Category Archives: Christ is Not God

John 10:30 – The Son is One With His Father

John 10:30 – I and my Father are one.

Jesus and the only true God, whom Jesus was with before the world (kosmos) of mankind was made (John 1:1,10; 17:1,3,5), are ‘one.’ Jesus was not saying that he and the only true God whom he was with are one only true God.

In the Greek, the Greek form that Jesus used for the adjective “one” is transliterated as “hen” [which is neuter]. If Jesus had meant that he and the only true God whom he had been with are “one God,” he would not have used the Greek form “hen”, but he would have used the Greek form “heis” (masculine), as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Since the Greek word Theos is masculine, it requires the masculine form of the adjective, not the neuter form. Nor is speaking of substance, as trinitarians use that term, “three persons in one being.” If Jesus was talking about “one being,” he would not have used the Greek form “hen”, but rather he would have used the Greek form, “mia,” as in the trinitarian statement: treis hypostaseis en mia ousia (three persons in one being). Since “ousia” is feminine, it requires the feminine form of the adjective, not the neuter form. Thus, when Jesus said that he and the only true God are “one”, he was neither speaking of “one God” nor “one substance.”

Nevertheless, we find further in the book of John where Jesus uses the Greek form “hen” several times:

Jesus prays for his followers to be one [hen], just as he is with his God and Father. — John 17:11.

Jesus prays that his followers may all be one [hen], just as he is one with his God and Father. — John 17:21.

Jesus prays that his followers may be one [hen] in himself and his Father, just as he is with his God and Father. — John 17:21.

Jesus prays that his followers may one [hen], just as he is one with his God and Father. — John 17:22.

It should be obvious that Jesus was not praying that his followers become one “God” with him and his Father, nor is he praying that they become “one substance” with him and his Father. He is speaking in terms of unity, agreement. Likewise, when Jesus said that he and the only true God (John 17:1,3) are one, he is speaking of agreement. There is nothing in John 10:30 that means that Jesus was claiming to be the only true God.

For more regarding John 10:30, see:
Studies Pertaining to John 10:33

Regarding John 10:33, see:
The Real Reason the Jews Sought to Kill Jesus

The Son of God Was Either God or a Bad Man? – Is Jesus God the Most High?

It is being claimed that the divinity of Christ is the central Christian doctrine, and that this doctrine is “like a skeleton key that opens all the others.” By divinity, the context makes it clear that the author means that Jesus is the Most High Yahweh. We do not deny the divinity of Jesus in that mightiness that the only Most High has given to Jesus. We do not, however, believe that the divinity, the mightiness, that the only Most High has given to Jesus means that Jesus is the Most High who has given to Jesus all authority and power. Indeed, rather than being a key that opens all other doctrines, this doctrine that Jesus is the Most High denigrates the role Jesus had in becoming a man. If Jesus was the Most High while in the days of his flesh, then rather than condemning sin in the flesh, Jesus justified sin in the flesh, since such an idea would have meant that for Adam to have obeyed the Most High, Adam would have needed to have been the Most High in the flesh. — Romans 8:3

See the studies:
How God’s Son Condemned Sin in the Flesh

Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

Additionally, those who claim that Jesus is the Most High usually add to this that Jesus is still in the flesh, that Jesus will always be bound to his body of flesh for eternity. Such denies the very basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus as given in the Bible. It would mean that either Jesus fail to complete his sacrifice, or that he took back what he had offered for sin. Either way, such would annul the basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

See the studies:

Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being
The Basis of Atonement

Jesus never claimed to the “God”, that is, Jesus never claimed to be the One whom he designated as the only true God.  Rather, Jesus claimed to have been sent by the only true God, the only true Might of the universe. (John 17:3) Jesus never once claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, thus the idea that “Christ was either God or a Bad Man” is irrelevant. Indeed, if Jesus in the flesh was his God, then the whole basis of the redemption by means of his sacrifice becomes irrelevant. No, Jesus was not his God, but this does not at all make Jesus a “bad man”. Such an argument is simply sophistry.

