Yes, I think that, save for the time He was in the flesh and the times He was sent as God’s messenger, Jesus was in heaven with the Father. I believe that He is currently there on His throne reigning at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3).
In Genesis 1:26 God said, “let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”. To whom was God speaking if not the Son? Man hadn’t been created yet so He couldn’t have been talking to man. Also, the word translated God in that verse is Elohim which is a plural term.

E) However, before the “flesh” was begotten by the holy Spirit the man Jesus Christ did not literally exist.

So, you’re saying that the Holy Spirit is God? Then you must also admit that there is at least two persons in the Godhead.

As for II John 7, the whole point of John’s argument was to show that Jesus was God in the flesh. Like you, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was just a man. They believed that He wasn’t deity until the Holy Spirit desended on Him at His baptism. They then say that He lost His deity shortly before His crucifixion. Anyways, John was attempting to show that this doctrine was false with his comments in I and II John.
It was also John that said in John 1:1-2, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God”. The Word in these verses is Christ.

[Just a suggestion, but you should check out the book “The Wallace-Vaughn Debate” between G.K. Wallace (church of Christ) and Ray Vaughn (United Pentacostal Holiness) on the doctrine of the Godhead.]

A) Jeff, I am not a believer in the Oneness doctrine but I appreciate the suggestion.

[As for your doctrine, it sounds very similar to the Gnostic doctrine. John warned against this kind of doctrine in II John 7, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”]

B) I’m not sure if you realize this but my entire point is that Jesus came in the flesh.
C) I deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Almighty God not that he was a human being.

[My question is, if Christ was just a man then what was He before He “came in the flesh”?]

D) Jesus existed eternally in the plan and purpose of God even before he was created in the womb of Mary:

This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord – Ephesians 3:11 (NASB)

E) However, before the “flesh” was begotten by the holy Spirit the man Jesus Christ did not literally exist.

Q: Jeff do you think that the man Jesus of Nazareth was walking around in heaven before he “came in flesh”?

God bless,

Rob

A) Jesus has the title θεός applied to him in one passage for certain:

Thomas answered and said to him, “My lord and my θεός!” – John 20:28

B) He is called θεός because human representatives of God can carry that title:

If he called them θεοὺς to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken) – John 10:35

[2. Is he an angel of God? (yes or no).]

A) Jesus is an ἄγγελος in sense that he is a messenger or envoy of God.
B) This is the same way in which other men are called ἄγγελος in the bible:

This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my ἄγγελος before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.’ – Matthew 11:10

C) Jesus is not an ἄγγελος in the sense that he is a part of the host of heavenly spirit creatures:

For to what ἄγγελος did God ever say, “You are my son, today I have become your father”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? – Hebrews 1:5

[3. Is he just a man? (yes or no).]

A) Jesus is most emphatically a man, a human being in every single way possible:

i. The Old Testament Identifies Jesus as a Man

Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. – Acts 3:22 (quoting Deuteronomy 18:15)

ii. Jesus Identifies Himself as a Man

but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. – John 8:40

iii. Jesus’ Disciples Identify Him as a Man

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – Acts 2:22

iv. The New Testament Identifies Jesus as a Man

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh – Romans 1:3

v. The Resurrected Jesus is Identified as a Man

because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.” – Acts 17:31

B) Jesus has to be fully man completely and totally a human being in order to reconcile us to God:

i. Jesus Had the Same Human Nature as All Men

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, – Hebrews 2:14

ii. Jesus Was in Every Way a Like Other Men

Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. – Hebrews 2:17

iii. Jesus Had to be a Man to Be Tempted

For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. – Hebrews 2:18

iv. The Mediator Between Mankind and God is a Man:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, – 1 Timothy 2:5

D) If by “just a man” you mean in contrast to being part zebra / part man or part kangaroo / part man or part YHWH / part man than yes.

[4. If he is not God, an angel, or just a man then please give a clear concise statement as to what you believe him to be. For example, “I believe Jesus to be ____.”]

A) I believe Jesus to be a man accredited by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him.

[Now, you said that “Defining who Jesus is can be a monumental task.”]

