined, even if it should be assuemd to be that it is, these other verses show that it would not mean that Jesus is his God anymore than when the scriptures say that the believers are "in Christ" means that Jesus himself *is* every member of the church, or the scriptures that refer to believers as being "in God" would make believers God Almighty. -- Romans 8:1; 16:3,7,10; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 5:17; 12:2; Galatians 1:22; 3:28; Ephesians 2:10.
God resides in, dwells in Jesus and his church, by means of his holy spirit. -- John 10:38; 14:10,20; 17:11,21; Romans 8:9,10,11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 11:10; 13:5; Ephesians 3:17; 4:6,15; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:14; 1 John 3:24; 4:12,13; 2 John 1:9; 4:6.
None of this means that Jesus is Yahweh, or that the church is Yahweh, or that the church is Jesus, etc. Thus there is nothing in 2 Corinthians 5:19 that would lead us to believe that Jesus is Yahweh, or that Jesus was God Almighty in human form.
Some quotes from various authors (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the authors):

Paul attributes his changed perspective to God, who did too things for him. First, he reconciled Paul to himself through Christ, and second, he gave him the ministry of reconciliation (v. 18).... The syntax is ambiguous. The text can read, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" or "God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ." The emphasis in the former is on the incarnation ("God in Christ"), with Christ as the locus of divine revelation (M. J. Harris 1978b:1193). But this moves us away from the soteriological focus of these verses. The stress in the latter is on redemption. God used Christ's death on the cross (God was reconciling [periphrasis]) to bring about reconciliation (instrumental en).
============
The above is from: IVP New Testament Commentaries, Copyright 1995-2002, Gospel Communications International.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/toc/
If h]n…katalla&sswn is not periphrastic then h]n is the principal verb in the sentence. Paul would in that case be saying that “God existed in Christ.” Is such a statement sufficiently motivated in this context? It is true that Paul in Colossians 2:9 says that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ. But there he uses a present tense and the thought expressed fits into the context very well. But why would Paul in this place say that “God existed in Christ?” And why would he use an imperfect tense? Would that tense imply that God no longer exists in Christ? Is there any other passage in Paul’s writings that uses that kind of language? In and through Christ God has done much for us. Is it not much more in keeping with what Paul says elsewhere and also with what he says in verse 18 to understand e0n Xristw|~ as an adverbial phrase modifying katalla&sswn than as the equivalent of a predicate adjective? Those questions might also help to convince us that h]n…katala&sswn must be periphrastic.
================
The above is from: A Note on Qe/menov in 2 Corinthians 5:19, by Dr. Siegbert W. Becker
ww.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerThemenos.rtf - Download RTF File.


Lord of Heaven
We have been asked the question: "What of the scripture that states that the second Adam (being Jesus Christ) was the Lord of Heaven?"
1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:46 However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven.
The above scriptures are pertaining the bodies assigned by God and the resurrection on the “last day”. Jesus, now possessing a spiritual body is the Lord from heaven, and has the power and authority as the life-giving spirit to bring the dead to life in the last day. We are not sure why the question is asked, but we have discussed these scriptures in the study “The Manner of the Resurrection”; see also: "Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being".
We have been asked: "Why does Hebrews state: 'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee.’ ?"
We have discussed this at:

Why is Jesus Called “ELOHIM” and “THEOS”?
What Does Hebrews 1 Say About “God”?
We have been asked: "Jesus is not his own Father, God is but Jesus is certainly divine; there are many scriptures that point to that. Jesus states that where two or three are gathered he will be among them, how can a mere man be omnipresent?"
We respond:
Jesus certainly could be considered to be divine, even as the angels could be considered to be divine.
See the category on Jesus’ Deity
Jesus is no longer in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7) — he is no longer a human being at all; he has now been exalted (Ephesians 2:9) with all power (deity, mightinesss) bodily (Colossians 2:9,10) that is needed for him to exercise all power and authority (excluding that glory that only belongs to the Most High) that has been given to him by the only Most High Yahweh. — Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27.
See the studies:
Matthew 18:20; 28:20 – Jesus Presence With Us
The Fullness of Deity
Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being
Hebrews 2:9 – Is Jesus Still a Little Lower than the Angels?
The claim has been made:  "Jesus Christ is the word of God and as John says it the word was God, why because God is in his word, therefore God being in Christ makes Christ God to man. Jesus was a dual person both God and man."
Regarding the Word being God, see:

