Irony of Ironies

When I was a child, I loved Knight Rider. I admit it was probably one of my influences for becoming an engineer. I can't really say anything good or bad about the new series because I have not seen a single episode. What I can say is that every attempt to resurrect the series failed miserably. I don't know if it is a portent or not, but I just saw a video on YouTube of one of the cars used in the new series being stolen!! I don't know if its a publicity stunt or not, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Take a look

The Trinity: A Response to Points Raised by Adam Pastor

I finally was able to watch the video Brother Pastor suggested that I watch, The Human Jesus. I found it interesting but wanting. I will respond to it as I discuss his comments. My question concerning the video is based on Deuteronomy 6:4 - What is what is meant by "one". "....the LORD is one" what? One entity? One essence? One person? One Being? Consider what "being" means and what "person" means. The following two questions are asking different questions: "What am I?" and "Who am I?" What I am is a human being. Who I am is defined by my person. If you look up "being" it means "the quality or state of having existence" according to the dictionary. "Person" is defined as "is defined by the characteristics of reasoning, consciousness, and persistent personal identity", according to Wikipedia. The video does not really answer the question of if God is a person or a being. The Trinity is understood to be monotheistic because God is a single being not person. The video attempts to draw a historical reason for developing the idea of the Trinity and exploring why they do not believe that the New Testament does not teach the Trinity.

I have attached the video The Human Jesus below.



First Timothy 2:5 does not tell us the Jesus was not divine but it does tell us He was a man. It does not argue against the Trinity. First Timothy 2:5 says

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

John 1:1 is interpreted differently in the video than I understand it. In the video, it says the LOGOS, the Word, is not Jesus. But they don't give any reason for that interpretation. John 1:1-5 says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Psalm 110:1 is also interpreted differently. They recognized that "The Lord said to my Lord" are two different words and they said that its not Yahweh talking to Adoni. I believe it is. It's the short form of Adoni and it does refer to the Messiah, but it cannot say that Jesus is not God. Psalm 110:1 says:

The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."

1 John 5:7,8 is not a viable proof of the trinity because it was not part of the earliest manuscripts. I agree, but there are so many other scriptures that support Trinitarian doctrine.

1 Timothy 3:16 says:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

I do not understand how citing this passage disproves that Paul did not teach that Jesus was deity - one of the persons of the true God. If anything he points out how much of a mystery in understanding how are points listed in the passage as true but asserts them as true.

The video said that Jesus is called "God" in the same way Moses and human judges are called gods (Psalm 82:6). The problem is that in those cases "Elohim" is used while Jesus applied the divine name, Yahweh (Jehovah), to himself. Psalm 82 says:

God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":

"How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

"They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance

No way can this passage be used to allude to Jesus being called "God" like the judges and kings being referred to as "gods". Different contexts!

John 20:27,28 is explained that Thomas did not call Jesus "God", but only meant it the same way human judges are called gods, but that is reading a context into the text that is not there. "God" is a title not a personal name. John 20:27,28 says

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

I disagreed that John 10:23-30 does anything but tell us the Father and Son are distinct and have different roles. It does not say that either one is better or less than the other. How does this disprove the Trinity? Instead I see the hope of eternal security. If the Father has given you to Jesus, no one can take you from Him. Look at the verses yourself:

and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. and the Father are one."

Isaiah 9:6 is said not to have applied to Jesus, but Hezekiah. They tried to reason that when Isaiah equated the one coming as God that it's not talking about Almighty God. However none of the rest of the names given to the one prophesied to come could be rightly applied to anyone but God. Besides that, Matthew says Isaiah was talking about Jesus Christ. Isaiah 9:6,7 says:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

How can these verses in their entirety describe anyone but Jesus perfectly.

It was stated in the video that "the son of God" has no divine application. I am willing to bet that Unitarians would agree that "Son of Man" is the Messiah and it refers to Jesus. What about Daniel 7. "Son of Man" is a divine name.

I would like to know how they would respond to Colossians 2:9. Paul says that all that makes God God in character and nature can be found in Jesus. Colossians 2:9-12 says:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

The video claims to give the Trinitarian view point but they did not allow Trinitarian scholars to defend their position. All the people they talked to was either lay person or non-Trinitarian scholar.

Hebrews 7: 14-17 shows that Jesus is a priest forever. It says:

For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

Jesus is a priest forever for He will never die again and by his credentials. Who else has them? No one!

As far as the idea that Jesus cannot be God because he was tempted by Satan and God cannot be be tempted by evil depends on the thought that temptation to do evil can only be temptation if there really is a danger of falling into doing evil. The Bible says that God cannot be tempted to do evil and does not tempt people to do evil. Agreed! The conclusion drawn is not valid. Jesus' temptation does not invalidate Jesus' divinity. This line of argumentation reminds me of the arguments raised against Christians by Muslims! They use this and the thought that because Jesus ate and drank food He could not be God. There is a valid response to these points. In James 1:13 the Bible says:

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

Put this with Hebrews 4:15 which says:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

The video would have people believe that these two verses conflict with each other if Jesus is God. However, one must remember that this is why it's been taught that Jesus has two natures: human and divine. You cannot argue that Jesus only human without also proving that there are other human beings who are without sin. Who else is there who perfectly fulfilled the law? Only the incarnated Word (which is God according to John 1:2) was with out sin. All other human being fit Romans 3:23. It says:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

If Jesus never sinned, He can't be lumped in with us completely. He is something other...He is God.

It was also asserted that God cannot die, therefore Jesus cannot be God because He died. Muslims use this same thought that this video used. Warning Bells should go off. There is also a valid response to this point. What is meant by "death" The verses that the video are purposed to state God's eternal existence - that He never came into existence. He will never go out of existence. He is existence. Nothing can be defined or exists without Him. When Jesus "died" the Bible was talking about death in the same context in which all people die - our spirits are separated from our physical form. When we say someone dies (from a Biblical standpoint) we are in no way implying that they cease to exist. Therefore to use argument of God not being able to die against Jesus' divinity does not work because it mixes categories.

Bible Basics - The Trinity Part 4: Bibliography

Here are some videos that I would recommend for understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.

"Is Jesus Christ God" A debate between James White




Trinity vs Oneness Debate on GodTube

It's in 27 parts and here is the first part

Dr. Susan E. Rice

Do you know who Dr. Susan E. Rice is? She is someone Barak Obama's has in place as one of his senior foreign policy advisers. I'm not saying that she is going to be on his Presidential Cabinet in case the he wins, but she is being publicly acknowledged as someone who's counsel Obama seeks. This is a must see!



I would like to see a response from the McCain Camp. Clearly the fact that Alaska is close to Russia is not going to help foreign policy.