A) I mean only in regard to the particulars like exactly how the virgin birth was orchestrated.
B) The New Testament does not elaborate on other certain points like what Jesus did between 12 and 30.
C) In reference to these speculative tasks it can be hard to come up with a concrete answer.
D) My entire point was that the essential and fundamental aspects of Jesus’ identity and work is plainly attested to over and over again.
E) What is not a monumental task is defining who Jesus is based on the absolutely clear and unambiguous statements from him and his disciples.

[It seems that you are attempting to discount the Gospel record of who and what Jesus is by trying to limit the discussion to the sermons recorded in Acts.]

A) The purpose of the sermon on the day of Pentecost was to give people the fundamental message of who Jesus was and what he did.
B) You wanted me to present my opinion of the absolute fundamental and defining characteristics of Jesus.
C) Since that is exactly what the disciples were doing in their sermons I will let them guide my answer to you.
D) There can be absolutely no criticism leveled against an approach that mimics exactly the actions of the disciples under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
E) On the day of Pentecost the Jews heard exactly what they needed to hear about Jesus of Nazareth.
F) They preached the absolute essentials of who Jesus was and it had nothing to do with him being a divine God-Man.

[Whatever prior knowledge Peter’s audience may have had must be taken into account.]

A) Like what? What are you suggesting? That the Jewish and pagan crowds already believed he was God? What are you saying?
B) Anyways, what they had knowledge of is already stated by the disciples:

“a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know”

C) It is abundantly clear that what they already had knowledge of the miraculous works which were done through him by God.
D) People often accepted Jesus as a prophet and servant of God yet never as the second person of the Trinity. For instance:

This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” – John 3:2

[deity in flesh (cf. Col. 2:9)]

A) Colossians 2:9 says nothing about Jesus being a “deity in the flesh”.
B) It says the exact opposite:

For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, – Colossians 2:9

C) Notice that it doesn’t say Jesus was the fullness of deity it says that the fullness of deity dwelt inside his body.
D) This passage makes it clear that the fullness of God lived and operated in the man Jesus Christ not that he was somehow a God-Man.

[How could he be the Son of David and also be called “Lord” by David. There is only one way, he is both God (David’s Lord) and man (David’s Son).]

A) What verse are you getting that idea from?

[Paul makes reference to the Divine Nature or Godhead (KJV)]

A) That the word θεῖον occurs not one would dispute.
B) If your assertion is that θεῖον means Godhead and Godhead means Trinity than I would disagree.
C) If however by godhead you only mean ‘deity’ or ‘divine’ nature than I am with you.
D) At some point the word Godhead came to be synonymous with 3-in-1 God so I’m somewhat leery of using it.

[Immanuel – God with us!]

A) I already addressed the argument that supposes that someone is God if their name refers to God.

[Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ]

A) I think I already addressed this verse also.

[In John 8:24 Jesus said that unless we believe he is the I AM we will die in our sins.]

A) Out of twenty Trinitarian translations that I just looked at only one of them even tried to make this verse deify Jesus.
B) According to you this is some clear statement of divinity yet when he tells them “I am he” they ask “Who are you?” (vs. 24).

[However, Peter appeals to this prior knowledge as the basis for his message in Acts 3 (cf. Acts 3:13, 18, 20, 24-25)]

A) Only Acts 3:13 says that they knew anything about Jesus before hand and it was the fact that he was crucified.
B) It wasn’t a secret that Jesus was killed and his death would only prove to people that he wasn’t God because God cannot die.
C) Again, what are you trying to suggest?

[We both believe that water baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation, however, where does Peter preach it in this sermon?]

A) The sermon in Acts 3 isn’t about the significance of baptism, it is about the identity of Jesus.
B) Anyways as soon as they finished preaching they were arrested so I don’t think they baptized anyone that day.

[Who purchased the church with his own blood? In Acts 20:28 it is “the church of God” which “he” (i.e. God) purchased with “his” (i.e. God’s) own blood.]