John 1:1 and Trinitarian Assumptions

The Logos of God

The Logos was Theos

The Logos Made Flesh

Regarding the idea that God's being in Christ means that Jesus is God:
John 17:21
That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.
1 John 3:24
He who keeps his commandments remains in him, and he in him. By this we know that he remains in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.
1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love has been perfected in us.
To be consistent, then one should also believe that all of the followers of Jesus, who have God “in” them, makes all the followers of Jesus God and that God is thousands of persons. In reality, the fact the unipersonal God and Father of Jesus is in Jesus, and in his followers, does not at all make either Jesus or the followers of Jesus to be the Most High Yahweh.
However, the power and authority given to Jesus does indeed make Jesus “god” – mighty – to man, but this usage of the word “god” does not mean that the Most High has made Jesus into the Most High. Additionally, Jesus represents to mankind the righteous qualities of the Most High; this does not mean that Jesus was made into the Most High to do so.
See:
Jesus is Not Yahweh (Jehovah)
Regarding the idea that Jesus is a dual person, both God and man:
No where where in the Bible do we find any thought that Jesus, while in the days of his flesh, was also the Most High God. Such has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into any scripture that is presented to allegedly support what is being imagined and assumed.
See the category on “dual natures”.







Related Links
The following are links to material written by Christians associated with the Bible Students movement. Each author is responsible for his own statements, and we do not necessarily agree with every statement made.
In, By, and Through Christ -- ZWT, R0826

Savior of the World -- ZWT, R5596

What is Guaranteed by the Ransom? -- ZWT, R2855

Monday, April 17, 2017

Is Jesus the God of the Old Testament?

This is in response to a site that claims that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament; since we have discussed most of the scriptures individually elsewhere,  for most scriptures we are simply providing links to the discussion.


Unless stated otherwise, the World English version of the Bible is used throughout, with forms of the holy name supplied at appropriate places.

We first wish to state that there is not one scripture in either the Old Testament or the New Testament that says that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One has to imagine, assume, add to and read that thought into, any scripture that is presented to allegedly "prove" that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No where is the glory that only belongs to the Most High ever attributed to the son of the Most High. -- Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:32.

The God of the Old Testament identifies Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and He identified Himself by the name EHYEH (often rendered as "I am")/Yahweh (Jehovah).

Exodus 3:6 - "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

Exodus 3:13 - Moses said to God, "Behold, when I come to the children of Israel, and tell them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you;' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' What should I tell them?"

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "[EHJEH ASHER EHYEH]," and he said, "You shall tell the children of Israel this: "[EHJEH] has sent me to you."

Exodus 3:15 God said moreover to Moses, "You shall tell the children of Israel this, 'JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.

EHJEH and JEHOVAH are two different forms of the one holy name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Bible never speaks of more than one holy name of God.



See:

Jesus is Not Yahweh (Jehovah)



The Unipersonal God of Jesus



Jesus called the God of the Old Testament, "My God." In doing so, he speaks of the God of the Old Testament as one person, not three persons.



Matthew 27:46 -- About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" That is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



Mark 15:34 -- At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is, being interpreted, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?



John 20:17 -- Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"



Revelation 3:12 -- He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.



In foretelling the Messiah sent by Yahweh, Micah 5:4 refers to Yahweh as "his God."



Micah 5:4 - He shall stand, and shall shepherd in the strength of Yahweh, In the majesty of the name of Yahweh his God: And they will live, for then he will be great to the ends of the earth.



In speaking to the Son of the only Most High, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is referred to as "your God."



Psalms 45:7 -- You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.



Hebrews 1:8,9 -- of the Son he says... You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you With the oil of gladness above your fellows.



Hebrews 1:1,2 presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as one person, and says that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speaks to us through His son.


