second timothy two fifteen be diligent to present yourself approved to god a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth alpha and omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602-274-1360. That's 602-274-1360. Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1-888-550-1360. That's 1-888-550-1360. And now, with today's topic, here's James White. And good afternoon, my name is Rich Pierce, sitting in for Dr. White today, and I am joined by none other than the Alpha and Omega crew, Benny Diaz, Simon Escobedo, and Michael Porter. And I want to bring them up now. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome to The Dividing Line. Good afternoon. All right, everybody's, I can tell, very enthusiastic about the show today. We are, well, we're doing some shows these days that are a little bit different than they've been before, where I'm in here, as James pointed out last week, I'm running the control room. And KPXQ has some very sophisticated computer systems here. And we're enjoying a little newfound freedom as we begin to kind of have a little bit more control over our show. And that's something we really appreciate. But today's show I have brought these three gentlemen in, you see, because when it comes to the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses, I, while I can take on a Mormon with no problem at all, I have no hesitation whatsoever, I am very comfortable with that, a Jehovah's Witness just kind of sends me into a dither. I just don't exactly know where to start and I am just waiting for them to rope me into a corner because well frankly they're very crafty when it comes to what i believe is twisting the scriptures and so today we're going to discuss the issue of witnessing to jehovah's witnesses in the area of the deity of christ and one of the big things that we need to be able to share with them is the fact that jesus is the one true god of israel he is the one true god Now, I know a bit more than most folks do when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses, most Christians, and I believe I know just enough to be dangerous. And this is an issue that at times, well, when it comes to evangelical Christianity, There isn't a whole lot of teaching, a whole lot of training when it comes to the deity of Christ, I think, out there anymore. And so you will encounter within, as Hank Hanegraaff likes to put it, the pale of orthodoxy. There are times when folks feel that it's just not necessary. And is this really important for us to be able to prove that Jesus is God? I mean, we worship Jesus, we lift Him up, we do all these things, but is it really that important, Simon Escobedo, that we believe in the deity of Christ? How important is that issue? Well, it's extremely important, Rich. I think that if, as Christians, we recognize the fact that anytime we're engaged in conversation with other folks and we have opportunities to share our message with them, it makes no sense whatsoever to try to communicate to them the need to trust in a Savior. until first we deal with the fact that that Savior is indeed God. He is the only one that can command faith and repentance. He is the only one that can in any way offer salvation to them. Indeed, as the calendar has turned and there are many topics that we could discuss, including the millennial rage that apparently is on everyone's minds. I mean, prophecy certainly is a topic that is hot in most evangelical circles. I've had others who have come up to me and say, why waste your time talking about these kinds of issues when you need to be out on the streets witnessing to people knocking on doors. So we could talk about evangelism. But I think the deity of Jesus Christ, indeed the foundational truth of Christian belief, this week we had the opportunity of meeting with someone who is very active in evangelism. In fact, the mass evangelism that we can obviously see on TV. And he had made a rather sad comment to us, to Mike and myself, and that was that he had noted that in many of the gospel presentations that are out there, the message and the literature that is being passed out is so lacking in biblical distinctives that basically the average Mormon, Jehovah Witness, and certainly just about any group would have no difficulty whatsoever embracing that message. And I suggest that unless you have a biblical view of the person of Christ, you have absolutely no foundation to present the work of Christ. And so many people are in such a hurry to get to the work of Christ that they just seem to fly by the person of Christ. And so it's our desire today to have that opportunity to share with our listeners some of the biblical truths regarding the person of Christ, primarily as it relates to his nature as God. And the title of our topic today is, Son of God, Lord of Glory. And we are following an outline that those who have access to the internet can easily access on the AOMIN.org webpage, Son of God, Lord of Glory. It is an outline that was done by Dr. White some time ago. And it does come with a tape that you can follow at your own leisure. And if anything, hopefully, our discussion today will be food for thought, will compel you to perhaps do a study of your own, perhaps get the tape, follow the outline. Obviously, the outline is rather lengthy. There are massive scriptures that we could go through. And we're hoping that, if anything, that we just put the seed in you, and that that will eventually develop into some further study. I was thinking of a passage that kind of brings this into perspective for us, and that passage is found in Matthew chapter 16, verses 13 through 17. There our Lord is with His disciples, and He is having a conversation with them, and in particular with Peter. And the text says, now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he was asking his disciples, who do people say that the Son of Man is? And they said, some say John the Baptist and others Elijah, but still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. And he said to them, but who do you say that I am? And he makes the question personal now to the disciples. Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father's who is in heaven." And I suggest today that the question that our Lord asked of His disciples some time ago is a question that needs to be asked of all men, because all men have some kind of an answer to that question. Was he a great man who perhaps was simply misunderstood in his time? Was he a prophet of God as those during that time thought he might be? Indeed, Islam would say that he was a prophet just like Moses or Elijah. Was he the spirit brother of Lucifer, an exalted man as the Mormons would indicate? Or was he one of God's chief created beings, as the witnesses would state? Or was he, as Christians have maintained for centuries, God come in the flesh? And it's our desire today to open up some of these things to you. I know that Rich had mentioned that one of our objectives is to help our listeners deal with Jehovah Witnesses. And while that is true, I certainly wouldn't want to take away from the fact that we're not simply here to try to give you ammunition. to deal with the witnesses, but what we hope to do is to perhaps strengthen Christians in their own understanding of the person of Christ, indeed to equip the Christian with solid biblical testimony as they deal with those who reject the deity of Christ, and possibly to inform those who are yet outside of a saving relationship with God to the only Christ who is able to save them from their sins. So that is our desire today, gentlemen. I hope that we can follow that. Indeed, Simon, you said it well. I think it's really important to note that with regard to the witnesses, we speak of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches Jehovah's Witnesses something quite different than what we as believers know about Him according to the Scriptures. We want to be quick to bring out those distinctions. Because there's some very serious issue at hand, and that is, I believe, the salvation of souls. Christ stated more than once that, you get me wrong, you don't come to me as who I am, you're in trouble. And I'm paraphrasing, of course. But in John 8, for instance, he told his listeners, after speaking of the fact that he is the light of the world, and those who follow him will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life. He points out clearly in verse 24 that I therefore say to you that you shall die in your sins for unless you believe that I am He you shall die in your sins. Making sure that we believe in the Jesus of the Bible is important. I think it would be detrimental to us if we follow a false Jesus. A false Jesus cannot save. A false Jesus cannot deliver. A false Jesus did not die on the cross. And we will hope to demonstrate and we welcome your calls with questions or comments to that fact that Christ of the Bible is the one who saves and without him there is no truth, there is no salvation. I agree. I think that one of the things that Christians need to be quite aware of is the fact that a lot of times preachers, different ministries, even seminaries a lot of times will tell you to concentrate on the work of Christ. They will go to the work of Christ, they will go to the cross, They will talk about the great things that God has done for us. They'll talk about the blessings. They'll talk about the hope, but they won't talk about the person, and that's the thing that we need to be talking about the most, because if we do not know who Jesus Christ is, if we cannot explain with precision and be very concise about who he is, if we do not know him, then there is no hope. There is no joy. There is no benefits. There is nothing further than just simply some being dying on the cross. Mike, you said it well, but that was Mike Porter. Simon, when we talk about this outline of the Son of God, Lord of Glory, is it just a bunch of words? Is it just a bunch of little outlines, a systematic outline for people who think they know a little bit more than everyone else? Or is there something important for us to see there? Is there some scripture that we need to begin with? Is there a starting point for us, if I may? Now, mind you, when we begin to look at these verses in the Bible, and most of you probably have a King James, New American Standard, or NIV translation. The Jehovah's Witness, on the other hand, who comes to your door, has a different translation. It's referred to as the NWT, the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. And it's pretty much provided to them by their society, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Governing Board, a translation of their own. And you will see and you will notice some significant differences in these passages. And we're going to look at that later as to why are there differences, especially with regard to the person and work of Christ. Are there some changes? Are there differences? Is