We seem to be talking past each other here. I will reiterate what I have said before.

Jesus was “worshipped” [proskuneo, relative worship] as the Christ [annointed one of YHWH], “the Son of the Living God” [Mat 14.33]. No one else, including Jesus, is worshipped [latreuo, rendered sacred/divine service] as God the Father [YHWH].

“Worship” may be offered to kings as representing God, and even to glorified saints (1 Chron. 29:20; Rev. 3:9). It is fallacious, therefore, to argue that because Jesus is “worshipped,” he must be God. Jesus can be “worshipped” as Messiah. Only the Father is worshipped as God. The same Greek verb does service for both senses of “worship”. Buzzard and Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 203. [emphasis added]

According to Luke 2.11 this was his birth right, which was recognized by people like the Magi who worshipped him as the promised Messiah, “king of the Jews” [Mat 2.2, 11].

According to Romans 1.1-4 “through the spirit of holiness [that brought him back to life] was appointed [declared] with power to be the Son of God”. Which means his God and Father has “exalted him to the highest place…to the glory of [that one and the same] God the Father” [Phil 2.10-11].

As Messiah, Jesus, the accredited representative of the Creator, is honoured in association with the One God, his Father (Rev. 5:12, 13). But he also joins the saints in the Lamb’s song of praise to the Father (Rev. 15:3).

He is the beginning and end of God’s great plan of salvation (Rev. 1:17). Yet he died (Rev. 1:18), a fact which plainly means that he cannot be God since God cannot die. Only the Almighty God is God Himself.

In Revelation 1:8 the Father is both the Alpha and Omega and the Lord God Almighty. The latter title (“the Lord God Almighty”) is nowhere given to Jesus, despite the attempts of some red-letter Bibles to apply this verse to the Son, perpetuating the long-standing confusion of the Messiah with God. Ibid., p. 134.

Revelation 19:10 and 22:8
–> John is REBUKED here for worshipping an angel!!!

Matthew 8:2
–> Here Yeshua is worshipped – and rightly so, since He is the arm of YHWH and had (and still has!) YHWH’s nature!

Matthew 18:26
–> Here a SLAVE is prostrating himself to his master, and this is a parable of human beings prostrating themselves before YHWH.
The lesson of that parable: If YHWH (the master in that parable whom the slave prostrated to) forgave you all your sins, you too should forgive your debtors!
By the way – I’m not in favor of slavery, but this was what slaves were doing, and hence Yeshua could use it as a parable for the relationship between humans and YHWH.

The story goes on that also second debtor fell down before the first debtor, which can be compared to the story in Genesis 33:3 where Jacob prostrated himselg before Esau. This does not mean that this second debtor worshipped the first debtor or that Jacob worshipped Esau – it rather demonstrates the message “I know I have wronged you and am not able to restitute it – I am dependant on your forgiveness – have mercy on me!” A plea for undeserved forgiveness.

The first part of that story in Mattew 18 tells us about the relationship between the master and the slave – the second part tells us about the relationship between two slaves.

Matthew 20:20

–> Here again Yeshua is worshipped, and He does not rebuke the people for it like John gets rebuked for worshipoing an angel in Rev. 19:10 and 22:8
He simply says that the arm does not decide what to do, rather the arm obeyes the brain!! (Yeshua here again being the arm of YHWH). And in the verses 25-27 Yeshua explains the rules of YHWH’s kingdom: The great ones in YHWH’s kingdom don’t receive adoration from men but rather serve them. Other behaviour is IDOLATRY!!!

So there is NO problem with worhipping Yeshua – but there is a HUGE problem with worshipping other people!!!

Acts 10:24

–> again: Cornesius is so happy here about Peter’s arrival, since this is the open door for Corneslius to enter YHWH’s kingdom, that Cornelius somehow gets a little confused about who is God and who not. Peter quickly clarifies that in the next verse

(Acts10:26)

“But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up! I myself am ALSO A MAN!” ”
Guess what – Peter didn’t deserve the worship!

Again, Isaiah says that the arm of YHWH has not been revealed to most people – and I just see that this is very true!! I think that Zvi has a clearer understanding here about whom to worship and whom not to worship, with the exception of course of our opinion on who Yeshua was / is.

