Just saw the following video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1CXrxdIMEI

Correct me if I’m wrong but…are you saying that the person described as “begotten” [brought into existence] in Matthew and Luke is “the human being” or “the Son of God”, who you believe to be eternal?

Also, did the Godhead undergo a change when one of the “Persons” took on flesh at the Incarnation? i.e., 3 Persons + human nature in God.

If people can be salt, how is it that it could be always wrong to say the Jesus is God in your opinion?

Can’t salt and light both be one in Christ?

Thank you. I appreciate very much your encouraging comments. Especially the fact that you point to the simplicity of NT teaching about the one God and the man Messiah.

I have not succeeded, I think, in inviting Michael Brown to see the inherent contradiction in the premise, ‘the Father is YHWH, Jesus is YHWH and that makes 1 YHWH’. That latent contradiction in trinitarianism tends to hide and we must try to expose it!

The key is to begin with the accounts of the begetting of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Both of these describe explicitly how the Son was “begotten=fathered=brought into existence”. This ought to exclude the possiblity of making John contradict these accounts.

Alas, a long tradition makes people read John 1.1 as though it said, ‘In the beginning was the Son…’. This multiplies God and destroys the FULL humanity of the man Messiah, Jesus.

I would encourage any reader to examine the fascinating book by Loofs, a German theologian who lectured in Ohio in 1911, What is the truth about Jesus Christ. Free online at GoogleBooks.

Loofs shows that all of his colleagues were fully aware of the unintelligibility of the Nicene Christology. That was 100 years ago!!

Dr. White in his detailed account of the trinity in The Forgotten Trinity [pp 26-27]struggles in vain to avoid the contradiction inherent in trinitarian theology. He insists that 3 YHWHs cannot = 1 YHWH.

We dare not mix up the [1] What and [3] Who’s regarding the Trinity.

However, when Dr. White arrives at page 132 of his book, he discusses how he tackles a Jw.

I believe the name Jehovah refers to the very Divine Being…We can agree, I assume, that the Father is identified as Jehovah. But I believe that the Bible identifies Jesus as YHWH as well.

So there, Dr. White is calling the Who’s YHWH individually while claiming that the What, all 3 together, is also YHWH. That is a contradiction according to White’s own principle.

Much better to stay with Jesus’ simple creed:

The LORD our God is one LORD.

The scribe who agrees with Jesus confirms that the LORD our God is “He”. “He” of course, as we all know, means 1 single Person.

It is good to remember that we are going to be judged by the words of Jesus.

People like Anthony have really seen the light exposing this Idolatry by explaining pretty simply the deep things of God so that even simpletons could understand it. Apparently Brown isn’t a child that God wants to understand his personality so Brown goes along with those people deceived for centuries by false doctrine.
The Bible says when Jesus was baptized that God says TODAY I have become your Father. WHY… If Jesus had a pre-existence why would God say TODAY I have become you Father? It makes no Sense. Jesus HAD to be fully HUMAN in ALL ways.

God took a HUMAN and exalted that HUMAN to be at his right hand thus deeply striking a blow to Satan who ORIGINALLY had privileges as the Light Bearer in heaven. By having Jesus as a HUMAN stay faithful really showed Satan that God could have faith in humans to keep his will and not as Adam and Eve who failed that test.

Jesus really destroyed the works of the Devil here.

Unfortunately the Devil has kept mankind in Idolatry by allowing them to believe in the false doctrine of the Trinity. Satan keeps plugging away but apparently Anthony and a few other have exposed this Lie. God Bless Anthony for helping us understand the simple message of God.

So who did they see? Anthony brought up a great Biblical answer. They saw a representative of God whom has taken on the name of God as understood to have happened in Acts 10 where an Angel is seen as the Shaliach (messenger) and called Lord. Dr. Brown himself agrees with the understanding of Shaliach.

Anothony finishes it off with a great scripture to bring the debate to a close when he references back to Hebrews 1 where it states that God spoke through (shaliach) through many representatives in the past, and “in these last days” speaks to us through his Messiah. Dr. Brown then replies with a knee-jerk reaction that the “worst place” to go is Hebrews 1 to see if the Son existed in the OT, because to him Hebrews 1:1-2 is talking about the ultimate revelation, although it is clearly speaking about the past events in accordance to the authors idea of “these last days.”

You decide for yourselves…

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Notice how vs. 4 says that Yeshua “being made” talking about the time after his death. If Jesus is God, how can he “be made” in position to the Angels in rank? God is always higher than the Angels in rank.

It seems that Dr. Brown is doing the special pleading here in the wake of the context of Hebrews.

If you are reading this Anthony, well done!