The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is referred to in the New Testament unipersonally as the God and Father of Jesus. -- Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 2 Peter 1:3.

Acts 3:13-26 presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a unipersonal God, who has raised Jesus up as the prophet like Moses (as foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-19), and who has raised Jesus up from death.



Revelation 1:1,4,5 presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as one person (not three), who gave the Revelation to Jesus (another person who is not God who gave the Revelation to him.)



Revelation 1:8 quotes the unipersonal God who gave the Revelation to Jesus (Revelation 1:1,2), the one whom Jesus refers to unipersonally as "my God" in Revelation 3:12.

In many translations, in Revelation 1:6 "God" -- the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who speaks through his Son, is referred to unipersonally as the God of Jesus.



He made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. -- Revelation 1:6



It is the unipersonal God who gave the Revelation to Jesus and who is being quoted in Revelation 1:8.



Revelation 1:17,18 and Revelation 2:8 speaks of Jesus as the first and the last firstborn of the dead. "First and Last" certainly does not mean the Most High, not unless you believe the Most High was dead, and needed to made alive.

Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 both refer to the unipersonal God spoken of in Revelation 1:1,2.


Matthew 28:18 shows that Jesus is not the Almighty, since the power spoken of given to him; the Almighty does not need anyone to give to him power, since he already is the source of all might in the universe. If Jesus as some point was given the power of being the Almighty, this would also mean that at some time Jesus was not the Almighty. Additionally, Paul states that it is evident that the Most High is excluded. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27.

Likewise, in John 17:2, Jesus does not claim this authority as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but this authority is given to him by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. John 17:1,3 shows that Jesus believed that his Father is unipersonally "the only true God." Nor does the authority given by the only true God to Jesus mean that Jesus, by receiving this authority from only true God became the only true God due to having receiving this authority; this would mean that before Jesus was not the only true God until he received the authority from the only true God; of course, in reality none of this means at all that the authority that Jesus received from the only true God means that Jesus is the Most High, the Almighty, or the only true God.



In Acts 10:36, the one being referred to as the "Lord of all" probably is "God" who is being spoken of as doing these things by means of Jesus the Anointed One. (Acts 2:34-36) "God" is being used unipersonally of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as can be seen by Acts 10:38, where it says "God anotinted him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with power." Isaiah 61:1 has the Anointed One saying: "Yahweh has anointed me." Acts 2:36 speaks of this God unipersonally saying "God made him [Jesus] both Lord and Christ [Anointed One]." Thus, even if Jesus is spoken of as "Lord of all" in Acts 10:36, Jesus is such because the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob made him both Lord and Christ (Anointed One). Again, it is evident that in anointing Jesus, the glory that only belongs to the Most High is excluded. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27.

In Philippians 2:9, Paul again identifies the only Most High, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as one person, saying "God also exalted him (Jesus)." "God" here refers to one person; Jesus is not spoken of as the Most High, since Jesus is the one that as being spoken of being exalted by the Most High, and it is evident that Jesus is not being included in "God" who exalted Jesus. Thus, rather than claiming that Jesus is the Almighty Yahweh, Paul shows that Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Likewise, the Most High does not need another to give him a name, an office, as the Most High, for he, by nature of his being the Most High, is the Most High innate. On the other hand, Jesus is given a name, that is an office, that above every name. Again, it is evident that the name of the Most High is excluded, since it is the Most High is the One who is given this "name" to Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:27) Thus, Philippians 2:9,10 shows that Jesus is not the Most High, the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Philippians 9:11 shows that all homage given to Jesus is is to the glory of the unipersonal God (spoken of in Philippians 2:9), the Father of Jesus.


Daniel 7:13,14 - I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.



There is absolutely nothing here that indicates that the one "like a son of man" is the Almighty. And like the other scriptures, if what is said here means that Jesus is the Almighty, then it would mean that he was not the Almighty until the dominion was given to him from unknown source who would evidently need to be greater than the Almighty. In reality, since this dominion is given to Jesus by another, then this scripture actually proves that Jesus is not the Almighty.