Zvi had already answered your question above. He did so by citing Talmudic authority on a certain “Yeshu” who was executed for claiming to be God. He noted that current Rabbinic opinion varies regarding the identity of this Yeshu. I think the Talmudic account also says that this Yeshu’s name was “Miriam.”

As for the trinity. When John the Baptiser baptised Yeshua for repentance from sin, and as to He being greater than John while so accepting this action from him, two other realities are recorded in the Brit Hadasha (by Mark). 1) a voice was heard from heaven declaring Yeshua His son, in whom He was well pleased, and 2) the Ruach Ha Kodesh was seen, as a dove, descending upon Yeshua from heaven. These are coincidental and curious reports, where, as such, all members of the so-called trinity were shown both separately and together. In fact they were interactively representing a “fulfillment of righteousness.” Certainly this is indicative of the Messianic. What each of these realities then are stated to be in the Brit H. is also very telling of their place and provision for any of those of a New Covenant faith in the completed works of Yeshua.

Why bother to record these details if it is simply about an idol? Something more is happening, and that is challenging of anyone’s perception of reality.

As for the trinity. When John the Baptiser baptised Yeshua for repentance from sin, and as to He being greater than John while so accepting this action from him, two other realities are recorded in the Brit Hadasha (by Mark). 1) a voice was heard from heaven declaring Yeshua His son, in whom He was well pleased, and 2) the Ruach Ha Kodesh was seen, as a dove, descending upon Yeshua from heaven. These are coincidental and curious reports, where, as such, all members of the so-called trinity were shown both separately and together. In fact they were interactively representing a “fulfillment of righteousness.” Certainly this is indicative of the Messianic. What each of these realities then are stated to be in the Brit H. is also very telling of their place and provision for any of those of a New Covenant faith in the completed works of Yeshua.

Why bother to record these details if it is simply about an idol? Something more is happening, and that is challenging of anyone’s perception of reality.

Certainly these verses point at least in part to the human nature of Jesus, just as the NT did. Jesus grew in wisdom, there were things in His human nature He did not know. The premise in your objection seems to be that the Messiah can be ONLY human.

S. Johnson, the premise all trinitarians start off with is to argue their case for God in terms of his “nature.” This has never been the concern for either Jews nor Christians. Not His “nature” but his identity was their concern. “Nature” is a concept imported from Hellenistic thinking, and is NOT scriptural. Scripturally speaking the Messiah is firstly inferior to Yahweh, originated by Yahweh, different from Yahweh and a full member of the human race.

He has two natures that intersect. He is not the infinite that became finite. He did not abandon His devine nature, but rather added on an additional nature that was fully human.

NOTHING in scripture says this. Jesus was fully human (Rom. 5:15), subject to exhaustion (Joh. 4:6), thirst (Joh. 4:7), hunger (Joh. 4:8), pain (1 Pet. 2:21), anxiety (Lu. 22:44), ignorance (Mt. 24:36), limited goodness (Mr. 10:18), even death. All these show that the Messiah was the human servant of Isa. 52:12-53:13, the promised prophet like Moses (Deut. 18) They also show overwhelmingly ontological separateness from Yahweh, ontological inferiority and dependence upon Yahweh, and in servitude to a will separate and higher than his own. These are but few of the overwhelming evidence showing just that, explaining the humanity of the Messiah, without fallacious leaps, extra-biblical concepts, or linguistic acrobatics.

As far as the terms “firstborn” and “begotten” go, these also provide for no contradiction. Firstborn is used elsewhere where it does not mean first born in the literal sense. For example, in Exodus 4:22: ‘Thus says the LORD’, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. ” The privileges and preeminence of the firstborn are in sight here.

That’s fine. The anthropomorphism explains itself. It explains itself further by the notion of TEMPORALITY, of AUTHORITATIVE INEQUALITY with the one whose firstborn he is, as well as the notion of APPROVAL by the one making the appointment. This is only from the term first-born itself. Lu. 1:35 gives the starting point and the ultimate reason for him being a son.