A) I am 99.99% certain that you are aware of the textual and translational variations for this verse.
B) You criticize me for accurately identifying the ambiguity inherent in these passages and than proceed to cite more ambiguous passages.
C) So, I’m not going to do anything but let Trinitarian scholars speak for themselves:

“Church of the Lord”: AMP?, ASV, LO, WWE,
- Footnote: E-R-V, ESV, GNT, HCSB, ISV, NET, NIV, NRSV, TNIV, NCV,
“Church of God”: CENT, CEV, DARBY, EMP, E-R-V, ESV, GNT, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LITV, NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NKJV, NLT, NCV, NRSV, RSV, TCNT, TNIV,
- Footnote: AMP, ASV, WEB,
“Church of the Lord and God”: AMP?, WEB,
- Footnote: HCSB, NET, NKJV,
“blood of his own”: CENT, CEV, CJB, DARBY, EMP, GNT, NCV, NET, NJB, NRSV, RSV,
- Footnote: E-R-V, ESV, NAB, NLT,
“his own blood”: AMP, ASV, ESV, E-R-V, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LITV, LO, NAB, NIV, NLT, TCNT, TNIV, WEB, WWE,
- Footnote: CEV, GNT, NET, NRSV,

[Robert, I greatly appreciate your interest in discussing this issue and I pray it will be beneficial for all who take part and follow along. I pray we will all seek to serve God in harmony with his word without the hindrance of man-made doctrines]

I am glad that you find this discussion interesting. I can certainly say amen to you closing statement.

- Rob

One of my favorite radio talk shows has a segment called “The Duck Of The Day.” I think I will put your last post in that category. You did a great job of writing a lengthy post that completely “ducked” my question. Well, in the grand old tradition of pressing for a direct answer, I’m going to ask it again. And, I’ll try to make it a little easier for you to give a clear, concise, direct answer.

If Jesus is not divine, then what do you believe him to be?

1. Is he God? (I know you will say no to this one but I would still like to have you make that direct statement to the question).
2. Is he an angel of God? (yes or no).
3. Is he just a man? (yes or no).
4. If he is not God, an angel, or just a man then please give a clear concise statement as to what you believe him to be. For example, “I believe Jesus to be ____.”

Now, you said that “Defining who Jesus is can be a monumental task.” It wasn’t a “monumental task” for you to deny that he is God. Why should it be a monumental task for you to say, “He is not God but, rather, he is ________.” I think you should be able to do that for us.

It seems that you are attempting to discount the Gospel record of who and what Jesus is by trying to limit the discussion to the sermons recorded in Acts. However, the historical record of the Gospels reveals what the people on Pentecost had already been hearing about Jesus. Whatever prior knowledge Peter’s audience may have had must be taken into account. Therefore, we have the Gospel record. That is not to say that I agree with your assessment of the sermons in Acts, that they included nothing of Christ’s deity. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of neglecting the recorded evidence of the audiences’ prior knowledge, especially the one on Pentecost. The same Jews that were present in Jerusalem on Pentecost would have been present for the feast of Passover, just fifty days prior, and, therefore, would have been present for the crucifixion. There is no way that their having prior knowledge can be denied (cf. Acts 2:22).

In Acts 2:34, Peter quotes from Ps. 110:1. Jesus had used this same passage to teach his duel nature, deity in flesh (cf. Col. 2:9), when he asked the Jewish leaders who’s Son was the Messiah (Matt. 22:41-45). The whole point of the question there was to reveal the error of rejecting the deity of Christ. How could he be the Son of David and also be called “Lord” by David. There is only one way, he is both God (David’s Lord) and man (David’s Son). So, you are incorrect in your statement that Peter did not teach the deity of Christ in his sermon on Pentecost.

Next, you said

…[I]n the book of Acts…you will never find, not once, find a reference to a Trinity, Godhead, God-Man, 3-in-1, Hypostatic Union, divine nature, incarnation, essence, eternal generation, on and on and on.

However, you are incorrect in this. Acts 17 is an inspired sermon, is it not? And, in that sermon for Gentiles, Paul makes reference to the Divine Nature or Godhead (KJV). The text says that we are God’s offspring (tou theou). Therefore, we should not think that the “Divine Nature” (theion) is like gold or silver or stone, etc. (Acts 17:29). The Greek word theion is defined by Louw and Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains) as “pertaining to having the nature of God.” A derivative of this same word is used specifically for Christ in Col. 2:9. All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily. The word there is theotetos. Again, Louw and Nida define it as, “the nature or state of being God – ‘deity, divine nature, divine being.’” So the literal definition of the word would have the text read something like, “in him the whole content of being God dwells bodily.” Truly, he is Immanuel – God with us!