Neither in the Old Testament or the New Testament do we find anything that reveals Jesus as the God of the Old Testament; that idea does indeed have to imagined beyond what is written, assumed, added to, and read into, each and every scripture that is presented to allegedly prove that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh).



For study on the following scriptures, links are provided to show that the scriptures presented offer no proof of the trinity, or that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.   **** Links need to be updated....



Matthew 28:19

The Baptismal Name



2 Corinthians 13:14

The Three Be With You



1 Peter 1:2

See the study: "Peter Presents the Trinity?" -- Click Here to search the RL site for 1 Peter 1:2.



Deuteronomy 32:6

See the study: "Click Here to search the RL site for Deuteronomy 32:6.



Isaiah 63:16

See the study: "You are Our Father -- Click Here to search the RL site for Isaiah 63:16



Isaiah 64:8

See the study: "The Potter, Father of Israel -- Click Here to search the RL site for Isaiah 64:8.



Malachi 1:6

See the study: A Son Honors His Father -- Click Here to search the RL site for Malachi 1:6.



Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18

See the study: The Spirit of Yahweh on the Anointed One -- Click Here to search the RL site for Isaiah 61:1.



2 Corinthians 3:17

See the study: Yahweh, the Spirit





Revelation 1:4 -- Is Jesus called "who is and who was and who is to come?

See the study: Who Is, Was, To Come - Jesus?



Revelation 11:17 -- Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.



Revelation 15:3 -- Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.



Revelation 16:7 -- Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.



Revelation 16:14 -- Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.



Revelation 19:6 -- Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.



Revelation 19:15 - Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.





Revelation 21:22 - Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.





Revelation 1:8 - Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.





Revelation 22:17 - Click Here to search the Restoration Light sites for more concerning this scripture.





Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12

See our study: Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last



1 Timothy 2:5,6 - Did Jesus Have to Be Both God and Man in Order to be the Mediator?

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all; the testimony in its own times.
Our trinitarian neighbors often claim that in order to be Mediator,  Jesus had to be God (meaning the Most High Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).
It should be obvious that the "one God" of 1 Timthy 2:5 refers to one individual (or person), that is, it refers to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Rather than identifying Jesus as a person of the “one God” that Paul mentions here, he identifies Jesus as the mediator between the one person who is being spoken of as “one God” and man. He thus does not include “Jesus” as a person of this “one God”, but rather as the mediator between the “one God” and man, which effectually excludes Jesus from being that “one God” that Paul speaks of. In the context, it is apparent that Paul is referring to one person as being the “one God”, and not three persons. -- 1 Timothy 1:1,2; 5:21.
One asks, if God is excluded from being the "one God", the doesn't this also mean that this would exclude him from being a man?
