Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #54

Bible Christian Society

General Comments

I waited until today to send this issue out (rather than doing so last week) because I am going out of town for the rest of the week and will not be able to get another issue out until the end of next week. So, sending it out today just provides a little more even spacing between issues.


I’ll be out of town for a little family vacation. We’ll be going up to Huntsville to see my mom and family and then up to Chattanooga to visit the Aquarium up there. It will be a much needed break…although I know I’ll have several hundred emails waiting for me once I get back. Such is life…

Introduction

This is the 2nd round of my debate with Matthew Janzen on whether or not Jesus Christ is God the Son, the 2nd person of the Trinity. As in the last issue, I will print his comments in their entirety, and then repeat them with my reply interspersed amongst his comments.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Matthew Janzen


Mr. Martignoni begins by wondering how I am going to “interpret away” the verses
that refer to Yeshua (Jesus) as God. He then states that I just ignore them. He is
mistaken. I have no problem calling Yeshua God. The term God (Hebrew = Elohim /
Greek = Theos) is not a unique term that applies only to Yahweh. Scripture refers to
Moses as God (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), the Judges of Israel as God (Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9; 1
Samuel 2:25), Angels as God (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7), and Israelite King as God (Psalm 45:6), and even False gods as God (1 Kings 11:5; Zephaniah 2:11; 1 Corinthians 8:5). So, for Yahweh to call Yeshua God, does not prove that he is the one unique God, nor does it prove that he is co-equal or co-eternal with God the Father. Basically stated, it does not prove that Yeshua is God in the Trinitarian sense.


This is similar with another title in Scripture attributed to Yahweh quite often -
Father. When we pray (Yeshua taught) we are to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy name.” (Matthew 6:9) Whilst the title Father is here used in a very
unique sense, it does not mean that other people cannot have that same title applied to them in other senses. Such is the case with Abraham, our Father (James 2:21; John 8:39; Romans 4:11-12). If I make the statement, “Abraham, our Father, was married to Sarah,” I am not saying that Abraham is Yahweh our Father; rather, he is our Father in a different sense.


I think my Mr. Martignoni will agree that Yeshua is called the Father of Eternity in
Isaiah 9:6. Some theologians believe this proves that Yeshua is Yahweh the Father or
God the Father, I personally do not. I recognize that Yeshua can have the title Father applied to him and at the same time not be confused with God the Father. I also
recognize that Yeshua can have the title God applied to him and not be confused with the one God.


Mr. Martignoni then asks why so many Christians believe Jesus to be God if he is
not? The fact of a multitude of people believing a certain thing is no proof that the thing, in this case doctrine, they believe is truth. Yeshua himself said narrow is the way that leads to life and few be there that find it (Matthew 7:14).


My opponent then goes on with questions about the canon of Scripture. This debate
is not about that subject. I will be glad to debate Mr. Martignoni in the future in
writing or in public on the subject of the canon, but will not take up space doing so here.


Mr. Martignoni says that he believes Peter’s statement in Matthew 16:16 and that it does not contradict the teaching of the Trinity. He also states that I basically make an argument from silence here by asking the question, “Couldn’t Peter have just as easily called Yeshua the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?”


There is no argument of silence here, rather an argument based upon what the text
actually says. Within Peter’s answer to Yeshua, there are two distinct beings. Yeshua is said to be the Son of the living God. Notice that the term “living God” is not applied to Yeshua, but rather to His Father, the one God. Peter knew how to use the term “living God,” but in answer to a question about the identity of Yeshua he did not use such a term, but rather placed the words “Son of the” before the words “living God.” Thus we have
one being identified as the “living God” and the other identified in a distinct fashion.


Also, Mr. Martignoni, if Peter would have said to Yeshua, “Thou are the Christ, the
living God,” we would not be having this debate for I would agree that Yeshua would
then be the one God. This is because the verse under consideration deals specifically
with the identity of Yeshua. This is not just a verse which applies the title God to
Yeshua, but rather one in which his particular identity is being discussed.