I am a Jew living in Israel with my family. I find Michael Brown’s position very much against what the Tanach and Brit Chadasha tells us about whom is the Messiah. I do believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, and that he is the now exalted human Messiah that has been set down to the right hand of his God, and our God. A resurrected human being, in Psalm 110, next to God. Not two gods, not two YHVHs, one God and one Messiah as Paul so eloquently pointed out in his personal testimony to us in 1 Tim 2:5 and in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and as Yeshua pointed out to us in his personal testimony in John 17:3, John 20:17.

I pray that Michael can come to see the truth of how God revealed himself and our Messiah unto the world. I thought at one time I understood the Trinity, but all it did was leave a gap in my understanding of the overwhelming message of the Tanach. I was forced to try and not understand the MYSTERY of God because I was told that God is too complex for our understanding. Reasoning like this left for many questions and contradictions in the Trinity Doctrine. And then, after finding out that the Trinity Doctrine has many sister relationships just as confusing and misleading (oneness, Jesus only, ect.), I began my search for the One true God and One true Messiah.

So, here I am, professing my testimony as a Hebrew speaking Jew living in Israel that I will do all that I can to spread the truth that the Messiah is not God, and to live by an example to my fellow unbelieving Jews around me in this wonderful land. The land that God has promised as the centerpiece to the Kingdom come.

If someone wants more information into the non-Trinitarian movement of Messiah believers in the land of Israel, you can contact me at… josephvardit@yahoo.com

Baruch HaShem

But these are written that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Amen!

Gordon

The simple koine Greek phrase translated “I am” [ego eimi] is used by Jesus 15 times, and in every case (except 8:58) it is rendered “I am he” or “It is I”: Matt. 14:27; Mar 6:50; 14:62; Lu 21:8; 22:70; 24:39; John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8.

To say that ego eimi refers to the “I AM” of Ex 3:14, is to misread the text.

Of the ego eimi sayings in the Gospel of John, those with the predicate ‘I am the bread of life,’ ‘the door,’ ‘the way,’ ‘the good shepherd,’ etc. do not imply that the subject is God. But it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms:

‘I am the one — the one you must look at, and listen to if you would know God’.

Of the “absolute” [stand alone] uses of ego eimi, the majority are simply establishing identification: “I am he” [i.e. “I am the one you seek”]. This is so of 4:26 (the Messiah you speak of); 6:20 (confirming Jesus’ identity on the lake at night, exactly as in Mar 6:50; Matt. 14:27); 9:9 (on the lips, not of Jesus, but of the blind man) and 18:5-8 (the “I am your man” at the arrest; cp. Acts 10:21).

Even though it evokes awe (and not, as per the previous reaction of blasphemy in 8:58) within the arresting party, the reason for such a reaction could simply be due to the “power and majesty” that was with Jesus, as per Psa 45 [the people, nations or troops “fall beneath your feet”]. In any case, its only appearance is in this “higher Christology” of the Gospel of John.

The phrase is in the resurrection scene of Lu 24:39: ‘it is I myself’ and 3 other occurrences in John 8:24, 28, 13:19 [‘I am what I am,’ namely the truth of what really I am]. They do not carry with them the implication that he is YHWH (indeed in the latter two there is a contrast with the Father who sent him), but instead ‘the Christ, the Son of God’.

So, it makes no sense that Jesus should be made to say: “I am YHWH, the supreme God of the OT, and being YHWH I do as I am told,” and to 13:19: “I am God, and I am here because someone else sent me”. That Jesus should be assuming the divine name is nowhere stated or implied in this gospel. Even the Jews do not accuse him of this — only of calling God his own father, and thereby implying equality with God. What they take to be blasphemy in making himself ‘a god’ in 10:33, is again made clear to be a misunderstanding of who Jesus actually is: ‘God’s Son’. As a result, the worst that can be said of him at the trial is that he claimed to be “God’s son”:

The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming, he who is called Christ; when he comes, he will declare all things to us’. Jesus said to her, ‘I [ego] who speak to you am [eimi] he’. John 4:25-26

But if you are right and my assesment is totally off-base, how many YHWHs are you suggesting here?

And what does this say about the “third person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit”. Where does “He” claim to be YHWH?

I can see that from the standpoint that since Jesus was (and still is, although immortal) human, he worshipped YHWH. But wouldn’t the hypostatic union require that Christ’s humanity and divinity remain undivided. In other words, we really can’t say, well Jesus worshiped God in his humanity, but not his divinity, can we?

Even in Revelation (after exaltation, immortality) Jesus is referring to His Father as his God. Any thoughts? I’d appreciate it!