it maybe we've got it wrong, they've got it wrong? Why are there those distinctions? We'll look at those in a bit. Well, absolutely, Benny, there is no question that when we are going to discuss this issue there is only one source of authority that we can appeal to, and that is the Scriptures. We make no apologies about that. The Word of God, as we know it to be, is the final word on this issue. I find it fascinating that when I discuss these kinds of things with people, And normally I'll ask the question, well, who do you think Jesus Christ really is? And they'll give their various opinions, and then I'll ask them, well, how do you know that? And basically it'll be because someone else has told them or this is their subjective belief, but very rarely will anyone bother to consider That if you're going to know about someone, you need to go to a source that reveals who that someone is, and there is no greater source for us, obviously, than the Word of God as the divine revelation of God to man, indeed the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ, and it is there that we will deal with our topic this afternoon. Having said that, I do want to take care of some, I guess what I would call some housecleaning chores, and to provide some definitions for our listeners. When we talk about the deity of Jesus Christ, it needs to be understood foundationally that we all as Christians affirm the biblical truth that there is one and only one God. Deuteronomy 6.4 is very clear. Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. So that when we say that Jesus Christ is God, it is this God that we are referring to, But it is one and only one God, and that will be developed later on. We are not saying that Jesus has God-like attributes or characteristics. Isaiah 46.9 says that, remember the former things long past, for I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is no one like me." Psalm 77, 13, "'Your way, O God, is holy. What God is great like our God?" So when we say that Jesus is God, this is the God that we are referring to. Now many people obviously have some kind of an understanding of the Trinity, and as I stated before, foundationally we must understand the truth that there is one and only one God. Now, when I'm teaching my young people, I try to provide for them some building blocks, and we have as building block number one the fact that there is one and only one God. Before you can discuss any other elements of the truths of the Trinity, you need to start there. Now, the second building block is that the Scriptures also reveal that there are three divine and distinct persons. We know them as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And in building block number three, they are co-equal and co-eternal. Now having said this and provided some definitions, this is what we are not saying. We are not saying that Jesus is the Father. An ancient heresy known as modalism or Sabellianism, today known as one as Pentecostalism, would assert that Jesus and the Father are the same person, different stages of the one God. That is not what we are declaring. Jesus is a separate and distinct person from the Father. We are not teaching polytheism, that Jesus is a separate God from the Father. Remember our foundation, there is one and only one God. So as we consider these definitions, that perhaps will allow us to avoid any confusions as we discuss the fact that Jesus is God. Now we will follow the outline, but Evidently, the outline is going to be a lot longer than the time constraints that we have, so we'll digress at certain points, but we want to get into the text as soon as we possibly can, and you had a comment. Darrell Bock Well, you know, Simon, you brought up a good point. That's a really important starting point with Jehovah's Witnesses, to establish the fact that Scripture teaches that Jehovah is one, one true and living God, eternal, and to go to the scriptures and see that scriptures teach that there is only one true God. The reason for that is because you'll see them go to several places, you'll have them take you to places like John 1, 1, which we'll probably visit today, where they are taught that Jesus is a God. And when you establish that fact, which is very important, that there is only one true God, they will have a problem when they begin to reason in their minds that Jesus is a God, because if there is only one true God and Jesus is a God, then isn't there a problem there? And they would begin to see, I think, that You can't have two gods. If you have one true god, then what is Jesus? He is a god, yes, but that means he's a false god, if we're going to accept that. You know, we have a caller. Maybe we can begin with a caller and see what a caller has to say about that. Yes, before you bring that caller on, I did want to add a comment to what you just said, and that is it needs to be understood for our listeners that Jehovah Witnesses are primarily Unitarianists. That is, one of the difficulties that they have with the doctrine of the Trinity is that they begin with a presupposition that says that God can only be one person. Hence, any reference to Christ as a second person and also being God, obviously, is a difficulty for their presupposition. So having said that, our caller says... Darrell Bock Very good. We have a caller here, and let's see what I don't hear. Let me see if I push the button right here. Yes, who do we have on the line here? Rick Yes, this is Rick. Darrell