The scripture states that “there is one God” and it states that there is “one mediator”, but it does not state that there is “one man.” Nevertheless, we have no scriptural reason to believe that Paul spoke of "one God" in 1 Timothy 2:5 any differently than when wrote of “one God” in 1 Corinthians 8:6, as well as how he normally used the word "God" throughout his writings. The "one God" is identified in 1 Corinthans 8:6 as being the Father. To think that it does not mean the same in 1 Timothy 2:5 would be simply denying what the scripture says in the expression “between God and men”, if Jesus was the God to whom he was reconciling the world. (2 Corinthians 5:19) It should be self-evident that in the expression “between God and men”, that this refers to only one individual who is identified as “God”, in harmony with 1 Corinthians 8:6, as well as the entire rest of the New Testament. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is ALWAYS distinguished from the Messiah, whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sent, and through whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speaks to us. -- Exodus 3:13-15; Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.
Paul starts out his letter by showing a distinction between “God” and Jesus, and he continues show this distinction throughout (1 Timothy 5:21; 6:13) in harmony with 1 Corinthians 8:6, and the rest of the New Testament. There is no scriptural reason at all to think that Paul would have included Jesus in “God” at 1 Timothy 2:5,6. The only reason at all to think so would be to satisfy the added-on dogma of man, which, in effect, ends up in circular reason: since we believe that Jesus is God, thus we believe that Jesus is not being excluded as being “God” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Nor is Jesus included as one of the “men” who are in need of being reconciled through a mediator. Jesus was never in need of being reconciled to his God and Father, since he was not born with the tint of Adamic sin (Romans 5:12-19; 8:19-22); his body of flesh was prepared by God free of any condemnation. (Hebrews 10:5; Matthew 1:20) In the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), Jesus was the exact equivalent of Adam before Adam sinned (Luke 3:38), but unlike Adam, Jesus never disobeyed, and thus could sacrifice his flesh for the sin of the world. (John 1:29; 6:51; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6) Thus, God’s wisdom and love was demonstrated in that all were condemned in one man, so that only one uncondemned man could take upon himself the condemnation of all by providing the offsetting price (ransom).
While the scripture does not say there is “one man” who is the class that is being reconciled, it does say that there is “one God”. Nevertheless, it was the “one” sinless man Christ Jesus -- not God -- who gave himself to the  unipersonal “God” as a ransom for all, to be witnessed in due time. The scriptures give no evidence that, in order to be the mediator between God and men, that Jesus would have to be God Almighty. The evidence is that the he needed to be a sinless man, nothing more, nothing less. His sacrifice, not only of his human blood, but of his human body (which trinitarianism, in effect, denies, when it is claimed that Jesus is still a human being in heaven), is what was given by the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus, for sin. -- Isaiah 53:10,11; Matthew 20:28; 26:28; Luke 22:19; John 1:29; 6:51; Romans 5:6,8,12-19; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Ephesians 1:7; 5:2; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:14; 10:10-12; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:2,3,9,10.