Concerning Thomas’ statement in John 20:28, I have no problem. Yeshua could
rightfully be called Thomas’ Lord and God. But remember, Abraham could rightfully be
called Thomas’ Father. This does not prove that Abraham was Yahweh the Father or that
Yeshua was Yahweh God. Just a few verses before in the gospel according to John we
have Yeshua referring to Yahweh as his God (John 20:17), and a few verses after
Thomas’ declaration we have John giving us the reason he wrote his gospel – to prove
Yeshua was the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31), not “God the Son.” Yeshua was
God to Thomas in the sense that he represented God whilst on earth (see Exodus 7:1).


My point concerning 2 John 1:3 is that Yeshua is referred to as the “Son of the
Father.” I’ve have heard many Trinitarians use this verse to show Oneness Pentecostals
that Yeshua is not the Father. “You see, he is the Son of the Father,” they say. Maybe
Mr. Martignoni does not use the verse in that fashion; however the verse is proof that Yeshua is not his own Father. The point of all this is that the exact same logic can be used to prove that Yeshua is not his own God. When the phrase “Son of God” is used of Yeshua, he cannot be the God in that phrase, but rather the Son of the God in that phrase.


Next we come to the meaning of the phrase, Son of God. Mr. Martignoni agrees that
all of the sons I listed in the chart are not their own fathers. He also agrees that the Son of God is not the same person as the Father. This is a good start.


He basically argues that, “The son of a human is a human, thus the Son of God is
God.” With this basic argument I agree, but not in the Trinitarian sense. I have no
problem recognizing Yeshua as divine, different than myself, unique, virgin born, sinless, etc. However, this still does nothing to prove that Yeshua is the one God.
Using the men Ephron and Zohar mentioned in the chart. Is Ephron the same person as Zohar? The answer is no. Is Ephron human? The answer is yes. Is Ephron the same
human as Zohar? The answer is no. Is Yeshua the same God as Yahweh? No. He is
rather God in a vice-regent, representative sense, seeing that the one God begat him.


Mr. Martignoni states concerning 1 Timothy 2:5, “Jesus, as true God and true man, is
indeed the one mediator between God and men.” The problem with his statement is that
you do not find it in 1 Timothy 2:5. Yeshua is rather referred to as the one mediator
between the one God and men. He then states, “If, however, this verse “proves” that Jesus isn’t God, because He is mediating “between” God and men, then it also “proves” that Jesus wasn’t a man. If the word “between” means that He wasn’t what appears before the word, then it also means that He wasn’t what appears after the word.” It is true that Yeshua is not the men that appear after him in the verse. This is obvious, seeing that Yeshua mediates for these men and not for his own self. However, this does not prove Yeshua is not a man for the text explicitly calls him, “the man Yeshua [the] Christ.” The point then stands firm, Yeshua is neither the one God nor the men he mediates for, but rather stands between the two parties which is what the word mediator means – a go between.


Mr. Martignoni asks, “What mere man can raise the dead by his own power?” Mr.
Martignoni, I do not believe Yeshua was a mere man. He was the Son of the living God,
begotten by the Father, virgin born, sinless, etc. Furthermore, Yeshua raised the dead by the power Yahweh gave him, not by his own power (John 5:19, 30). All of the other things my opponent mentions such as healing the sick, forgiving sins, paying the debt of sins with death were not accomplished by a mere man. They were accomplished by the man Yeshua Messiah, the Son of the living God.


While on the subject of sin, many believe that only the death of the one true God
could atone for the sins of humanity, but sacred Scripture does not teach that. Hebrews 9:22 states that it takes the shedding of blood and many Scriptures state that the sacrifice had to be without blemish. The blood of a sinless man was thus required, and Yeshua, the Son of the living God, was that sinless sacrifice (1 John 3:5). Romans 5:19 essentially tells us that by one man many were made sinners, thus it was by one man that many are made righteous (see also 1 Corinthians 15:21).


Mr. Martignoni doesn’t do justice to my point on Exodus 3:15. Once again, the God
speaking in Exodus 3:15 has a Son (Acts 3:13). Thus it was not the Son (Yeshua)
speaking in Exodus 3:15.