I don’t call myself a “trinitarian,” I call myself a Christian because I have submitted my will to my Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13). And as a Christian, yes, I would tell you that you must accept the truth that Jesus is deity in order to have everlasting life. Jesus himself taught such a necessity. In John 8:24 Jesus said that unless we believe he is the I AM we will die in our sins. The word he is not in the Greek and, in the context, Jesus makes a strong point of the fact that he is the I AM (cf. Jn. 8:58; Ex. 3:14).

As you go through and outline the various sermons in Acts, you again fail to acknowledge any prior knowledge on the part of these audiences. However, Peter appeals to this prior knowledge as the basis for his message in Acts 3 (cf. Acts 3:13, 18, 20, 24-25). It is very clear that Peter is preaching to those who have already heard Christ preached and who had prior knowledge to reflect upon. We both believe that water baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation, however, where does Peter preach it in this sermon? Simply pointing out that a particular doctrine is not taught in a particular sermon doesn’t mean that the audience was never taught that doctrinal point. So, again, your appeal to the various sermons as excluding the deity of Christ is incorrect or, at best, suppositional.

Let me leave you with another question and I will eagerly await your reply. Who purchased the church with his own blood? In Acts 20:28 it is “the church of God” which “he” (i.e. God) purchased with “his” (i.e. God’s) own blood. Did the Father have physical blood with which to purchase the church? (cf. Jn. 4:24; Lk. 24:39). So, whose blood purchased the church?

Robert, I greatly appreciate your interest in discussing this issue and I pray it will be beneficial for all who take part and follow along. I pray we will all seek to serve God in harmony with his word without the hindrance of man-made doctrines

“Christ had to be perfect in order to atone sins , thus perfection making Him God.”

1. The bible says that Jesus was blameless and without sin. It also says he was perfected:

“It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” – Hebrews 2:10 (NRSV)

2. The bible says Jesus had to be a man, not a god, to reconcile us with God:

“Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.” – Hebrews 2:17 (NRSV)

“I am curious as to your explanation of 1 John 5:7 , and John 1:1 – 14.”

3. 1 John 5:7 is universally recognized to be a Trinitarian corruption of scripture.

4. There is not a single scholar anywhere in the world who argues that it is authentic.

Consider: If the doctrine was so clearly taught in scripture why did Trinitarians need to corrupt the bible just to find support for it?

5. The prologue to the gospel of John speaks about the word of God.

6. Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word so it is rightly stated that “the word was made flesh”.

“The scritpure which we know is perfect (2 Tim. 3:16) tells us of the deity of Jesus Christ.”

7. It seems to me like people interpret the bible through the lens of a few verses that are wrested to support the Trinity.

8. The overwhelming testimony of scripture is that Jesus is a man chosen by God to be his Anointed One.

Consider: Have you ever tried to prove the Trinity from the book of Acts or Luke or Mark or Matthew?

“I find it hard to accept that Jesus could not have been God , and yet was able to pay for sins which required perfection.”

9. I am somewhat surprised by that because the bible teaches the opposite.

10. Jesus absolutely had to be a human being in order to make the payment for sins:

“Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,” – Hebrews 2:14 (NRSV)

Consider: If God is immortal and therefore cannot die what makes people think that he had to be God to die for us?

Thank for the questions Kyle,

Rob

“We refuse to believe in the existence of hell because we can’t get our mind around a venegful God.”

1. I accept the existence of hell so far as the bible defines it. I reject the Dantesque inferno that was created by the Catholic church.

“We refuse to believe that baptism is necessary unto salvation, because it goes against our sense of justice.”

2. I believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation. From what I’ve heard, I agree completely with the Church of Christ understanding.

“We refuse to believe in the Godhead, because we are unable to grasp the concept of three distinct (not separate, but distinct) persons within ONE God!”

3. I reject the Trinity because the bible does not teach it. It is the product of Greek philosophy and was integrated into Christianity by the use of force.