It was a man — not God — who sinned and brought condemnation upon mankind. All that was needed to rectify the condition of sin was another man — not God — who would obey God. If that man had to be God in order obey God, then such would not condemn sin in the flesh. It would not proven that a righteous man could obey God perfectly. It would rather have proven that a righteous man would have to be God Himself in order to obey God.

The Bible nowhere says that for a man to be the offering for sin that such man would have to be his God. That idea comes, not from the Bible, but out of the imagination of men whose minds cannot fully submit the revealing of ths spirit as given through the Bible. By going beyond what is written, these men have submitted themselves to an idol of their own making (evidently aided by Satan) and wish make it a requirement of all that they must submit to their imaginations for salvation, thus displacing the salvation that is revealed by God’s holy spirit in the Bible.

See:

Jesus is not Yahweh (Jehovah)

The Bible reveals that what is needed for salvation is not God, but a man, one a little lower than the angels as was Adam. God Himself provided such a man through His son (not Himself), for he sent his son into the world of mankind in the flesh; God gave Jesus that flesh, that body (Hebrews 10:5), so that he — having become a man, nothing more, nothing less — was not under the condemnation through Adam. Unlike Adam, however, Jesus never once disobeyed the Most High; he proved his faithfulness and thus showed his Father to have been just, while providing the way for his Father to justify mankind. — John 6:51; Romans 3:26; 5:12-19; 8:3,19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Hebrews 10:10.

All the abilities that Jesus had, he received from the only true God, all to the glory of the only true Most High. None of Jesus’ miracles or abilities that God gave to Jesus give us any reason to use the spirit of human imagination so as to assume and add to the scriptures that the Son of God is “God” of  whom he claimed to be the son. — Luke 1:32; 10:22; 3:35; Matthew 28:19; John 13:3; Acts 2:22,36; 3:13; 1 Corinthians 15:27;  Ephesians 1:20-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2.

John 1:51 does not describe Jesus as “God”, but as the son of the man (David), and “God” is depicted in that scripture as one person, totally and separately distinct from the son of David.

As far as repelling the attacks of those who claim that Jesus was a bad man, a liar, a lunatic, etc, such as agnostics, deists, Muslims and other non-Christian religions, one does not need to add to the scriptures that Jesus was the Most High in order to counter the claims of such. Indeed, adding such to scriptures diminishes the role of Jesus as having been obedient to the Most High, of the salvation provided through the offering of the body of Christ to the Most High.

Jesus is not the God Most High; no scripture ever presents Jesus as being Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, although many read such a thought into many scriptures.

2 Corinthians 13:14 – Trinity?

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen. – 2 Corinthians 13:14, World English

This scripture is often presented by trinitarians as a though the scripture presents the Son of Yahweh as part of a triune God. In actuality, we find nothing in the scripture about three persons, all of whom are supposed to be the one true God.

That which is being prayed to with the Corinthian Christians is “Grace”, “love”, and “communion”, respectively of Jesus, God, and the holy spirit. “Grace” is not a person, nor is “love” a person, nor is “communion” a person.

Nevertheless, in order to see “trinity” in the verse, one has to imagine and assume that the triune God is not represented by the word “God”, but rather that only one of the alleged persons of “God” is represented by the word “God”, and then one has to imagine and assume that “the Lord Jesus Christ, is another person of, not the unipersonal “God” who is being spoken of in the verse, but rather the triune “God” who is being imagined, assumed and added to the verse. Then one has to do the same imaginings and assumptions, concerning the unipersonal God’s holy spirit, and add what they have imagined and assumed to the verse. Thus, not based on what the verse actually says, but rather what is being imagined and assumed upon the verse, the verse is then, by means of the circular reasoning employed, presented as proof of the triune God.

The reality is Paul never once presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as more than one person. Instead, Paul presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob uniperonsonally as “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:31, World English) Any idea of a triune God does have to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 13:14, or what any Bible writer wrote anywhere in the Bible.