My opponent then attempts to use John 8:58 as proof that Yeshua is the I Am of
Exodus 3:15. The problem is, it was just shown why that is an impossibility. Does
Yeshua’s use of I am prove he is the same I am of Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Yeshua was
in context speaking of the patriarch Abraham seeing his day (John 8:56). How did
Abraham see Yeshua’s day? Was it not by faith? (Hebrews 11:8-19) The Jews listening
to Yeshua obviously misunderstood Yeshua because they wondered how he could make
such a statement being not yet 50 years old, but they missed Yeshua’s point. Yeshua was making the point that in the plan of the Father, he was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Abraham knew this and saw Yeshua’s day by faith, and was glad. Yeshua’s statement in verse 58 about I am, need mean nothing more than him being the bread of life, light of the world, door, good shepherd, Messiah, and Son of God (John 6:35, 41, 48; 8:12, 18, 24, 28; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 13:19; 18:5). Yeshua spoke spiritually, but the Jews took him literally. The same mistake was made by Nicodemus in John 3 where Yeshua spoke of being born again spiritually, but Nicodemus thought he was speaking of entering into your mother’s womb a second time (John 3:3-4).


My opponent then asks about the word begotten. I’m very familiar with the word
begotten. It’s usage in the Greek language has to do with something coming into
existence or having a beginning, proving that Yeshua is not eternal. The same can be
said for the meaning of the word son. People know what the word son means, and if you have a son, the son comes after the father, not before or at the same time, but after. The words only begotten (Greek = monogenes) are no evidence that Yeshua is the one God, but rather evidence that Yeshua is not the one God, but that God begat Yeshua (1 John 5:1). This is why Saint Matthew speaks of the birth/origin (Greek = genesis) of Yeshua in Matthew 1:18, and his being begotten in the womb of Miriam in Matthew 1:20. Mr. Martignoni again asks the question, “If he (Yeshua) is not God, then what is He Matthew?” My answer will continually be that he is God’s only begotten Son.


I have not completely answered my opponent’s first written speech, but I am out of room. I promise to pick back up where I’ve left off as well as continue to address any new statements put forth by my worthy opponent, John Martignoni.


-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-


John Martignoni


What I am going to do is start off with a number of verses, from Scripture, that point to Jesus indeed being God. After all, this whole debate is about what Scripture says, right? I’ll start with the ones I ended my last round comments with:


Titus 2:13, “…our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…”
Titus 3:4, “…God our Savior…”
1 John 4:14, “…the Father has sent His Son as the Savior of the world.”


Please note that Scripture refers to Jesus Christ as the “Savior” and that it also refers to the “Savior” as God. Also note that in Titus, it states that Jesus gave Himself to “purify for Himself a people of His own” (Titus 2:14). But, in 2 Cor 6:16, it has the “living God” saying this: “I will be their God and they will be my people.” Well, we’re Jesus’ people and we’re the people of the living God…hmm. Isn’t then Jesus the living God?


Question: Matthew, which God our Savior is being spoken of in Titus 3:4-7? Is it the God our Savior mentioned in Titus 2:13, or is it God the Father?


Matthew, Jesus and the Father are both called, “God" and "Savior.” Which one is really God our Savior? How can Jesus be our great God and Savior, if the Father is God our Savior? Unless, of course, Jesus is indeed God?


John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”
John 17:11, “That they may be one, even as We are one.”


What human being would ever say, “I and the Father are one?” How can Jesus and the Father be one, if Jesus is not God?


Isaiah 62:5, “…as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.”
Matt 9:15, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?”


God is the bridegroom. Jesus is the bridegroom. Jesus is God.


Romans 9:5, “to [the Israelites] belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, Who is God over all…” 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 through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”


The Christ, Jesus, is God over all…so saith the Scriptures. How can Jesus be God over all, yet not be God? Also, in John 1, it says that ALL things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. If Jesus is a creature, if He is not God, then He was “made” at some point. Yet, nothing was made without Him. Through Him all things were made. Jesus could not have made Himself. Therefore, if all things were made through Jesus, logic dictates that Jesus was never made. That He has always been and always will be. He is eternal. Only God is eternal…no beginning and no end. Therefore, Jesus is God.


1 Tim 4:4, “For everything created by God is good.” Given John 1:1-3, who is the word “God” referring to here? God the Father? Or, Jesus Christ, through Whom all things were made?


1 Tim 4:10, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.” Who is Paul referring to here, Matthew? God the Father? Jesus Christ? Both are identified in Titus as the Savior of men.