Bock Hi, Rick. How are you? You had mentioned John 8, 24, and I pulled out my Bible to read that scripture. In the meantime, since I've been listening, you've brought up a lot of other good subjects. Maybe we can touch on those as well. But John 8, 24, in the Bible that I just took off my shelf, says, So I have told you that you would die under the curse of your sins, for unless you believe that I am the Christ, you will die under the curse of your sins. I'm reading from the New Testament by C.B. Williams. So, what I see here is that perhaps not even all Trinitarians would agree that in John 8 that Jesus was claiming to be God, and perhaps even some Trinitarians are guilty of a presupposition when they read the Bible as to their own doctrine as well. Well, you would agree that that translation you have is probably not a mainstream translation. It would be probably categorized as a paraphrase. I wouldn't call it a paraphrase, but I'll agree with you that the word Christ isn't in the Greek. So that is his interpretation, yes. Well, the point I think we were trying to establish is not that that particular passage confirms or teaches the deity of Christ, but the importance of believing Christ is who he claims to be. I agree wholeheartedly. Excellent. From my perspective, he said he was the Christ, the Son of God. Right, now obviously the Christ, I'm sorry, the Christ obviously is a reference to Him being as Messiah. However, I would differ that in verse 24, the actual text says, unless you believe that egoi me, and there is a direct reference there that I don't think can be argued, of Christ being aware of the connection between egoi me and the usage that is found in the Old Testament, particularly in Isaiah 43.10, of Anihu, and that is a description of Yahweh Jehovah. So I think it can be asserted from this text and another text, where there is no predicate offered for the Agoemi construction, that Christ is fully aware of what He is asserting here, namely that He is making a direct connection between Him and Yahweh of the Old Testament. But Yahweh in the Old Testament never used the words Anihu as a title. Actually, in Isaiah 43.10, if you look at that, you will see an exact parallel, not only in terms of ani-hu in the Hebrew, but in the Greek Septuagint, the term the translators use is ego-ami. That's true, but if you take the word ani in Hebrew, that means I. If you look at the word hu, that means he. There's no verb there. The word ego means I, and ami is a verb. Even though those phrases may be translated the same, it doesn't mean that one has a predicate. Obviously, he has a predicate. If you look at most of the English versions of the Bible, in John where the phrase egoemia is used, most of them supply a predicate, he, there. Rick, what would be your point? For instance, if you're in John chapter 8 still, how would you respond to verse 58? I'm sure you're familiar with the word Christ says to those Jews that were with him. Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. Same construction, ego I me, as he stated earlier in other places. And notice what their response was. If in fact he was not claiming deity, then perhaps you can help us understand why in verse 59 it states, Therefore they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. Sure, I'd love to do that. You know the same Bible that I quoted John 8, 24 says in that place, Then Jesus said to them, I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born. Now if you look at the footnote, In the 1973 Bible published by the Lockman Foundation, the New American Standard Bible, they say that, �For I have been in the footnote margin.� So that scripture doesn�t necessarily need to be translated �I am.� In fact, the translation �I am� isn�t even grammatical. Darrell Bock Do you have a New World translation there by you? Yes, I do. Okay, perhaps you can go to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures and look at that passage, I believe an edition I have is on page 463, and you'll notice that they use the Westcott and Hort text. In the Westcott and Hort text, which is a Greek rendering of that passage, you'll see Westcott and Hort, who are the scholars that the Jehovah's Witnesses regarded as important enough to use, in both instances, in verse 24 and also in verse 58, It is a go I me and Westcott and Hort translate that as I am. However you see that even the Jehovah's Witnesses translate it as I am and they add the word he. So as you admitted earlier the translation you're using is in fact a paraphrase not necessarily but not necessarily an accurate rendering of the language of the New Testament. So perhaps we could use a text that would be a little more accurate with regard to what's being stated. You're still talking about John 8, 58? Speaking of the fact that Christ claimed to be I Am, using the same reference to himself as Jehovah did back in Isaiah 43, as well as several other places in Isaiah, as well as the fact that those who heard him understood what he was claiming. Are you denying that the usage, the Hebrew usage of Ani-Hu is not a euphemism for Yahweh? Yes, I am. And can you demonstrate why you can say that? Sure. Well, for example, in some of the Isaiah passages, when Anihu is used, there is a predicate, I am Jehovah. Now, you failed to see the direct link there. That is obviously a euphemism of one expression. Are you saying that our Lord was ignorant of that expression? Because basically, the position that you're taking, either Jesus is not making the direct link to Anihu, or He is ignorant of that, and is making rather a major slip-up that obviously the Jews didn't let get by, because they picked up stones to stone Him. Well, here's the thing, you know, if I say, I am Rick, Am I claiming to be God? No, there's a predicate there. If Jehovah says, I am Jehovah, Jehovah is the name, not Ani-Hu. Ani-Hu is just a copulative, it's just a way of directing attention. It's a very common expression. King David said, Ani-Hu. Did he claim to be God? Ani-Hu is a Hebrew expression that's used similar to Ego-A-Me. The blind man in John 9-9 said Ego-A-Me. They said, are you the one that was healed, that was blind? Precisely, Rick, and we're going to probably have to take another call, but let me respond by this. We're going to have to take a break. Yeah, let's go ahead and hold that thought there, Benny, and we will be right back with The Divided. And we're back on the dividing line. We are discussing Jehovah's Witnesses and the deity of Christ. And I'm going to put this right back to Benny Diaz and Simon Escobedo, who were talking with Rick from San Bernardino. Go ahead, gentlemen. Rick, thanks for coming back. Are you there, Rick? Yes, I am. Well, sorry to put you on hold. I didn't see a commercial come in there, so it doesn't take much blindsight. First of all, we'd love to spend a lot more time on this, but let me just say one thing, and I'd like you to comment. You have brought up some interesting points. On our website, www.aomin.org, we do have a detailed discussion, well-done paper on the term ego, I mean, in the New Testament. I think it would do you well, and we would be open to your responses to that. Actually, I already responded to James White on that at one point, but he never responded to me. Interesting. Why don't you respond to it to my attention, BennyDiaz at AOMin.org. I'd be more than happy to respond. Sure. I did pull up something here on iWho, if you have maybe 30 seconds on it. You know, Isaiah has many Messianic prophecies, and Jehovah says that his son, Jesus Christ, was the chosen one. So, when Jehovah is saying that, on one hand, that His Son, Jesus Christ, is the Chosen One, the One that He put His Spirit on, and on the other hand, He says, I am He, now are you saying that, on one hand, that Jehovah is talking about His Son, and on the other hand, He's claiming to be a Trinity? Well, actually, that was the presupposition that I had mentioned earlier. In Unitarian thought, obviously, Jehovah and the Father are one and the same. One of the primary tasks that I enjoy dealing with the Jehovah Witnesses is to demonstrate from the Scriptures that Jesus is Jehovah. Once we recognize that Jesus is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah, then we can demonstrate clearly what we mean by that. I think what you're asserting is that Jehovah can only be the Father, and that certainly isn't the position that we're advocating. you have your rhetoric uh... rich um... i want to bring james white on the line who is uh... driving back from uh... uh... tucson right now car and you say that you have responded to him and i want to get his comments on that james you there yeah i think we're talking to one of greg stafford the folks have an eric stamp and uh... rick did uh... right a response that i haven't paid on my system uh... unfortunately as i have expressed to uh... correct if it is the person i'm referring to The problem is, as Simon just pointed out, the implicit Unitarianism and, I think, the fact that the material presented in The Forgotten Trinity and on the website really wasn't responded to in a way that was, well, both understandable and useful. I have actually started a response to Mr. Stamp's presentation, but found it very difficult to really organize the thought in such a way to put on the website as yet. Since you've taken the time to call in, maybe we'll find the time sometime in the future to do that. Yeah, I guess it would be true that we all carry our presuppositions, but one thing I would be interested in would be how you would interpret Hebrews 1, 1 through 3, because here, in a continuity of thought, we have it being said that in the past, the Father had spoken through prophets, like Isaiah, But now he speaks through a son. Now, if you read Murray Harris' treatment on this, especially his footnote that he goes into great detail, it is impossible to take the Jehovah of Isaiah as anyone but the Father. There's no question of that. There's no question of that. We would agree a thousand percent. In fact, we would use that as one of our greatest proof texts. is that the Father is identified as Jehovah, and then within the same chapter, the writer of the Hebrews identifies the Son clearly as Jehovah, in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10 through 12, by identifying the unique characteristics of Jehovah as being shared by the Son. The fact that that one name can be used of two persons is one of the very reasons that Christians are Trinitarian, biblical Trinitarians. But the word Jehovah doesn't appear in the text in Isaiah. The fact that the writer of Hebrews used biblical language to to describe the sun doesn't prove he's Jehovah. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by Isaiah. What are you talking about Isaiah? I was talking about Psalms. I'm sorry? I'm sorry, I meant to say Psalms. Actually, the name Jehovah does. It's obviously only about Jehovah. Anyone who reads the 102nd Psalm can see there's not two different gods being addressed in the 102nd Psalm. There's not a second god other than Jehovah, who is unchanging and immutable, the creator of all things. Anyone who allows Psalm 102 to be interpreted in its own context knows that the psalmist is still addressing Jehovah when he speaks of Jehovah as the unique creator of all things. And therefore, the application of that terminology to Christ cannot be understood in any other way. In fact, it would totally destroy the argumentation of the writer to the Hebrews, if that is not the meaning. Because the thesis of the writer of the Hebrews is to demonstrate the superiority of Christ to all things, and in this case, to all angelic creatures. Which, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you actually would disagree with, Paul, at that point, because you make him one of the angelic hosts, a creature who was made by Jehovah, a second, therefore, a derivative creature, rather than the one through whom all things were made. Well, if you read through between 3 and 10, the part that describes how the Christ is better than the angels, you find that He's been made better. That's genomi, that's a transitive verb, and it's based on being given a name. So it's true that the Christ is being held way above the angels, but it's based on not His nature, because the word kraton means better in terms of position or authority, not in terms of nature. Actually, the nature is very clearly what is being addressed there. Ginnomai is not being used as a reference to creation. at that point, and I don't think anyone interprets it that way, when it says He is made better than the angels, it's talking about the position He holds above them as the Incarnate One. But the fact remains that it is a complete, eisegetical assertion to say that there is nothing about the nature of Christ there. It says when He brings the Protodoct into the world, He says that all the angels of God worship Him, and it is, I think, an artifice to say that this is not religious worship, because angels are obviously involved in that very kind of worship, the very same worship that the Lamb receives in Revelation chapter 5 from all of creation. And it is His nature that is summarized in verses 10-12 as the One who does not change. That is clearly an ontological superiority to the angels, right there in verses 10-12, derived directly from the Scripture, of Jehovah in Psalm 102, 25-27. Of course that's true of Christ now, because you have to admit that when Christ died, that was a change, but now that he's been resurrected, he's been resurrected to immortality. When that was written about... when that was written of Jehovah in Psalms, Christ had yet to die. So that couldn't have been applied... I'm sorry, Rick, I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. If it says in Psalm 1 and Hebrews 1, 10-12, that he has that He is eternal, that He does not change, that His essence does not change, that's applied to Christ, than to say, well, that somehow has something to do with after His death and resurrection. Again, it is ontology, it is His nature that is being addressed in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10-12, with the unique attributes of Jehovah God where Christians believe that Jehovah and Jehovah alone is unchanging, that he is alone and not affected by the passage of time, and that he alone is the creator of all things. That, therefore, is about nature, opposite what you said earlier, and it is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1, and that, therefore, does demonstrate that that's what he's talking about. I disagree that it talks about eternity into the past. It's talking about that He would never die in the future, and at the time that that was written by the writer of Hebrews, the only two persons alive that that applied to was the father and the son. At that point, he was the only one that would never die. Rick, that's a complete misuse of the passage. It is not... I guess what that means, then, is that when the writer to the Hebrew... I'm sorry, the psalmist, Psalm 102, refers to the unchanging nature of God and how the universe itself passes away, but God does not, that we are therefore improperly interpreting that to believe in Jehovah's immutable nature, both his eternal existence in past and future. If that means that He was unchanging in the past, so the application means the same thing to the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1, and that it refers to the period before the Incarnation as well, because it refers to His nature. No creature could be described as those words describe Him. I have no problem with attributing eternity to the Father in both directions. However, I wouldn't go to Psalms 102 to prove it. I'd go to Psalms 92 to prove it. Well, the problem there, Rick, is you can't go to Psalm 102 to prove it, because if you do go, you end up contradicting the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society forces you to accept. It's not exegetical. I, as a Christian, can go to Psalm 102, and it very clearly presents the immutability of God and the transient of the created order over against his timelessness. But the very fact that you cannot do that demonstrates, as I've said to you many times in written correspondence and have logs posted on our website of those correspondences, that you are not engaging in exegesis of the text. You are engaging in eisegesis of