Comments on the Article "Is Jesus God",
on The Father's Call Website.The article can be found at,
[Copy into your browser and replace "(dot)" with "."]
This is the second TFC article that I have commented on.
I guess my main motivation comes from the principle -
"All it takes for error to grow, is for men to say nothing".
know my speaking up will not change people who willingly get involved in
twisting the Bible to justify their beliefs, but it may be a help to those who are somewhat on the fringe.
for those who are coming to understand the "new" way of extracting the
truth from the Bible, it is a good training exercise, and shows that we
need to be very careful when reading material written by religious
people (including mine).
The big picture.
Before we get into individual verses, it may help to have the big picture in mind.
There are over 140 verses in the Bible (see the list
that state or support the statement that God alone created all things,
and that there is only one God. Many of these verses report on words
from God's own mouth - the words we are to live by (Mat 4:4). If those
verses establish the fact that there is only one God (God the Father),
then Jesus can not
also be "God".
I particularly like,Isa 46:9 NET Remember what I accomplished in antiquity! Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me,
To me, this statement leaves no room for the possibility of there being two Gods.
it seems that men are uncomfortable with the concept of Jesus being human (if he
could be sinless, does God expect us to be the same?), so they select out the Scriptures
that appear to have been changed/mistranslated to support the Binary/Trinity concept, to turn
the man Jesus into the "God" Jesus before his birth..
And this is what this article is all about it seems.
"First, if Jesus had been only human, His death could have paid the
penalty for but one other human who had incurred that penalty by
transgression of God’s spiritual law (Romans 6:23
NKJ version throughout)."
It looks to me like quoting Rom 6:23 is a mistake.Rom 6:23 NET For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
is not talking about one ordinary human paying the death penalty for
themselves or another ordinary human who has transgressed God's spiritual law. It is
saying, that if we transgress God's spiritual law - that is sin - we
are facing the death penalty. However, there is a way for Christ's
sacrifice to cover our sin (after repentance), and once that is done,
God will offer us eternal life.
the article fails to explain is that God may well feel that one sinless
human being is worth more than billions of sinning humans.
"Since God the Father created all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9
We need a little context around this verse, so let's look at the verse before and after as wellEph
3:8-10 NET To me — less than the least of all the saints
— this grace was given, to proclaim to the Gentiles the
unfathomable riches of Christ (9) and to enlighten everyone
about God's secret plan — a secret that has been hidden for ages in God who has created all things. (10) The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms.
Each of the three verses talks about "God" - not Jesus Christ.
Paul does mention that he has a message for the gentiles about "the
unfathomable riches of Christ", but he clearly says that God is the one
who created all things - just as God has told us many times prior to this in Isa 42:5,
Isa 43:21, Isa 44:24 for example.
So - saying that Jesus Christ was the creator is twisting Scripture.
"“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him,
and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1-3
As explained in the "Great Deception
article, there is an alternate translation of these verses. Logos is an
"it" as Tyndale correctly understood, and while it can mean "word" it
can also refer to the thought behind the word.
A more accurate translation - in my view - would go something like this.
the beginning was the grand design/master plan, and this master plan was with God,
and very much a part of God. From the beginning, God had this master
plan in mind. All things were made according to the plan, and nothing
was made that was outside this plan.
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father—(verse 14)."
Again, an alternate translation could be,
1:14 Now the time came for the salvation part of the master plan
to became flesh, and he took up residence among us. We saw his glory
— the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who
came from the Father.
Remember, John first wrote in Aramaic, and
the Aramaic/English translation uses the word "Miltha" for our
English "word", and in the notes says that "Miltha refers to the
Note that "begotten" (in the NKJ) denotes conception.
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him (verse 10)"
who understand Greek grammar, tell us that the "he" and "him" in this
verse are referring to God the Father - not Christ.
1 Cor 8:6
The article then refers us to 1 cor 8:61Co
8:5-7 NET If after all there are so-called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
(6) yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we live. (7)
But this knowledge is not shared by all. And some, by being accustomed
to idols in former times, eat this food as an idol sacrifice, and their
conscience, because it is weak, is defiled.
These verses tell that there is just one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ).
In no way does this say that Jesus Christ is a "God".
And also Col 1:12-19.Col
1:15-18 NET He is the image [looks like] of the invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation, (16) for all things [to do with the Church] in heaven and on
earth were created by him — all things, whether visible or
invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or
powers — all things were created through him and for him.
(17) He himself is before all things and all things are held
together in him. (18) He is the head of the body, the
church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so
that he himself may become first in all things.
For those who don't want to listen (don't have ears to hear Mat 11:15), it is a waste of time trying to explain this.
things" is not talking about the physical creation - it is talking
about positions of responsibility within the Church.
is now head of the Church, so He is making those decisions, as to what
positions He will create in the Kingdom, and who will fill them.
It is saying NOTHING about the physical creation, but people sure want to make it mean that.
Life alone can beget life.
you read carefully the Scriptures given (John 5:26, 1 John 5:11-12), you can see that as a man,
Jesus did not have immortal life to pass on, but once he was
resurrected and received immortal life himself, God gave him the power
to pass on immortal life to other humans.
Phil 2:6There is a better translation for v6.
Phil 2:6 NET who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
"form" just means outward appearance.
did want God's position, and did try to grasp it. v6 is saying
that the man Jesus did not regard (or desired) "grasping" God's position -
which is different to Satan.
It is not talking about "Jesus being equal to God".
If you are "grasping" for something, you don't already have it.
