Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #62

This is the final round in my debate with Matthew Janzen on whether or not Jesus is God. Matthew claims He is “god” in a certain sense, but not “God” in the Trinitarian sense. I put his remarks in their entirety up first, and then I repeat his remarks (in italics) and intersperse mine (in bold) among his.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Matthew Janzen

Closing Statement

This is my closing and I regrettably will not be able to address all of my opponent’s arguments in detail. I have chosen what I feel is the most pertinent for my closing. Anyone desiring further discussion of my beliefs can visit my website for articles and books on this subject.

One basic thing we must remember about this good discussion is that Yeshua is referred to as the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:13-18), the Son of God Most High (Luke 8:27-28), and the Son of the Father (2 John 1:3). In each of these phrases we see two distinct individuals. Taking the second phrase (for example), we have (1) God Most High, and (2) the Son of God Most High. Therefore, when Yeshua is called the Son of somebody else in the same sentence he cannot be that same somebody else. God Most High is the Father, and if Yeshua is not the Father then it is impossible for him to be God Most High.

Using this is a basis, when we come to passages that refer to Yeshua as God (John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8) we have to understand that he cannot be the God that he is the Son of, so he must have the term God applied to him in a different way. This is no problem. God is a term that does apply to exalted humans and angels without distorting their distinction with the one God of heaven, Yahweh. Therefore the phrase Yeshua is God is true in one sense, just as the phrase Abraham is our Father is true in one sense.

Mr. Martignoni claims that I have rigged this “contest” is such a way as to not lose. I say that the Bible is what has won in this discussion, and I most certainly have not rigged it. Please do not just take my opponents word for anything he says, nor mine own, you go and check what we both say by the Scriptures and see if our statements are made in Scripture. You go and examine the context of Scriptures like John 10:30 and determine for yourself who is being honest with the text.

Lastly, let me again explain the term Son of God in Scripture. This phrase applies to angelic beings (Job 38:7), Israelites (Hosea 1:10), Adam (Luke 3:38), believers in Christ (John 1:12), and Yeshua (Luke 1:35). This is not a term that is a mask for someone really being Yahweh Almighty. It is clearly a term that refers to a person or persons that Yahweh has fathered uniquely and has a special relationship with. When the Jews erroneously reasoned that Yeshua’s claims in John 10 were making him out to be God, he quickly corrected them by quoting Psalm 82 – a passage about others who were God in a secondary sense. If these human judges can be called God, why did they think Yeshua blasphemed for calling himself the Son of God (John 10:36)? Why not go and study it out for yourself?

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

Matthew Janzen

Closing Statement

This is my closing and I regrettably will not be able to address all of my opponent’s arguments in detail. I have chosen what I feel is the most pertinent for my closing. Anyone desiring further discussion of my beliefs can visit my website for articles and books on this subject.

One basic thing we must remember about this good discussion is that Yeshua is referred to as the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:13-18), the Son of God Most High (Luke 8:27-28), and the Son of the Father (2 John 1:3). In each of these phrases we see two distinct individuals. Taking the second phrase (for example), we have (1) God Most High, and (2) the Son of God Most High. Therefore, when Yeshua is called the Son of somebody else in the same sentence he cannot be that same somebody else. God Most High is the Father, and if Yeshua is not the Father then it is impossible for him to be God Most High.

Using this is a basis, when we come to passages that refer to Yeshua as God (John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8) we have to understand that he cannot be the God that he is the Son of, so he must have the term God applied to him in a different way. This is no problem. God is a term that does apply to exalted humans and angels without distorting their distinction with the one God of heaven, Yahweh. Therefore the phrase Yeshua is God is true in one sense, just as the phrase Abraham is our Father is true in one sense.

John Martignoni

Again, Matthew uses circular reasoning. He first assumes that God is one and only one person. Therefore, when he shows that Scripture refers to two distinct persons, “God” and the “Son of God,” then that “proves” that Jesus is not God. But, it “proves” that Jesus is not God only if…only if…you’ve first made the assumption that God is one person and not three. Circular reasoning.

Matthew has proven nothing except that the Son and the Father are two distinct persons. Well, I grant that point to my opponent. He has not disproven, though, anything in regard to Trinitarian theology. God and the Son of God are two different persons – I agree.

I quite often say “God,” when I specifically mean “God the Father.” Other times I use “God” to mean the Trinitarian God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I say “God” to mean God the Father, I am in no way implying that Jesus is not God. Most Christians use the convention of referring to God the Father as simply “God,” but that doesn’t mean they think Jesus isn’t God. Just so in Scripture. When it mentions the Living God and the Son of the Living God, it is indeed saying that they are two separate persons, it is not, however, saying Jesus is not God. Matthew has done nothing to prove otherwise.

Matthew Janzen

Mr. Martignoni claims that I have rigged this “contest” is such a way as to not lose. I say that the Bible is what has won in this discussion, and I most certainly have not rigged it. Please do not just take my opponents word for anything he says, nor mine own, you go and check what we both say by the Scriptures and see if our statements are made in Scripture. You go and examine the context of Scriptures like John 10:30 and determine for yourself who is being honest with the text.

John Martignoni

The Bible and what it says are not in dispute here. What is in dispute, is Matthew’s fallible, man-made interpretation of the Bible vs. the ancient Trinitarian interpretation of the Church that gave us the Bible. Do you believe the Church’s interpretation, or Matthew Janzen’s?

Matthew Janzen

Lastly, let me again explain the term Son of God in Scripture. This phrase applies to angelic beings (Job 38:7), Israelites (Hosea 1:10), Adam (Luke 3:38), believers in Christ (John 1:12), and Yeshua (Luke 1:35). This is not a term that is a mask for someone really being Yahweh Almighty. It is clearly a term that refers to a person or persons that Yahweh has fathered uniquely and has a special relationship with. When the Jews erroneously reasoned that Yeshua’s claims in John 10 were making him out to be God, he quickly corrected them by quoting Psalm 82 – a passage about others who were God in a secondary sense. If these human judges can be called God, why did they think Yeshua blasphemed for calling himself the Son of God (John 10:36)? Why not go and study it out for yourself?

John Martignoni

Please do read the Bible for yourself and see if the Jews of the time did not interpret the term “Son of God” as meaning God Himself. It is quite obvious that they did. That was the extent of the point I was making. Matthew claimed that the term was “always” used to mean “one who is uniquely fathered by God.” Well, the Jews of the day obviously disagree with Matthew as to the meaning of that phrase. And, Jesus would have known that. So, when He stated that He was the Son of God, He knew how they would take it. Does Matthew believe that Jesus deliberately misled them?

Re-read my last newsletter. Read the Scriptures that I point out. Read how abilities and titles that are proper to God Almighty alone are applied to Jesus over and over and over again. He forgives sin. Power goes out from Him to heal. He sits on the throne of God Almighty. Lord of lords. He raises the dead. And, concerning that, there was an important question I asked that Matthew passed on twice. In John 2:19-21, Jesus says He will raise the dead – which Matthew has agreed only God Almighty can do. So my question: Was Jesus lying or did Scripture get it wrong? It has to be one or the other in Matthew’s theology. Since neither option is possible, the problem must be with Matthew’s theology.

In Conclusion

Hope all of you have a wonderful weekend! If you like what you read, please let others know about us: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

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.

$RemovalHTML$

Share this newsletter on: