UnDisfellowshipped,
I am aware of both of those links, and it looks to me as though the Scripturaltruths article addresses the issues they have raised (specifically, the gopseltruths one, which apparently through revision as there is a revised date on the article that post-dates the date of posting.)
MY COMMENTS: The immediate context of Isaiah 48:12 has Jehovah declaring that He is The First and The Last who will never share His glory with another. Isn't it possible that that was the meaning of God's use of "I Am He" in the book of Isaiah? If so, isn't it also possible that Jesus meant the same thing in John 8:24 when He said "If you do not believe that I AM [He], you will die in your sins"?
The meaning of "I am he" is exactly the same as it would mean if anyone else used it. It is simple grammar. It is not any type of proper name as the article demonstrates in context.
That quote says that God, when He said "I Am He" in Isaiah 48:12, meant "I am the same one who did these things." Isn't it possible that this is what Jesus meant in John 8:24, that Jesus was "The Same One" (YHWH)? After all, The Father Himself, in Hebrews 1:12, says that Jesus is "The Same One" who never changes (which is the exact wording applied to YHWH in a prayer in Psalm 102)?
The problem you face is that there is no basis in making that jump from one text to the other. In John 48:12 God is saying something specific, and in context nothing indicates that Jesus was making that same jump. In fact, the Jews did not understand it that way, they understood it as normal grammar for in response they ask who he says he is. Using it as normal grammar, this response is entirely appropriate.
Also, please explain exactly what you mean by "worship" when you say that Jesus should be worshiped. Do you mean that Jesus should be worshiped "just as" The Father is worshiped (John 5:23, Revelation Chapter 5), or do you mean that He should be worshiped in a lesser degree than The Father is?
I would argue it is to the same degree, but based upon different reasons.
You said that Jesus is an exalted creature who should be worshiped along with God The Father. Isn't that by definition polytheism? If not, please explain. The Jewish and Christian faiths have always been monotheistic. Do you worship One God or two Gods?
This isn't entirely true, but irregardless, we are dealing with a non-Biblical term that is used to describe ones preconcieved ideas of Biblical theology. Instead of trying to define it and then determine what the Bible teaches, let us find out what the Bible teaches and then define it.
As you correctly stated, God commands all to worship Jesus, but would God ever issue a command that contradicted and violated His previously revealed principles, purpose, and will? You claim that Christians are no longer under God's command from the Mosaic Law to worship only YHWH, and therefore there is no problem for a Christian to worship an exalted creature, as long as God tells you to do it.
Correct. If God tells you to do something, you do it! The key is this. It was necessary for God to exalted Jesus for him to receive it. Thus, Jesus could not be God, for Jesus does not receive it without this act of God.
BUT, God's Command to worship ONLY HIM was not some temporary part of the Mosaic Law that was to be done away with at a later time, it was an ETERNAL PRINCIPLE and TRUTH of GOD. This can be shown from YHWH's statements and commands in the book of Isaiah (which is NOT part of the Mosaic Law) that there was only ONE God by nature, and only ONE God that should ever be worshiped, both now, and forever:
This is an arbitary classication. Due to the Sabbath references throughout Scripture one could just as well argue the same for it, though we know it is not true.
Those statements are NOT part of the Mosaic Law Covenant. Instead, they are eternal FACTS presented by God Himself! From these statements we learn the following facts:
Actually they are statements contrasting the Almighty with idols, which has nothing to do with Jesus or any others that are not idols.
And yet, you claim that God violated His own principles and His own TRUTH as revealed in Isaiah (that He was the only One worthy of worship and that He would never share His glory), by commanding all to worship an exalted creature who shares Jehovah's glory.
No, I'm claiming that you are taking those verses out of the context of idols and importing it into the context of everyone. That is exegetically unsound.
And, I ask you once more, can you show any Scriptural support showing that Jehovah ever did away with His commands and His truth that He alone is worthy of worship and that He alone is God by Nature, just like God did away with the Sabbath laws for Christians?
I've already shown that with Hebrews 1, Phil 2 and Revelation 5 for worship. I would agree that he alone is God by nature, with that captial G as in the one who alone is from all eterinity and uncreated.
What was the point of God saying "No one helped Me create"? Why would He even say that if, as you claim, God did indeed use others to help Him create?
You are adding the word "helped," and that is not what I am claiming. You are discussing a helper, I am discussing the means. The means that God used was his Son, his son was not a helper because his son was his own creation.
Do you see the point I am making? If YHWH had simply said "I created all things," then yes, it would have been possible for Him to have used another creature to help create. But, since YHWH proclaimed that He created all things ALONE, ALL BY HIMSELF, and NO ONE HELPED HIM, then there are only the following choices to believe in:
Your analogies do not accurately represent God's situation, for God created all he made use of, while Bill Gates would not have, etc. We know that God has made use of various things such as gravity, gasses, etc, etc, to bring about the formation of the universe and the earth. This was his making use of his own creation. It doesn't mean that it all did not originate with him, it simply means that he used what he himself made. It proved to be *how* he did it. Now in the context of Isaiah, God is refuting the idea that any of these idols had any involvement in creation.
Which option do you choose (or do you have another option?)
I have provided the third option. Now what you do not realize is this. According to Brown, Driver and Briggs, God's use of language in Isaiah 44:24 parallels what Jesus said in John 5:30. The difference is that while God claims that all originates with him here, Jesus says that nothing originates with him there. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the God that says all originates with him because noting originates with him!
True, in that Verse Peter applies the title "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" to The Father. This does NOT exclude Jesus from also being the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob."
Yes it does, because Jesus is said to be "his servant." He is the servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, meaning he cannot be a person of that God.
For example: You believe that The Father is Lord, don't you? Yet, the New Testament says that Jesus is "The Only Lord" (Jude 1:4) and that there is only One Lord for Christians, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6), and that Jesus is the "One Lord" (Ephesians 4:5). The fact that Jesus is the ONLY Lord and the ONE Lord does not exclude The Father from also being the One Lord. In the same exact way, when the Bible calls the Father "God" it does not exclude Jesus from also being "God."
I *love* this example, because it shows how Trinitarian exegesis falls apart. By this argument the elder of the 24 that the apostle John identified as his Lord (KURIE MOU) in Revelation 7:14 must also be that one Lord too. The fact is, Jesus, not the Father, is our One Lord, because God made him Lord and gave him that position. (Acts 2:36) The Bible teaches this and specifically says he is, but Trinitarians want to come in and say the Bible is wrong and in fact all three are, when Scripture plainly states that he is the "one Lord" not another and another is the "one God" and now him.
Mondo