However, once the man Christ Jesus gave himself as the ransom for all, he could not complete the offering his humanity while he was yet in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), for as long as he was on earth, he could not be a priest at all (Hebrews 8:4), for the earhly priesthood was a shadow, and was given to the priesthood under the old Law Covenant. (Hebrews 8:5) Jesus, therefore, in fulfilling the reality, although he was put to death in the flesh for our sins (1 Peter 3:18), he was made alive in the spirit, and thus as a spirit being he became the priest in heaven where he formally offered his body of flesh for our sins to his God. -- Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 8:1,2; 9:24; 10:10.
Luke 22:19 WEB
He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me."
Matthew 26:28 WEB
for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
John 6:51 WEB
I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world."
1 Peter 3:18 WEB
Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
Hebrews 10:9 WEB
then has he said, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first [the law covenant], that he may establish the second [the new covenant],
Hebrews 10:10 WEB
by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Some statements being made, especially by trinitarians:
"Since Jesus is both God and man at the same time, He became the Mediator." *** "To effectively represent both God and man/humankind, the mediator had to be both God and man." *** "Because Jesus is both God and man, He alone is able to pay the price for our ransom through His sinless life and substitutionary death (1 Peter 1:18-19)." ***  “To be sinless, Jesus had to be God himself in the flesh.” *** “Christ had to be God in order to offer a sacrifice of infinite value to the Father. If the Messiah was a mere man or a mighty angel (as some cults allege), then He would not have been able to atone for millions of people from every tribe, nation and tongue (Rev. 5:9).”
The reality is that no scripture anywhere at all makes such claims as the above. Nor would Jesus be that which would have been needed to condemn sin in the flesh, since if he were both the Almighty and man, such would not condemn sin in the flesh, but rather would justify sin in the flesh, and thus God, if he sought to justify sin without such condemnation that would be required by a man -- not a Supreme Being -- equivalent to Adam, then God would not be true to himself in justifying the sinner. All that is required by God to pay for sin is ONE sinless man, who remained sinless as Adam was before Adam sinned. -- Romans 3:26; 5:12-19; 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
In other words, if Jesus was the Almighty in the flesh, which Adam was not, it would, in effect prove that for Adam to have obeyed the Almighty Adam would have needed to have been the Almighty, which, in turn, would therefore justify -- rather than condemn -- sin the flesh. I don’t know how many times trinitarians have asserted something similar to the CARM trinitarian apologist stated: “Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.” This doctrine is false, and, in effect, negates the purpose for which Jesus became flesh. If Jesus had to be God to satisfy the Law requirements, then Adam also would have needed to have been God to satisfy the Law requirements, and thereby sin in the flesh would be justified, not condemned, and as a result, there would be no basis for God remaining just while justifying the sinner.
Jesus, however, proved that a sinless man -- being the equivalent of Adam, who was not Almighty in the flesh -- could remain faithful to the Almighty; if Jesus was the Almighty in the flesh, then it would have proven that it is because he was the Almighty that he remained faithful, evidently to himself, since it is impossible for God to deny Himself. Only if Jesus was a man -- nothing more, nothing less, could his willful obedience condemn sin in the flesh.
The statement given also seems to be saying that Jesus was of both parties for which he is mediator. On the one side is God, and on the other side is “men” who are sinners who are need of reconciliation, because they have all been condemned as sinners through Adam. Was Jesus a sinner in need of reconciliation with Himself? If Jesus was a member of the condemned human race of Adam that needed such mediation, then Jesus, as one of group referred to as “men” who are being reconciled through the mediation, then Jesus himself was a sinner. In reality, Jesus was never a member of Adam’s condemned race, thus he was never a member of the “men” who are one of the parties to his mediatorship, nor was he a member of the “one God” (1 Corinthians 8:6) who is the other party that he serves as mediator. The “one God” needs no reconciliation, but it is sinful man that needs a mediator for reconciliation with the one God who is the Father of Jesus. Jesus certainly had no need to be reconciled to himself, which is what it would amount to if Jesus was a member of the “one God”.
Nevertheless, it is not necessarily the fact that Jesus is mediator between God and man that excludes Jesus from being of the party of “men” referred to; he is not a member of that party because he was born into this world outside of the taint of Adam’s sin. He is not the “one God”, since the “one God” is never, no not even once, depicted in the Bible as being more than one person. He is not the “one God”, because that “one God” is identified as one individual in 1 Timothy 1:2; 5:21; 6:13; 2 Timothy 1:2, as well 1 Corinthians 8:4,6 and Hebrews 1:1-3.. Indeed, throughout the entire Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is ALWAYS referred to as one individual (or person), but never once as more than one individual or person.
Nonetheless, there are several scriptures that show that Jesus offered himself in sacrifice to one person, not to three persons. There is not even one scripture that says that Jesus offered himself to himself, nor even to his God and Father,  with any idea that Jesus is the second person of a triune God. -- Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:14; 10:10-12
Forms of Anthropos in 1 Timothy 2:4-6
It is being claimed that "The correspondence between anthrwpous in v. 4, anthrwpwn and anthrwpos in v. 5, is obvious. Christ is obviosuly not called man to rule out His deity, or in opposition to Docetic inclinations, or as ideal man or member of the one party, but to show that He belongs to all men without distinction."
While we have not desire to rule out the deity of Jesus, we do not believe that Jesus' deity means that Jesus is the "one God" who is being spoken of in 1 Timothy 2:5.  Nevertheless, as we have shown above, Jesus is not included in "man" for whom he dies. Let us look at the Greek transliteration:

1 Timothy 2:4
hos pantas anthrwpous thelei swtheenai kai eis
WHO ALL MEN IS WILLING TO BE SAVED AND INTO
3739 3956 0444 2309 4982 2532 1519
epignwsin aleetheias elthein
ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH TO COME.
1922 0225 2064
1 Timothy 2:5
heis gar theos heis kai mesitees theou kai anthrwpwn
ONE FOR GOD, ONE ALSO MEDIATOR OF GOD AND OF MEN
1520 1063 2316 1520 2532 3316 2316 2532 0444
anthrwpos christos ieesous
MAN CHRIST JESUS,
0444 5547 2424
1 Timothy 2:6
ho dous heauton antilutron huper
THE (ONE) HAVING GIVEN HIMSELF CORRESPONDING RANSOM OVER
3588 1325 1438 0487 5228
pantwn to marturion kairois idiois
ALL (ONES), THE WITNESS TO APPOINTED TIMES OWN;
3956 3588 3142 2540
Thus one should note that Jesus, having been born into the world, but not of this condemned world, is not included in “pantas anthrwpous” of verse 4, nor in “anthrwpwn” of verse 5. Jesus was indeed a man when he offered himself as the atoning sacrifice for sin, and it was the offering of his body that provides the blood of the new covenant, and thus, which is basis of his being a mediator between God and men (Jesus is not included in these “men” who need this mediatorship. Jesus, however, although he was in “likeness” of sinful flesh, was not of “sinful flesh”. In took upon himself the condemnation of sinful flesh, without actually having sinful flesh, otherwise, there has been no redemption, since if Jesus’ flesh was sinful with all who are condemned in Adam, Jesus could not have been a sacrifice for sin, and there was no basis for him to be a mediator between God and sinful flesh.
The trinitarian authority being quoted presupposes that Jesus is the Most High (which is evidently what is meant by his use of the word “deity”). The author errs, however, concerning Jesus’ being a “member of the one party”, which evidently is meant the one party -- [sinful] men -- for whom there is need for mediation with God, that they may be reconciled with the unipersonal God. Jesus was not a member of the one party that needed to be reconciled, since Jesus did not need such reconciliation. He was indeed, however, a man, being totally free of sin, who had the price to give to pay the condemnation upon all men through Adam, and that is what Paul was emphasizing concerning Jesus’ being a man who gave himself as a ransom [offsetting price] sacrifice. Jesus, a man, was the atoning sacrifice for the whole world (1 John 2:2), and did not belong to either of the parties, for he was not of this condemned world of men estranged from God, just as the new creature in Christ, being begotten of God, is not of this world. -- John 1:10-12; 15:19; 17:6,14,16; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-10;
Nevertheless, his being called “man” is not what excludes Jesus from being the “one God” that is spoken of - this line of argument misses the point; the “one God” is definitely referring to the God and Father of Jesus (1 Timothy 1:2; Ephesians 1:3), and Jesus is the mediator between the two parties, and Jesus is not a member of either of the parties that he serves as mediator.
On the other hand, even as a man, Jesus possessed deity, as did Moses toward Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), but this does not mean that either Moses or Jesus was the Most High in the flesh.
See:
Was Jesus Divine As A Human?
The Divinity of Jesus
However, we certainly do not agree with Docetism, which most definitely denies the purpose for which Jesus became flesh, because it actually denies that Jesus came in the flesh. If he did not come in the flesh, then he did not offer his flesh in sacrifice, and thus such a teaching annuls the purpose for his coming in the flesh.
1 John 4:3 WEB
and every spirit who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.
1 John 4:9 WEB
By this was God's love revealed in us, that God has sent his only born Son into the world that we might live through him.
Matthew 20:28 WEB
even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life [Greek, transliterated, Psuche, soul, his sentiency as a human being] as a ransom for many."
Mark 10:45 WEB
For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life [Greek, transliterated, Psuche, soul, his sentiency as a human being] as a ransom for many."
The reason that it is important to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is because he sacrificed his flesh to pay the price for sin (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:15; Romans 3:25; 5:6,8,12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:3,21,22;  Galatians 3:13; 1 Timothy 2:5,6), as I have already shown from the scriptures.
Jesus did not sacrifice himself in some sort of spiritual death, he died physically in the flesh to pay the wages of sin. -- Luke 22:19; Matthew 26:28; John 6:51; Romans 5:6,8; 6:23; Ephesians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18; 4:1; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:26,28; 10:10.
One claims: "He is expressly called man to emphasize that He belongs to all who bear the face of man."
Actually, Paul uses the words “the man” regarding Jesus because Jesus was “the [sinless] man” who gave himself as a ransom (offsetting price; corresponding price) for all mankind; Jesus was not one of the “men” for whom he serves as mediator to reconcile them to God. None of the “men” who are being reconciled to God could offer that sacrifice; nor did Jesus need to be his God in order to offer that sacrifice, as so many trinitarians have claimed. Paul argues elsewhere that it was by means of a man that death came to be, and thus so it is by means of a man that there is a resurrection of the dead. -- 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Romans 5:12-19.
Someone has presented a quote from Vine concerning what constitutes a mediator:

b. Vine: one who mediates between two parties with a view to producing peace, as in 1 Tim. 2:5 , though more than mere mediatorship is in view, for the salvation of men necessitated that the Mediator should Himself possess the nature and attributes of Him towards whom He acts, and should likewise participate in the nature of those for whom He acts (sin apart); only by being possessed both of Deity and humanity could He comprehend the claims of the one and the needs of the other; further, the claims and the needs could be met only by One who, Himself being proved sinless, would offer Himself an expiatory sacrifice on behalf of men (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Mediator, pages 726-727).
While we can agree that Jesus, in the days of his flesh, had to possess the divine nature, as the phrase is used in 2 Peter 1:4, in his service to his God and Father, Vine evidently joins with the added-on trinitarian philosophy that would use the spirit of human imagination to suppose that Jesus had to be the Most High in the flesh in order to be a mediator between God and men. No scripture ever says such a thing. This is all from spirit of human imagination. The scriptures do show that although Jesus was born into this condemned world (it is condemned through Adam -- Romans 5:12-19), he is not of this condemned world, nor are those who become sons of God -- as new creatures by means of Christ -- of this condemned world. -- John 8:23; 17:14,16; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
We have also been given a quote from J.L. Williams:

For Christ to be a bridge between man and God, He must, like a physical bridge, be firmly established on both shores. Otherwise the chasm that separated man from God would not be bridged. We would have no mediator. And we would still be lost in our sins. (Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Harvest House Publishers, 1999, page 602, citing 'Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International' by J.L. Williams, page 59).
The statement above appears to be offering a human justification for saying that Jesus had to be both the Most High and also a man, or else we would have no mediator. Of course, the above is not God’s Words, nor Jesus’ words, nor is the words of any of Jesus’ apostles. No such thought is once ever anywhere presented in the Bible. It is of human origin, it is not that which is revealed anywhere in all the revealing of God as shown in the Bible.
Jesus, in order to pay the price needed to offset sin (a ransom), had to be a sinless man without disobedience -- nothing more, nothing less -- if he was to condemn sin in the flesh, allowing his God to remain true to His righteousness, while yet justifying the sinner. (Romans 3:26; 8:3) If Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, then the condemnation of sin in the flesh failed, for Adam was not God in the flesh, and thus, if Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, Jesus has actually justified -- rather than having condemned -- sin in the flesh. According to what is revealed in the Bible, Jesus had to be sinless flesh -- nothing more, nothing less, just as Adam was before Adam sinned.

Likewise, to be the mediator between God and condemned man,  Jesus had to be an uncondemned man to offer the price of redemption.  Moses was certainly not both God and man, but yet he was the mediator of the old Law Covenant.  (Exodus 20:19; 24:1-12; 34:27-35; Deuteronomy 5:5; 22-33; 9:13-20; 25-29; John 1:17; Acts 7:38; Galatians 3:19,20;  As Moses was a prophet who also served as a mediator between Yahweh and the people of Israel, so Jesus is the prophet like Moses, whom Yahweh speaks through, and who is the mediator of the new covenant which is ratified by his blood. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2; 3:5,6; 7:22; 8:5,6; 9:13-25;

Regarding John Ankerberg and John Weldon, see:
http://defending.rlbible.com/?cat=13
Regardless of what trinitarian-biased authorities are quoted, the Bible still stands on its own; the overwhelming evidence of scripture is that Jesus is not his God who sent him; indeed, this should be default reasoning. The trinitarian, on the other hand, would present the default reasoning to be that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then by means of the spirit of human imagination, continue to imagine whatever is deemed necessary to get that idea into the scriptures.
The overwhelming testimony of the Bible is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that He Himself (Jehovah/Yahweh) is the only true God, the unipersonal God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 [Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4]; Matthew 4:7 [Deuteronomy 6:16]; Matthew 4:10 [Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8]; Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 [Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23]; Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Acts 3:13-26; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:1,2,9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12)