2 Tim 1:10 says that Jesus abolished death. Isn’t God the only one capable of abolishing death?


Matt 9:6-7 has Jesus forgiving a paralytic’s sins. Isn’t God the only one capable of forgiving sin?


Heb 1:6 has the Father telling the angels to worship Jesus. Isn’t God the only one deserving of worship? Rev 19:10 tells us to “worship God.” But, God tells His angels to worship Jesus. Hmm.


John 5:21, “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will.” John 5:26, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself…”


Isn’t God the only one Who can give life to Whom He will? Isn’t God the only one who can have life “in Himself”? Yet Jesus does.


Phil 2:5-7, “Christ Jesus, Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant…”


Jesus was in the “form of God,” and the “form of a servant.” One divine person, two natures – divine and human. How can one be in the “form of God,” if one is not God?


Romans 4:17, “As it is written, ‘I have made you [Abraham] the father of many nations,’ in the presence of the God in Whom he believed, Who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”


So, God gives life to the dead. And, this is referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, right? Well, let’s look at John 2:19-21, “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’…But He spoke of the temple of His body.”


So, we see Jesus proclaiming that He will raise up His body, yet, it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Who gives life to the dead, is it not? So, is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or is He lying when He says that He will raise up the temple of His body? Which is it, Matthew?


Rev 19:16 refers to Jesus Christ as “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Yet, Deut 10:17 refers to the Almighty God as “God of gods and Lord of lords.” So, Matthew, how can Jesus be Lord of lords if the God of gods is Lord of lords, unless, of course, Jesus is God?


I could go on and on with just Scripture, but Matthew will be hard pressed to even answer this little bit I’ve included here. Jesus is God the Savior of men. The Father is God the Savior of men. The Father raises the dead by His own power. Jesus raises the dead by His own power. The Father forgives sin. Jesus forgives sin. The Father has life in Himself. Jesus has life in Himself. The Father is Lord of lords. Jesus is Lord of lords. Jesus is God over all. The Father is God of gods. Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus is the bridegroom. The Father is the bridegroom. The Father’s name is “I am.” Jesus calls Himself, “I am.” I guess that means Jesus isn’t God, right?


Matthew’s whole argument is basically this: The Scriptures clearly show that the Son is not the Father, therefore the Son cannot be God. Well, I agree with the premise, as do all Christians, that the Son is not the Father…that they are indeed different persons. So his arguments on this point are basically non-arguments, because we are in agreement. However, I do not agree with the conclusion – that the Son is not God. What he needs to show, and has failed to show, is why the Son not being the Father means the Son cannot be God.


I don’t have the space to get into a treatise on the Trinity, but much of Matthew’s line of argumentation results from an apparently limited understanding of trinitarian theology. Human nature can be divided. Divine nature cannot be. Two different persons can share human nature yet not be one human…because human nature is divisible. Two different persons can share divine nature, yet be one God…because divine nature is not divisible. If Jesus has a divine nature, as Matthew has admitted, then He is indeed God.


Matthew Janzen


Mr. Martignoni begins by wondering how I am going to “interpret away” the verses
that refer to Yeshua (Jesus) as God. He then states that I just ignore them. He is
mistaken. I have no problem calling Yeshua God. The term God (Hebrew = Elohim /
Greek = Theos) is not a unique term that applies only to Yahweh. Scripture refers to
Moses as God (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), the Judges of Israel as God (Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9; 1
Samuel 2:25), Angels as God (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7), and Israelite King as God (Psalm
45:6), and even False gods as God (1 Kings 11:5; Zephaniah 2:11; 1 Corinthians 8:5).
So, for Yahweh to call Yeshua God, does not prove that he is the one unique God, nor
does it prove that he is co-equal or co-eternal with God the Father. Basically stated, it
does not prove that Yeshua is God in the Trinitarian sense.


John Martignoni


The word “elohim” can have different meanings (angels, judges, false gods, etc.) other than just “God.” So what? In all of these passages that Matthew refers to, it is quite obvious from the context that no one is being referred to as God Almighty. Moses is being appointed by God to stand in His stead before Aaron (Ex 4:16) and Pharaoh (Ex 7:1). This is quite obvious. Nowhere that I am aware of is it recorded that the people addressed Moses as their Lord and their God, as Thomas did with Jesus.