One could say that there is a trinity in the sense that the only true God, the son of the only true God, and the holy spirit of the only true God, are one in agreement (1 John 5:8), but the trinitarian dogma of three persons in the one God cannot be found in this verse, or anywhere else in the Bible, except by means of what has to be imagined using the great spirit of human imagination, using that imagination to form assumptions into dogma, which dogma has to be added to, and read into any scripture to which the trinitarian dogma might be applied, including 2 Corinthians 13:14.

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/1055.html

Of course, in doing so, the trinitarian dogma, by insisting that Jesus is still a man, strips and denigrates the purpose of Jesus’ coming into the world of mankind, of his obedience to the only true God which resulted in condemning sin in the flesh, and of the atoning sacrifice of his flesh, since, according to trinitarian dogma, Jesus still is flesh, a human being, etc., and thus, this is why such false teaching can be a hinderance to appreciably understanding the beauty of the ransom sacrifice that Jesus gave. — John 6:51; 12:47,48; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 John 2:2; 4:2,3,10,14; 2 John 1:7; Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18.

http://atonement.reslight.net/

Finally, the fact that “God” is presented as one person in 1 Corinthians 13:14, and that Paul does this throughout his letter when he uses the God to speak of the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, shows that Jesus is not being presented a person of a triune God.

For more related the trinity, see:

Jesus and His God

Isaiah 7:14 – Immanuel – God with Us

Isaiah 7:14 – Therefore [Jehovah]* Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel. (Note: The Great Isaiah Scroll has the holy name in Isaiah 7:14)

Isaiah 8:8 – and it shall sweep onward into Judah; it shall overflow and pass through; it shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of its wings shall fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;” which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”

This scripture is evidently cited by trinitarians and oneness believers because it has the name, Immanuel, and since Matthew applies the statement in Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus, and since the name Immanuel means “God is with us”, it is being imagined and assumed that this is proof that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the only Most High. Trinitarians would further imagine and assume that two persons of their alleged triune God are being spoken of in Isaiah 7:14, one who is the alleged “first person” of their alleged triune God, and another who is the alleged “second person” of their alleged triune God.

Of course, simply bearing the name expressing that “God is with us” does not mean that the one bearing that name is the God that the name declares is with us. The bearer of any name in which God is declared as being or doing something does not mean that the bearer of the name is God who is being declared by those names as being or doing whatever is being spoken of. Many in the Old Testament bore names that declared God as being or doing something, and no one thinks to apply the meaning of the name to the bearer so as to make the bearer of the name into God who is declared to as being or doing by the name.

In other words, for example, the name “Jehu” means “He is Jah” or “Jah is He.” Does that mean the man who bore the name Jehu is, in reality, Jehovah? Likewise with the name Eliathath, which means “God has come”. Are we to think that Eliathath is God Almighty because of the name given to him? We can look at another name, “Elnathan”, meaning “God has given”; does it mean that the bearer of this name is God who does the giving? When Abraham called the place where he sacrificed the ram “Jehovah-jireh”, meaning “Jehovah will provide”, was he saying that the place was Jehovah Himself? Did the name Daniel, meaning “Judgment of God”, mean that Daniel was God?

The name “Immanuel”, however, is not the personal name of Jesus, for the scriptures as translated by most translations show that personal name in English as “Jesus”, meaning “Jah saves” or “Jah is savior”. The name “Jesus” attributes salvation to the God and Father of Jesus. Likewise, the name “Immanuel” is a titular name, not the personal name of the one being spoken of being born.

Why should Immanuel be a name given to Jesus? Because by means of Jesus, God is with his people. How so? The scriptures tell us in Acts 10:38; “How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” Here “God” is depicted as one doing the anointing of Jesus, and is said to be with Jesus. (See Isaiah 61:1) If God was with Jesus, then, through Jesus, God was with his people. Bearing the titular name Immanuel does not mean that Jesus was his God who was with Jesus.