the text, and the external authority that you're using is the authority of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. And I said all that while dodging a semi-tractor trailer, too. And with that, gentlemen, Rick, we have several other callers on the line right now, and we need to move on because we only have a few minutes left in the program, but we certainly appreciate your call today. We're going to try to bring Dr. White back up and chat with him in just a minute here. Benny? Yes, as a matter of fact, the lights are blinking here. We've got someone else here, but let me bring Dr. White back in. Dr. White, are you on the line? I'm still here. Okay, good. Well, thanks for your call, boy. I tell you, it was unexpected, to say the least. Well, actually, I've sort of wondered why Mr. Stamp, maybe a fellow by the name of Mr. Smart, Greg Stafford, and others haven't called in before. I find it interesting that the call would come while I'm not available there. But I've had extensive dialogues with these folks, either in our chat room, which is available through our webpage, uh... or in uh... email situation and uh... but i think that the call with the comment today but uh... i only called up and because i knew it was uh... you are handling the situation just fine no no it was it was uh... we work well i'm sure we would have answered the same way james i thought i was getting ready james just to say those things well you have a safe trip and we'll move on okay i'll let you guys do that and i'll be listening in thank you i got left and we need to take a quick break here today gentlemen and we will be right back with the dividing line we're back on the dividing line and we're here time to wrap up the program in our last few minutes of saturday afternoon and uh... we certainly appreciate doctor white uh... dialing in and uh... sharing with us and that certainly was a very entertaining discussion, and I want to let you guys get a chance to get in there and try to finish your material. We do have two other callers online. So, Benny, go ahead. Well, welcome back. This is Benny Diaz. I'm here with Mike Porter as well as Simon Escobedo, and we have two very patient callers, which we're grateful for. I hope that they're not too frustrated with us. Let's pick up line three here. Who do we have here? Hello? Hello. Hi, guys. It's Martin. How are you? I'm very well, thank you. How are you? Very good. Just picking up on where Rick left off, he makes the comment about that Jesus is only superior because he's been given a position. I'm reading through chapter 1 of Hebrews, and it clearly makes a distinction between Jesus and the angels. I mean, you know, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is just, you know, the angel Michael? Yes. Verse 7 clearly said, to the angels, he says. And then verse 8 goes on to make a distinction, but to the Son. I mean, that to me clearly makes a distinction between Jesus and any created being. But especially any sort of angel. What do you think? Oh, absolutely. I appreciate that input. That's true. I mean, Simon, if you were to look at the distinctions there, are they as clear or are we trying to stretch something here? No, absolutely. In fact, there is a nuance that can be brought out in those two verses that might be lost in the English translation. That is the men de construction. Which, basically, you could say, on the one hand, and then the reference to the angels in verse 7, but on the other hand, and then the reference to the Son in verse 8. Clearly a contrast between the two. I think that's an excellent point. Well, one other thing I wanted to say, guys, is that I've heard on the Divided Line a couple of times people mentioning that the Jehovah's Witnesses book should give legitimacy. Yes. I've got two copies of it. I speak to Jehovah's Witnesses in England more often than I speak to any other cult group. And there are a couple of very, very good books out. One's available in England, probably not in America, called Why You Should Believe in Trinity. It's by the Reach Out Trust in England. And the other one's by Robert Bowman Jr., and you'll probably be able to get that one in America. I believe, if you get the website, www.reachouttrust.org, you might be able to get hold of the antidote, if you like, to the Should You Believe in Trinity by the Watchtower? Yes. to bring the conversation down slightly, it actually takes passages that the Watchtower claim disproves the Trinity and shows you how out of context and how badly misquoted that booklet is. I mean, it's horrendous. And if people, you know, take that book, then take it on to the local library and take the time to read the quotes the Watchtower have given, they will find it's just torturous what they've done to the quotes. I mean, I'll give you one example, then I'll get off the line. In the book it says that the Trinity is beyond the grasp of human reason. Apparently that's in the Encyclopedia Americana. What the quote actually says is, It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended, though it may not be comprehended by the human mind. I mean, that's completely different to what they claim in the book. Well, I'm tremendously appreciative of that. You're right. Should you believe in the trinity of the document put out by the Watchtower, I know I've got right by me a binder of all the actual photocopies of that particular document, and looking at them in context, You find that they were in fact the