2:10 NET not pilfering, but showing all good faith, in order to
bring credit to the teaching of God our Savior in everything.Tit
2:13 NET as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the
glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Here, the problem has come about because the word "savior" is connected
to both God and Christ, so the writers wrongly draw the conclusion that
God and Christ are one and the same.
This is the wrong conclusion.
you do a search for the word "savior", you will soon see that it is a
title that is given to BOTH God and Christ. We can not have salvation
without God, and we can not have salvation without Christ, and it is
only right and natural for the title to go to both.
the way the verse is punctuated (a decision made by men) can make a big
difference. Notice the following two translations made before the
Trinity was such a big deal.Tit 2:13 Bishops Lokyng for that blessed hope and appearyng of the glorie of the great God, and our sauiour Iesus Christe,Tit
2:13 Geneva Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that
glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ,
Here, there is a distinct difference between God and Christ. One is not equal to the other.
think the words "This is a major error" are on the other foot. The
"error" comes about by "forcing" the man Jesus to also be a "God".
Paragraph 9 & 10.
The logic of the writer in these two paragraphs escapes me.
Are they trying to say that the Father is somehow "bolted" to His throne in heaven, and therefore could not speak on earth?
Or are they saying that because God was on earth in the form of Jesus Christ, that only an angel was left in charge in heaven?
But surely it is what the voice had to say that is important.
the next bit is where Rom 2:1 really cuts in. The writer complains
about others "twisting" Scriptures, but look what is written here.
They claim that the voice could not have been God's because of John 5:37. Let's look at it.Joh
5:37 NET And the Father who sent me has himself testified about
me. You people have never heard his voice [note past tense] nor seen his form at any time,
This happened long before the transfiguration.
is saying that up to that point in time, the Jews of his day had not
heard the Father's voice. The implication being that Christ had
His voice, and had seen His form. Yet, the writer in paragraph ten is
using the verse as though Christ said that they would never - in the
future - hear His voice. This is a most gross twisting of Scripture.
is a very messy paragraph. I don't understand what the writer (he does
not give us his name, and I can at least understand that) means by
"the Eternal Being who was instrumental in executing God's Word". Did
God the Father speak, or did the "God" Christ (who did not exist at
Whatever the intention,
it seems that the writer wants to "do away" with God the Father, and
push Him into the background, despite God the Father saying many times
that He - and He alone - created all things.
1 Cor 10:4
explained before, Christ followed Israel in time - not distance. And
why would God be following a group of rebels? Surely the rebels should
have been following God, if it is talking about distance. So using
"distance" instead of "time" makes no sense.
The writer says "That certainly clinches it."
I am afraid that to me it does not.
He has not explained why Christ said the he would come back to this earth WITH
God.Mat 26:64 NET Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
"the Power" is a Jewish expression for God (see also Mark 14:62).
This fulfills the prophecy of Ps 110: 1.Psa 110:1 NET A psalm of David. Here is the LORD's [God the Father] proclamation to my lord [Christ] "Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!"
knew that the people of his day did not understand what David had
prophesied, and it appears that the writer does not either;Mat
22:42-46 NET "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is
he?" They said, "The son of David." (43) He said to them,
"How then does David by the Spirit
call him 'Lord,'saying, (44) 'The Lord said to my lord,
"Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet"
'? (45) If David then calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his
son?" (46) No one was able to answer him a word, and from
that day on no one dared to question him any longer.
Jesus's blood line went back to King David - through his mother - his
actual father was God the Father. The best understanding that we have , is that Jesus was begotten by God giving an
egg in Mary's womb the one chromosome that would give it life and make
it male. My understanding is that Christ had no DNA from a physical
father, but he had life from God.
I can see that
the writer wants to force Christ's words from John 8:58 back into the
Old Testament, but the same original Greek words translated as "I am"
in John 8, are translated as "I am the one" in the next chapter.Joh
9:9 NET Some people said, "This is the man!" while others said,
"No, but he looks like him." The man himself kept insisting, "I am the one!"
In John 8:58, Christ is just confirming that he is the one that was
prophesied to come, before the time of Abraham. Abraham looked forward to it, and in Jesus's day it was fulfilled.
It appears that the writer does not seem to understand the plan of God.
God is building a family. Members of a family share many family characteristics.
Both God and Christ are described as:
And so on.
The logic of forcing two beings
into one because they have things in common, does not make sense to me.
me, the article is a classic case of where a writer has a point in
mind, and then goes looking for verses with words that - at least
superficially - support the concept.
Those familiar with the New
Biblical Understanding will know that you have to look up ALL the Bible
has to say on a topic, BEFORE you come to a conclusion.
pity is that the members of the group responsible for what is posted on the Internet site, have not taken the time to study
the article in depth, and then go to the writer and discuss their
concerns BEFORE the article was published. If they do that now,
it is possible that they will be asked to leave the group, rather than the
article to be withdrawn. It appears that the group will "just accept" what
ever is written on their behalf. Be it truth or not, it does not
matter as long as the group holds on to it's "unity". A recipe for
disaster in the long term, as this makes the "group" more important than the words spoken by God.
article is so bad, in my view, that it makes the Trinity concept look
more feasible (but I don't agree with that concept either).
It would be much better for everyone to just believe God when He says that He is the one and only God.
Orchard Mar 2015
this information is made freely available (Mat 10:8b) , and can be printed out, it is
done with the understanding that there will only be fair and honest use
material, and that it will be copied in full with no alterations.