1. Dear Jon,

    I am paying close attention to the words and that’s what I asked of you when reading John 17:5. I still am not getting a clear answer on this text from you. Are you saying that the “thought” of Jesus had some sort of glory in and of itself besides the Father? Doesn’t that contradict the Scripture you later post in Isaiah 42:8 which says God does not share His glory? The other thing is, my friend is that the Scripture does teach that the Son is eternal. Look at Hebrews 1 for example; V.8 “But of the Son He says….. V. 10 “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;”.. (You can read Hebrews 1:8-10 to see that this is still talking about the Son and sorry about the capital letters. For some reason NASB puts Old Testament quotes in all caps.) So, we can clearly see that the Son was in the beginning and created the heavens and earth.

    It is true that the Son emptied Himself of all His power, glory and attributes. Read Philippians 2:5-7 very carefully, this is explaining the incarnation. The Greek word for humbled is kenosis which means to empty. That is another passage I hope we will get into in the future, God willing.

    I do absolutely believe and affirm the Shema and the oneness of God. The complex unity of God does not contradict the fact that God is one in His being.

    Sorry for the short answer, I am a little busy at the moment, hope to get into this in more depth later.

    I appreciate your kind attitude and replies.

    Thank you, God bless you.

  2. To Whom It May Concern:
    Interestingly enough, in the Old Covenant, GOD was the husband to His People; in the NEW COVENANT, WHO IS THE HUSBAND? CHRIST!!!!!
    Um… need we say more?


  3. Eric,

    The glory that Jesus had was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, he obviously wasn’t on the cross in the beginning, but the hour was come to Jesus the Messiah to be glorified, so as a MAN, he is praying to the eternal spirit of God. And no it does not contradict the scripture because it is the selfsame God who was manifest in the flesh. Not a 2nd divine person.

    Also, Hebrews 1 Does not establish an “eternal son”. The scripture only speaks of a “begotten son”. It is quoting an Old Testament prophecy about God! The KJV has “Thy Throne O God” so according to your view, you have God #1 calling God #2 “God”. Is this still Monotheism? Can God call God “God”? The Old Testament Covenant people knew absolutely nothing of a trinity, you never find the son in the old testament OUTSIDE OF Prophetically. I’ll be happy to discuss this further if you like.

    Also, in Philippians 2 it tells us that Jesus is in the form of God.
    Phi 2:6-8 KJV 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

    The Greek word for “form” is “morphe”. Which means “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision”, or an “external appearance”.
    Jesus was the ‘morphe’ of God; the external appearance of God. Jesus was the appearance of God because he had the very nature of God- he was God Himself.

    The Greek word for equal is “isos”
    Meaning-equal, in quantity or quality
    The Scriptures tell us there is no one equal with God.
    Isa 40:25 KJV To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
    Isa 46:5 KJV To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?
    Isa 46:9 KJV Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

    Since there in none that is equal with God, and Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, Jesus must be God.

    Even though Jesus is God, and it was His prerogative to do as He willed, He did not hold on to these prerogatives. Instead, He was willing to lay His prerogatives aside and take on the form of a servant in order to become the sacrifice for our sins. Did He have to? No. He did this by His own grace. By His grace He willingly took on a human nature and submitted Himself to death on the cross.
    Doesn’t this make two ‘persons’ in the Godhead? Doesn’t Jesus have the same nature as the Father? This wasn’t a divine ‘Son’ emptying Himself of divine attributes and becoming incarnate. While Jesus did ‘empty’ Himself of His divine prerogatives, He did not stop being God. He did not turn deity into humanity. He did not stop being the Father to become the Son. He was God manifest in flesh. He took upon Himself humanity, but He still had His divine nature. He had two natures- God and man. He is equal to God because He is God. The term ‘equal’ means that His nature is the nature of the Father. He never lost His divinity or attributes.
    His dual nature explains how Jesus was exalted.