[Note: I believe Matthew is using the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. If you are using a different version, your translation may be a little different and that may cause some confusion when reading the verses he mentions above.]


Matthew Janzen


This is similar with another title in Scripture attributed to Yahweh quite often -
Father. When we pray (Yeshua taught) we are to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy name.” (Matthew 6:9) Whilst the title Father is here used in a very
unique sense, it does not mean that other people cannot have that same title applied to
them in other senses. Such is the case with Abraham, our Father (James 2:21; John 8:39;
Romans 4:11-12). If I make the statement, “Abraham, our Father, was married to Sarah,”
I am not saying that Abraham is Yahweh our Father; rather, he is our Father in a different
sense.


John Martignoni


Matthew’s argument cuts both ways. Abraham was indeed a father. So, if Abraham is called “father” because he is a father, then we have an argument for Jesus being God because He is called “God.” To assume that when Jesus is called “God,” that means that He is NOT God, is just that…an assumption.


Matthew Janzen


I think my Mr. Martignoni will agree that Yeshua is called the Father of Eternity in
Isaiah 9:6. Some theologians believe this proves that Yeshua is Yahweh the Father or
God the Father, I personally do not. I recognize that Yeshua can have the title Father
applied to him and at the same time not be confused with God the Father. I also
recognize that Yeshua can have the title God applied to him and not be confused with the
one God.


John Martignoni


Isaiah 9:6 is a verse that is obviously open to some interpretation, as Matthew’s words make plain. I see in it the Son Who is the “Mighty God,” but also all three persons of the Trinity Who are the one God – the “Everlasting Father,” Jesus (the “Prince of Peace”), and the Holy Spirit (“Wonderful Counselor”) – see also John 14:26, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name…”.


Matthew Janzen


Mr. Martignoni then asks why so many Christians believe Jesus to be God if he is
not? The fact of a multitude of people believing a certain thing is no proof that the thing,
in this case doctrine, they believe is truth. Yeshua himself said narrow is the way that
leads to life and few be there that find it (Matthew 7:14).


John Martignoni


Actually, I believe you missed my point here. Please go back and read what I said a little more closely in light of your words, “beyond a shadow of any doubt that Yeshua is not God.”


Matthew Janzen


My opponent then goes on with questions about the canon of Scripture. This debate
is not about that subject. I will be glad to debate Mr. Martignoni in the future in
writing or in public on the subject of the canon, but will not take up space doing so here.


John Martignoni


He introduced the topic of “human tradition.” I merely pointed out that he relies on what he calls “human tradition,” not Scripture, to even have a Bible in the first place.


Matthew Janzen


Mr. Martignoni says that he believes Peter’s statement in Matthew 16:16 and that it
does not contradict the teaching of the Trinity. He also states that I basically make an
argument from silence here by asking the question, “Couldn’t Peter have just as easily
called Yeshua the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?”


There is no argument of silence here, rather an argument based upon what the text
actually says. Within Peter’s answer to Yeshua, there are two distinct beings. Yeshua is
said to be the Son of the living God. Notice that the term “living God” is not applied to
Yeshua, but rather to His Father, the one God. Peter knew how to use the term “living
God,” but in answer to a question about the identity of Yeshua he did not use such a term,
but rather placed the words “Son of the” before the words “living God.” Thus we have
one being identified as the “living God” and the other identified in a distinct fashion.


Also, Mr. Martignoni, if Peter would have said to Yeshua, “Thou are the Christ, the
living God,” we would not be having this debate for I would agree that Yeshua would
then be the one God. This is because the verse under consideration deals specifically
with the identity of Yeshua. This is not just a verse which applies the title God to
Yeshua, but rather one in which his particular identity is being discussed.


John Martignoni


I agree 100% with what Peter said and with what Matthew basically says here…the Son is not the Father. So? Matthew’s main argument here is indeed an argument from silence (look at the paragraph immediately above) because his point is all about what Peter didn’t say…Peter didn’t say, “You are the Christ, the living God.” He didn’t say, “You are the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.” He didn’t say, “You are God the Son.” In other words, an argument from silence.


Matthew Janzen


Concerning Thomas’ statement in John 20:28, I have no problem. Yeshua could
rightfully be called Thomas’ Lord and God. But remember, Abraham could rightfully be
called Thomas’ Father. This does not prove that Abraham was Yahweh the Father or that
Yeshua was Yahweh God. Just a few verses before in the gospel according to John we
have Yeshua referring to Yahweh as his God (John 20:17), and a few verses after
Thomas’ declaration we have John giving us the reason he wrote his gospel – to prove
Yeshua was the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31), not “God the Son.” Yeshua was
God to Thomas in the sense that he represented God whilst on earth (see Exodus 7:1).


John Martignoni


Abraham can rightfully be called Thomas’ “father” because he is Thomas’ father in a biological and spiritual sense. So, Jesus can rightfully be called Thomas’ “God” because He is Thomas’ God. Unfortunately, for Matthew’s case, John 20:31 doesn’t say “Yeshua was God to Thomas in the sense that he represented God whilst on earth.” He has found it necessary to add his interpretation to Scripture here. And, there is a huge difference between Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God, and God Almighty appointing Moses “as God” to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).


Matthew Janzen


My point concerning 2 John 1:3 is that Yeshua is referred to as the “Son of the
Father.” I’ve have heard many Trinitarians use this verse to show Oneness Pentecostals
that Yeshua is not the Father. “You see, he is the Son of the Father,” they say. Maybe
Mr. Martignoni does not use the verse in that fashion; however the verse is proof that
Yeshua is not his own Father. The point of all this is that the exact same logic can be
used to prove that Yeshua is not his own God. When the phrase “Son of God” is used of
Yeshua, he cannot be the God in that phrase, but rather the Son of the God in that phrase.
Next we come to the meaning of the phrase, Son of God. Mr. Martignoni agrees that
all of the sons I listed in the chart are not their own fathers. He also agrees that the Son
of God is not the same person as the Father. This is a good start.


He basically argues that, “The son of a human is a human, thus the Son of God is
God.” With this basic argument I agree, but not in the Trinitarian sense. I have no
problem recognizing Yeshua as divine, different than myself, unique, virgin born, sinless,
etc. However, this still does nothing to prove that Yeshua is the one God.
Using the men Ephron and Zohar mentioned in the chart. Is Ephron the same person
as Zohar? The answer is no. Is Ephron human? The answer is yes. Is Ephron the same
human as Zohar? The answer is no. Is Yeshua the same God as Yahweh? No. He is
rather God in a vice-regent, representative sense, seeing that the one God begat him.


John Martignoni


See my comments above on the Trinity. Also, Jesus, in His human nature, does indeed have God the Father as His God. His human nature is created. He was for a time made lower than the angels (Heb 2:7). His human nature is subject to the Divine. So, it makes perfect sense that He would call God, His God. Matthew can not believe this to be true, but so far none of the Scripture verses he has presented run contrary to anything in trinitarian theology.


Matthew Janzen


Mr. Martignoni states concerning 1 Timothy 2:5, “Jesus, as true God and true man, is
indeed the one mediator between God and men.” The problem with his statement is that
you do not find it in 1 Timothy 2:5. Yeshua is rather referred to as the one mediator
between the one God and men. He then states, “If, however, this verse “proves” that Jesus isn’t God, because He is mediating “between” God and men, then it also “proves” that Jesus wasn’t a man. If the word “between” means that He wasn’t what appears before the word, then it also means that He wasn’t what appears after the word.” It is true that Yeshua is not the men that
appear after him in the verse. This is obvious, seeing that Yeshua mediates for these
men and not for his own self. However, this does not prove Yeshua is not a man for the
text explicitly calls him, “the man Yeshua [the] Christ.” The point then stands firm,
Yeshua is neither the one God nor the men he mediates for, but rather stands between the
two parties which is what the word mediator means – a go between.


Mr. Martignoni asks, “What mere man can raise the dead by his own power?” Mr.
Martignoni, I do not believe Yeshua was a mere man. He was the Son of the living God,
begotten by the Father, virgin born, sinless, etc. Furthermore, Yeshua raised the dead by
the power Yahweh gave him, not by his own power (John 5:19, 30).


John Martignoni


Oh yeah, what about John 2:19-21? Was Jesus lying?