Even if you don’t buy that, it still does not seem problematic to me as Jesus body was in some sense begotten. That is, His body came to be at some point–He acquired an additional nature that was fully human.

Nowhere does Scripture state this. Even if monogenes means “uniquely begotten,” Scripture explains in what way: Matthew 1:20, 21. There’s no need to read back into scripture what it doesn’t say.

Since there is no logical contradiction here, there is no problem.

There are serious logical fallacies in all of this. The greatest of which is the fallacy called: affirming the consequent. Since the trinity doctrine is nowhere taught in the Bible, not even in clear confessional statements by Paul or the apostles according to Luke’s “Acts,” trinitarians will always be on the affirming side of the consequent, putting them in an unfavorable position (logically) to start with.

The misunderstanding of the Trinity is at the heart of many “alternative” forms of Christianity, thus its importance cannot be minimized, it is one of the key features that distinguishes “mainstream” Christianity from the rest.

The formulation of the doctrine is in itself ambiguous and equivocating in its reference to “God.” The “proofs” of the trinity, after combing and prooftexting Scripture reflects this. Hence, in my opinion, the confusion among many church-goers.

John 1:3 “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being”, Col 1:16 “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavesn and on earth, visible and invisible….all things have been created through Him and for Him”

Here you first equate grammatical gender with biological gender, and secondly you assume creative origin of all created things with Jesus. The scriptures you site prove neither.

But there is the problem with that notion which stems from Isaiah 44:24 “I the LORD am maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by MYSELF and spreading out the earth all ALONE”. [caps added for emphasis] It seems the words “by Myself” and “all alone” could not be clearer. They seem to preclude someone else acting as an agent. Given that the agent theory flys in the face of Scripture, the syllogism stands intact.

As already pointed out, were their numerous prophecies anticipating the coming of the Messiah. All those were given with anthropomorphisms of some sort. All those prove the separateness and inequality between Yahweh and His Anointed. Jesus is strikingly absent in revelation and in vision in all Yahweh’s dealings in the OT. So, instead of changing or twisting what is explicitly stated (all alone, by Myself) one has to use explicit language as the starting point and clarify what is ambiguous and vague.

Regards,

Jaco

…echad as traditionally rendered in the Shema must mean absolute unity.

Your statements contradict each other, since you also claim for the one God as described in the Shema a “complex unity”. So, I do not follow what your argument is, unless your trying to cloud the issue, as you have done in reference to John 17.3. Where in your book you recognize that Jesus calls the Father “the only true God”, i.e. the only one that is God. Yet, you contradict this statement by giving to the Son of God a co-equal identity with God the Father [YHWH of the OT].

zvi,

I did refer to Num 23.19; 1Sam 15.19, as well as Mal 3.6 where YHWH says He does not change.

S. Johnson,

You have any scripture to back up the double nature of Jesus Christ? The NT emphatically states that the whole person, that is, the Son of God died on the cross. No where, as far as I know, does it even hint that part of the Son of God died.

But then again, we’re back to illogical fallacies regarding this double nature theme. For if Jesus was fully Deity and fully human all the time, why does he feign not knowing certain things [Mar 5.9, 30.16; 13.32; Lu 8.30, 45; John 11.34; 21.17]. Or that he remains subordinate to someone else whom he calls “God the Father” [1 Cor 15.27-28]?

There are ways in which the Old Testament and the New differ. Yet they constitute one book. Both Testaments present the same One [not triune] God. The God who speaks in Jesus Christ in the New Testament is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [and Jesus]. The God who works in Christ as His final agent in the New is the God who delivered Israel from Egypt and who spoke to her at Sinai.

The New Testament never doubts that the God of which it speaks is also the God of the Old Testament. The God who acted in creation in Genesis has acted also in Jesus Christ. As Paul puts it: ‘For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ’ (2Cor. 4:6).

The God who spoke to Israel in various ways and manners also spoke in his Son Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1ff.) W. D. Davies, Introduction to the NT, p. 6-7.

In other words, that ONE “God was in Christ” [2Cor 5.19] and not “God was Christ”, or a “person” thereof!