    Last of all, I want you to notice something very carefully that mostly ALL trinitarians overlook. Every single passage you bring up does not establish the doctrine of the trinity. But rather you establish a “bi-nity”. All the passages you mention only refer to the father/son distinctions, and we read absolutely nothing about the Holy Spirit. Is he less God than the other two individuals? Why is he relegated to a “3rd person” Who will you see in heaven?

    I truly do appreciate your kindness as well in this discussion, as I look forward toward the next. God bless you.

  4. Jon,

    You are still not giving any clear answer as per John 17:5. Who was the glory shared with before the foundations of the world? Was the Father sharing His glory with His ideas in His mind, in your view? I am not getting any clear answer from you at all on this point.

    Hebrews 1 certainly establishes an eternal Son and for sure it’s quoting from the Old Testament because that was the Son who created the heavens and the earth. As per Psalm 45 quoted in Hebrews 1. Why would you raise a question such as “Can God call God “God”? and leave it completely unanswered from your position? Then you question if it’s Monotheism! Are you questioning if the author of Hebrews is a Monotheist because I never raised that point, once. As to the answer, of course a Person of the Godhead can call another Person God, John 17:3 for example. Jesus calls the Father the one true God, does that exclude the Son or the Holy Spirit? Of course not. Even if your view you would have to admit that the Son is in fact God, which would bring into question your entire point you were trying to make over John 17:3.

    Really Jon, you never find the Son in the Old Testament? How do you reconcile the fact that God is clearly seen in the Hebrew Scriptures such as Genesis 18 or Exodus 24:10 for example and the fact that God has never or cannot be seen in Scriptures such as Exodus 33:20, John 1:18 for starters.

    Before we further discuss the Carmen Christi (Philippians 2:5-11), in your view what is the time frame of these words? Would you say that this is pre incarnation or only referring to Jesus human ministry?

    As for your comments about “bi-nity”, we’ve only discussed a few passages so far. Don’t get ahead of yourself. The reason why I hold to the complex unity of God as taught in the Scriptures is because I let all Scripture speak. So if you want to discuss the Holy Spirit, we can do that but let’s not rush through the other passages. I am still very unclear on your interpretation of John 17:5 and would like you to answer the question of the time frame of Philippians 2:5-11 before we get further into that passage.

    Thanks again,


  5. Interesting how Peter says…

    1Pe 1:11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.

    Calling what the Old Testament writers called “the Spirit of GOD” the Spirit of CHRIST. How could He do that, unless the Spirit of God was the Spirit of Christ, and how would it be that Christ is not God (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6).

  6. The Shema doesn’t teach how many persons are in the Godhead at all. Neither Trinitarian or Anti-Trintiarian can prove their positions or disprove their opponents. The Shema just refers to there being ONE God, which is what those who believe in the Trinity (and those who don’t) affirm. There isn’t three YHWHs, only one, Trintarians believe there is ONLY ONE YHWH.

  7. Jake

    Thanks, but Trinitarians keep saying that the Father is YHVH and the Son is YHVH and the HS is YHVH. That makes 3 YHVHs. Rather obvious polytheism.

    But you know the NT Greek is very clear: “YHWH our God is one YHWH” [cp. Mk 12:29].

    That is not 2 or 3 YHVHs.

    Jesus went on with Ps 110:1 to say that he is not that ONE YHWH GOD. Jesus is the lord Messiah. ADONI (my lord) which is never the title of Deity.

    Then Paul: “there is one God, the Father and no other God but HE”. That is entirely clear.

    The Jewish scribe was a unitarian and agreed with Jesus exactly on Deut 6:4: “YHWH our GOD is one YHWH.”

    1(echad) means 1 single and never more than 1. So the idea that echad “means” or “points to” plurality is false–just a language trick.
    1 tripod does not tell you that 1 is 3 and 1 DAY with morning and evening does not alter the meaning of ECHAD.

    1 is the cardinal, counting number in Hebrew and English, “1 and not more than 1”.