Matthew Janzen


All of the other things my opponent mentions such as healing the sick, forgiving sins, paying the debt of sins with death were not accomplished by a mere man. They were accomplished by the man Yeshua Messiah, the Son of the living God.


While on the subject of sin, many believe that only the death of the one true God
could atone for the sins of humanity, but sacred Scripture does not teach that. Hebrews
9:22 states that it takes the shedding of blood and many Scriptures state that the sacrifice
had to be without blemish. The blood of a sinless man was thus required, and Yeshua,
the Son of the living God, was that sinless sacrifice (1 John 3:5). Romans 5:19
essentially tells us that by one man many were made sinners, thus it was by one man that
many are made righteous (see also 1 Corinthians 15:21).


Mr. Martignoni doesn’t do justice to my point on Exodus 3:15. Once again, the God
speaking in Exodus 3:15 has a Son (Acts 3:13). Thus it was not the Son (Yeshua)
speaking in Exodus 3:15.


My opponent then attempts to use John 8:58 as proof that Yeshua is the I Am of
Exodus 3:15. The problem is, it was just shown why that is an impossibility. Does
Yeshua’s use of I am prove he is the same I am of Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Yeshua was
in context speaking of the patriarch Abraham seeing his day (John 8:56). How did
Abraham see Yeshua’s day? Was it not by faith? (Hebrews 11:8-19) The Jews listening
to Yeshua obviously misunderstood Yeshua because they wondered how he could make
such a statement being not yet 50 years old, but they missed Yeshua’s point. Yeshua was
making the point that in the plan of the Father, he was the lamb slain from the foundation
of the world (Revelation 13:8). Abraham knew this and saw Yeshua’s day by faith, and
was glad. Yeshua’s statement in verse 58 about I am, need mean nothing more than him
being the bread of life, light of the world, door, good shepherd, Messiah, and Son of God
(John 6:35, 41, 48; 8:12, 18, 24, 28; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 13:19; 18:5). Yeshua spoke
spiritually, but the Jews took him literally. The same mistake was made by Nicodemus in
John 3 where Yeshua spoke of being born again spiritually, but Nicodemus thought he
was speaking of entering into your mother’s womb a second time (John 3:3-4).


John Martignoni


One question: How much of that last paragraph is actually in the Bible, and how much is Matthew’s insertion of his own man-made fallible opinions into Scripture? How did Abraham see Jesus’ day? Was it by faith, or was it by some special vision given to Abraham by God? The Bible doesn’t tell us, but Matthew does. Did the Jews “obviously” misunderstand Jesus. Well, if you’re trying to talk your way out of corner then they had to have misunderstood Jesus. But, the Bible doesn’t tell us that, Matthew does. The Jews didn’t misunderstand Jesus, they simply didn’t accept what He was saying as being true, just like Matthew doesn’t. In John 3, it is painfully obvious that Nicodemus didn’t understand, Jesus even says as much. Nothing like that language is used in John 8, though, except in Matthew’s interpretation.


Matthew Janzen


My opponent then asks about the word begotten. I’m very familiar with the word
begotten. It’s usage in the Greek language has to do with something coming into
existence or having a beginning, proving that Yeshua is not eternal. The same can be
said for the meaning of the word son. People know what the word son means, and if you
have a son, the son comes after the father, not before or at the same time, but after. The
words only begotten (Greek = monogenes) are no evidence that Yeshua is the one God,
but rather evidence that Yeshua is not the one God, but that God begat Yeshua (1 John
5:1). This is why Saint Matthew speaks of the birth/origin (Greek = genesis) of Yeshua
in Matthew 1:18, and his being begotten in the womb of Miriam in Matthew 1:20. Mr.
Martignoni again asks the question, “If he (Yeshua) is not God, then what is He
Matthew?” My answer will continually be that he is God’s only begotten Son.


I have not completely answered my opponent’s first written speech, but I am out of
room. I promise to pick back up where I’ve left off as well as continue to address any
new statements put forth by my worthy opponent, John Martignoni.


John Martignoni


Unfortunately, I didn’t have the space to engage all of Matthew’s comments fully at this time.

In Conclusion

Again, comments are welcome and all will be read, even though I don’t have the time to respond to most of them.


I hope all of you have a great week!

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.


$RemovalHTML$

Apologetics for the Masses