Additionally, Isaiah 8:8 is speaking of Sennacherib, a king of Assyria, would “pass through Judah.” This prophecy refers to
King Sennacherib, for Tiglath-pileser, who slew Pekah and Rezin, did not pass through Judah. Through Isaiah, the people of Judah were told that Jehovah would take care of them and they were not even to defend themselves. The army of Sennacherib did come to Judah. After prophesying about Tiglath-pileser, Isaiah abruptly starts to prophesy about Sennacherib and uses the same language. Sennacherib would overflow into Judah; in fact, he flooded the land almost to the capital (“the neck”), and there he had his spokesman call up to the people, “You had better give in and submit peaceably because your God is not able to defend you.” Isaiah counseled the people not to worry, for God would fight the battle. King Sennacherib was likened to a tremendous bird such as an eagle or a vulture. So large was the bird that “the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy [Immanuel’s] land.” To those hearing the prophecy in Isaiah’s day, “Immanuel” was Judah. The land of Judah was pictured as a person, the neck or head being Jerusalem. The name “Immanuel” depicts how God was with Judah. Judah was delivered from Sennacherib not by battle instruments but by Jehovah’s destroying angel in one night. Thus God was with Judah in that God fought for Judah. Thus, the name Immanuel as used in Isaiah 8:8 is speaking of God being with his people, that his favor and strength was with his people so as to deliver his people, not that God was a man dwelling amongst the people.

Outside the Bible, we cannot say for sure whether in any baby in Bible times was ever name “Immanuel” or not. We know that in later Jewish history, several have held the name Immanuel, without any thought that the bearer of the name was God Almighty.

For further study, see:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=4866

Definition of Jesus – Has the Son of God Always Existed?

The statement is made that the Son of God has always existed, but that Jesus has not always existed. The claim, in effect, is that Jesus is only the Son of God in the flesh; that the Son of God is not “Jesus” aside from the flesh. Thus, it is claimed that Jesus is for all eternity still a human being. There are several errors in this line of reasoning that are false and contrary to scripture. Indeed, such a teaching nullifies the basis of the atonement.  Of course, Jesus had only been given the name “Jesus” when he came into the world of mankind that had been made through him. This does not mean that Jesus did not exist before his becoming a man, nor does it mean that Jesus ceased to exist since he is no longer in the days of his flesh. — Hebrews 5:7.

The Son of God has not always existed; only the God of whom he is the Son has always existed. The very term “son” denotes that he was brought forth into existence, and thus at some point he did not exist.

John 1 is cited as proof that the Son of God has always existed. In reality, however, such a thought has to be imagined in the imaginations of men, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated in John 1. The fact that the Logos of God is spoken of as already in existence at the beginning spoken of in John 1:1 does not mean that Logos had always been in existence. One needs to consider what is meant by “the beginning” as well as what is meant the “panta”  — all — that was brought forth into existence by means of the firstborn creature.

See our studies on this at:
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=200

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=300

http://defending.reslight.net/?p=10

The other matter of grave importance is the claim that Jesus is still  human being, else he would not be Jesus. This is actually sophistry, since there is nothing at all in the scriptures to support such a claim. If, however, Jesus is still a human being, a little lower than the angels, then Jesus has not given up his human flesh, soul, body, life for all eternity to pay the redemptive price for sin, and thus the very basis of the atonement is nullified.

http://atonement.reslight.net

As we have shown in earlier studies, Jesus is no longer in the days of his flesh, he was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit. This does not in any way mean that Jesus had to cease being Jesus simply because he is now a spirit being, higher than the angels, and no longer a human being, lower than than the angels. Jesus, although he did not carry the name of Jesus, was still the same person before he became flesh. It was Jesus who spoke of his existence with his God and Father, the only true God, before the world of mankind was made. (John 17:3,5) Thus, Jesus, although he did not yet have the name Jesus, was in existence with the glory of a celestial, not a terrestrial body (1 Corinthians 15:40), before the world of mankind was made. It was Jesus who said that he was to return to where he was before. Thus, it was Jesus — although he did not bear the name Jesus at that time — who was in the “where” to which he was to return. (John 6:62) Likewise, even though Jesus is no longer flesh, no longer a human being, and has been exalted again with the celestial glory, above the angels, he is still Jesus, and he is no longer of the terrestrial glory of a human being.

See our earlier studies at:

http://atonement.reslight.net/?p=1

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=218

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=215