  8. Psalm 102 is all about the coming age of the Kingdom and the restoration of Jerusalem in the millennium (see vv. 13-22). The writer looks forward to the restoration of the city when God appears in His glory (v. 16). The Psalm is written for the “generation to come” (v. 18) and a newly created people of the future Kingdom on earth. Hebrews 1-2 is speaking not of the Genesis creation but the “economy to come” (2:5).

    The Oxford Bible Commentary (2000) is helpful when it notes that right up to Hebrews 2:5 the topic is the new creation in Christ. Hebrews 1:10 is included in that main subject:
    The text at the center of Heb. 2:5ff. is Ps. 8:4-6 and it exhibits thematic connections to the scriptural catena [chain] of the first chapter [i.e. Heb. 1:10 is all part of the same reference to the new creation]…Heb. 2:5 [“the inhabited earth to come of which we speak”] is an introductory comment continuing the contrast between the Son and angels. Its reference to the “world to come” reinforces the notions of imminent judgment and cosmic transformation intimated by Ps. 102, cited at 1:10-12.
    Isaiah 51:16 confirms this explanation. It speaks of an agent of God in whom God puts His words and whom He uses “to plant the heavens and earth.”

    The Word Biblical Commentary says:
    Yahweh introduces Himself again, but this time in terms of His control of the raging sea. He addresses the one He is using to put His words into his mouth and protecting him very carefully. The purpose of this care is to allow him to plant heavens and earth. That makes no sense if it refers to the original [Genesis] creation. It uses the word NaTaH [Jer. 10:12 + 10 times], stretch out, while the verb here is NaTA, plant [establish people]. In the other instances God acts alone, using no agent [Isa. 44:24]. Here the one he has hidden in the shadow of his hand is his agent. Heavens and land here must refer metaphorically to the totality of order in Palestine, heavens meaning the broader overarching structure of the Empire, while land is the political order
    in Palestine itself. The assignment is then focused more precisely: to say to Zion, you are my people.”

    Thus both in Psalm 102 (LXX) and in Isaiah 51 the Messiah is the agent whom God will use to establish the new political order of the age to come. Hebrews 1:10 is a prophecy, written in the past tense (as customarily prophecies are), but referring to the “inhabited earth of the future about which we are speaking” (Heb. 2:5). That is the concern in Hebrews 1:10. Jesus is the “father of the age to come” (Isa. 9:6, LXX).

  9. Mr. Buzzard’s comment is a perfect example of the extreme subterfuge needed to undermine the plain sense of Psalm 102, especially as it is quoted in Hebrews. Yes, Psalm 102 looks forward to the redemption of Zion, but it does so by LOOKING BACK to the Lord’s creation of the universe. The Hebrew says that God did it “of old”; the Greek in the Septuagint is even stronger: “In the beginning”! The psalmist, longing for personal deliverance and the deliverance of his people, LOOKS BACK to Yahweh’s creation of the heavens and the earth. THEY will wear out. HE will not. Thus HE can be trusted forever!

    Hebrews 1, after calling the Son “God,” then looks back to this psalm of creation to say that the Son was the one who created the universe (in keeping with John 1; 1 Cor 8; and Col 1) and that His days have no end. Virtually every scholarly commentary on Hebrews recognizing this, and there is not a syllable in the material Mr. Buzzard quotes that undermines this in the least. In fact, there’s a good deal of subterfuge in his comment, since he can’t find a single major Hebrews commentary to support his utterly bizarre reading of Hebrews 1:10-12 – as if the Son created a new heavens and earth IN THE BEGINNING and as if the NEW HEAVENS AND EARTH will one day wear out!!! – so he has to jump around to completely different verses in chapter 2. If you ever wondered why there are so few people who subscribe to his position, it’s because you have to come up with impossible interpretations like this.

  10. Anthony Buzzard,
    How can Jesus, be God? How can anyone be God? The God of Scriptures fails to be a God in my own eyes, mainly because of the flood, no loving God or good God seeks to kill 99% of the human race and be good to myself. God needs to be eternally existent with no beginning, how is that logical? I have been an atheist for a few years now and my life has never been better.

Comments are closed.