“Just because we can’t understand it, or it goes against how WE believe justice should be given, does not make it untrue.”

4. Agreed.

Defining who Jesus is can be a monumental task. There are so many things that we will never know or understand. However, in reading through the scriptures one can quickly identify the central and most fundamental teachings about Jesus.

It seems like the best place to get a sense of this is to look at what the Apostles were preaching in the book of Acts. It is in the sermons recorded by Luke that we can discover what the earliest disciples thought people needed to know about Jesus. Certainly not every exhaustive detail of his life or work is covered but we can be sure that they told their Jewish and pagan audiences exactly what they need to know in order to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

On the day of Pentecost we read about the first Christian sermon that was ever preached. We are told that the disciples are preaching to a tremendous crowd of Jews who have gathered from all over the empire. Their entire aim is to bring these men into a knowledge of the truth about Jesus of Nazareth. It is shocking than that the person we read about is a far cry from the God-Man of modern orthodoxy. Instead of being the almighty YHWH of Hosts we see the following:

1. Jesus was a man accredited by God with many miraculous signs and deeds that God did through him (2:22).
2. Jesus was delivered over into the hands of his enemies, in accordance with God’s plan, and crucified by them (2:23).
3. Jesus was raised from the dead by God because he would not abandon him in Hades (2:24-32).
4. Jesus was exalted by God to sit at his right hand and have victory over his enemies (2:32-35).
5. Jesus was made both lord and Christ by God (2:36).

These points constitute the central message of the identity and work of Christ. Belief in these equips one to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Around 3000 Jews were baptized into the body of Christ with this understanding of who Jesus was. The Jesus that brought them to salvation was a “man accredited by God” not the divine second person of the Trinity.

In fact, read every single sermon in the book of Acts and you will never, not once, find a reference to a Trinity, Godhead, God-Man, 3-in-1, Hypostatic Union, divine nature, incarnation, essence, eternal generation, on and on and on. None of these man made doctrines were required for baptism by the Apostle’s who preached under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarians constantly tell me that you must believe the Jesus is Yahweh, the Almighty God of the Old Testament, in order to be saved. I defy anyone who believes that. Show me one place anywhere in the entire canon of scripture where someone was saved after having the Trinity preached to them. In fact, I see dozens of examples to the contrary. Let’s look at some of these sermons:

Acts 3. Peter’s Sermon to the Onlookers

- Jesus was servant of God and a prophet like Moses (3:13, 22).
- Jesus was handed over to his enemies and killed (3:13-15).
- Jesus was raised from the dead by God (3:15, 26).
- Jesus was lifted by God heaven and remains there (3:21).
- Jesus was appointed and made the Christ by God (3:20).

Acts 4. Peter and John before the Sanhedrin

- Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the anointed one of God (4:10).
- Jesus was crucified but God raised him from the dead (4:10).
- Jesus was rejected by the people but he became “the head of the corner” (4:11).
- Jesus’ name is the only one given among men by which we can be saved (4:12).

Acts 5. The Apostles before the Sanhedrin

- Jesus was “hung on a tree” and killed by the Jews (5:30).
- Jesus was raised from the dead by the God of the patriarchs (5:30).
- Jesus was exalted by God to be a prince and a savior (5:31).

There is so much more that could be looked at but obviously I don’t have the time or the space to go over everything. Seriously, read through what the Apostles were teaching people. We have sermons or summaries of them in the many passages (e.g. Acts 9:20-22, 10:36-43, 13:22-41, 17:1-3, 17:23-31, 18:28, 22:12-16, 28:23-31).

Paul, John, Peter, Apollos all preach the same message. Jesus of Nazareth is a man from the line of David, a servant of God, a prophet like Moses, the one appointed lord and Christ, etc. There is not a mention of the Trinity dogma anywhere in their sermons. If the church of the first century believed in later Catholic inventions they must not have thought them important enough to bother bringing up once in a while.

Instead we see that thousands of people repent and are baptized unto the remission of their sins without even the slightest notion of a tri-personal Godhead or an incarnate God-Man. I have never once in my life heard a Trinitarian preach anything like what Simon Peter preached at the house of Cornelius:

“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.” (Acts 10:38)

When was the last time you preached a sermon like that?

