Comments on the Article "Is Jesus God",

on The Father's Call Website.

The article can be found at,

www(dot)thefatherscall(dot)org/jesus-god/

[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".

I 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.

And 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.

However, 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.

Paragraph 3.

Rom 6:23 

"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.

This 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.

What the article fails to explain is that God may well feel that one sinless human being is worth more than billions of sinning humans.

Eph  3:9.

"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 well

Eph 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.

Yes, 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.

John 1:1-3

"“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.

In 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.

John 1:14

"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,

Joh 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 "Manifestation"".


Note that "begotten" (in the NKJ) denotes conception.

John 1:10

“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him (verse 10)"

Those 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 8:6

1Co 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".

Col 1:12-19.

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.

"all things" is not talking about the physical creation - it is talking about positions of responsibility within the Church.

Christ 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.

Paragraph 4.

Life alone can beget life. 

If 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.

Paragraph 6

Phil 2:6

There 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.

Satan 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.

Paragraph 7

Titus 2:10,13.

Tit 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.

If 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.

Also, 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.

Paragraph 8.

I 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.

However, 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.

Christ 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 heard 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.

Paragraph 11.

This 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 creation) speak?

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

As 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.

Paragraph 12.

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!"

Jesus 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.

While 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 am".

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.



Paragraph 13.

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:

Rock.
Redeemer.
Deliverer.
Savior.
And so on.

The logic of forcing two beings into one because they have things in common, does not make sense to me.

Conclusion.

To 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.

The big 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.

The 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.




Bob Orchard Mar 2015

While 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 of the material, and that it will be copied in full with no alterations.