Robert says “Old Testament prophecies are almost always removed from their original context when applied to Christ.” He gives Hosea 11:1 as an example of this. I just want to make something clear here, and I don’t think Robert intended to give this impression. New Testament writers never use Old Testament passages “out of context.” In Matthew 2:15, Matthew did not use Hosea 11:1 “out of context.” He was showing Christ to be the ultimate fulfillment of a statement that was originally made of Israel. I think I understand what Robert was trying to say here and I don’t think he was trying to raise doubt about the reliability of New Testament Scripture. However, the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 is not at all parallel to the use of Isaiah 40:3 in Matthew 3:3. Isaiah 40:3 is in the context of a direct line Messianic prophecy. So Robert’s attempt to discount it as evidence is incorrect.

In one of the clearest statements of Christ’s deity, Titus 2:13, Robert discounts it as “ambiguous.” However, a literal reading of the Greek is probably even clearer than the English. Here is the word for word translation of what it says. “Waiting the blessed hope and appearing the glory the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ.” Notice, in the Greek it is “the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ.” Who is the Great God and Savior? Our Lord, Jesus Christ! This is only ambiguous if you refuse to accept that Jesus is God.

I could say more about Robert’s discounting the clear evidence from the passages provided previously but I would rather just continue to add to the evidence already given.

Speaking of those who refused to accept Jesus as God in the flesh, Immanuel (Matt. 1:23), what will Robert do with the way the Jews understood what Jesus was saying about his nature. They understood that he was claiming divinity and Jesus did not correct them or deny that they had understood him correctly. Rather, he gave further proof that they were correct in their understanding of his claim (Jn. 5:17-18, 22-23). In John 8:58-59 they tried to stone him for saying “Before Abraham was I AM.” They understood that Jesus was claiming to be the very same I AM of Exodus 3 (Ex. 3:14). In John 8:24, the word “he” is not in the Greek, which is why it is italicized in many translations. Jesus says unless we believe that he is the Great I AM we will die in our sins.

What about the fact that Jesus accepted worship? If he is not divine then would he not have sinned in accepting what belongs only to God? I wonder if Robert believes in a sinful Jesus (cf. Heb. 4:15). Surely not! But to claim that Jesus is not God would make him such.

• If Jesus is not God then would he not have sinned by receiving Thomas’ affirmation that he is Lord and God (John 20:28)? Jesus not only accepted it but told Thomas that he rightly believed it! (John 20:29).
• If Jesus is not God then wouldn’t he have sinned by accepting the worship of the leper in Matt. 8:2? Not only did he accept it but he rewarded it! (Matt. 8:3).
• What about the worship he accepted from the ruler who came to him wanting him to raise his daughter? (Matt. 9:18).
• Or when he accepted the worship of the disciples after they saw him walking on the water and calming the storm? (Matt. 14:33).
• Or what about the women after the resurrection? (Matt. 28:9-10).
• Or what about the disciples after the resurrection? (Matt. 28:17).

Lest Robert start offering back those verses that show Jesus being offered mock worship or having demons fall down before him in trembling fear, let me offer one more striking scene of Jesus receiving worship.

In Revelation 4 the scene is of worship before the throne of God and it says he is “worthy” of such worship (Rev. 4:11). Then, in chapter 5, the picture shifts to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Lamb Slain for our sins (Rev. 5:5-6). When the Lamb of God takes the sealed book the focus of worship shifts to him (Rev. 5:8, 14). They give the exact same praise to the Lamb in Revelation 5 that they did in Revelation 4 to the one on the throne. He is the one “worthy” of our worship (Rev. 5:11-13).

How is this to be explained if Jesus himself is not divine? Robert has not yet responded to my question asking him to identify just exactly what he believes Jesus to be. If he was just a man then he accepted something that other godly men refused for themselves (Acts 10:25-26; 14:11-15). If Jesus is an angel then he accepted something that other angels refused to receive (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9). The angel rebuked John and told him to “worship God.” But when Jesus received worship he accepted it. If John was wrong and needed to be rebuked for worshipping an angel rather than God then why would Jesus, if he is an angel, not be wrong for receiving the same?

I will eagerly await the reply.