majority of that document by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a total misrepresentation of the actual authors or those citations they give you through that. I think there's very little that you can really believe in that document or that booklet called Should You Believe in the Trinity and there is a very good work out there that counters that. Well, in reference to Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8, of course, anyone familiar with a Jehovah's Witness argument might recognize or realize that they would take that phrase and they would translate it differently. They might reference it differently. They would say that it's, God is thy throne forever and ever. Something along those lines, and of course if you really look at the context, and it comes out very clearly in the Greek, that the word for God there is being a statement of address, directly referencing Jesus Christ. And so it says, to the Son, he says, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. It's very hard to get around that, especially when you see the direct contrast between the angels on the one hand, and you see Christ or the Son on the other hand. Yes, and that's not to speak of let's say Revelation 5 where we see who's being worshipped there on the throne as well as who receives worship or prosecution throughout the New Testament. You find that term used of Christ receiving worship by not only disciples but others. It's interesting if you look at the New World Translation and look at their interlinear you find that that word in older versions was translated properly as worship. in Hebrews 1. However, the newer translation that they have out there, they change the word to did obeisance to Christ, which to me is interesting to say the least. Let's take our next caller here. I want to make sure these patient people get an opportunity to ask their questions, share their point here. We have, who do we have here? Hello. Hi. Hi, how are you? I'm fine. This is Jennifer. I think that most of the confusion lies with the translators substituting other titles for God's name. Because to my Hebrew professor, God's name consists of four consonants, Y-H-W-H. They don't write words with vowels in them, they just add them when they speak. And as for Elohim, it may not be appropriate because whenever you add him to the end of the word, That makes it plural, so that makes it look like gods instead of, you know, one god. That's true. Well, Jennifer, I would suggest that you accept it given the context, because the context of how it really kind of impacts whether or not it's plural or not, because there are circumstances in the Old Testament where it is Elohim, but because the construction of the verbs around it are singular, it is to be translated as a singular term, not as a plural. So that would be the one exception to what you just said, but I would agree with you. So what is your relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses? Actually, I have studied with them. I've gone to the Kingdom Hall and stuff. And that's one thing I have a problem with is the Trinity thing. I think I need to study more. Have you had an opportunity to read Dr. White's book on the Forgotten Trinity? No. It's really easy reading. I would suggest going to our website at www.aomin.org and I'm sure there's also some other information that might help you with that as you begin using Simon's starting points which are very good points which maybe we can get back to Simon now that we've gotten past some of the hurdles here. Thank you for your call Jennifer. This has been most interesting. We didn't anticipate getting that many calls, and certainly we didn't anticipate getting a single call before we had a chance to give a single presentation of our material. But I think given the few minutes that we have left, obviously there's just absolutely no way we can get into the material, perhaps. Dr. White will allow us the opportunity of joining him in this discussion again. Obviously, given the interest by our callers, it is a relevant topic and, indeed, a needful topic. But I'd like to close our discussion this afternoon looking at John 20.28. Normally, most people are familiar with John 1, verses 1 through 3. We have a tremendous passage affirming the deity of Christ in John 20, 28. But as I was stating, normally a lot of people like to run quickly to John 1, verses 1 through 3. And that is a fantastic passage, but because I believe it is a passage that literally you could spend an hour on. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago we, in our young people's class, went over that passage discussing the deity of Christ, the logos, the eternal word as it's presented there. That would take quite a bit of time. But John 20, 28 is indeed an interesting passage. It's pretty straightforward. And it is a passage that I can remember when I was first starting to deal with witnesses. This was a passage that I used, and I can remember the witnesses at my door apparently had not seen this passage. Obviously, many have. But it was a passage that caused great confusion, I remember, especially to the rookie on the team as he looked at it. Obviously, this is a passage dealing with our Lord and His disciples, specifically Thomas, and the text is pretty straightforward. It says that He answered Thomas and said to him, my Lord and my God." And you'll notice that in verse 29, our Lord commends him for his belief, his faith. Let's throw a circle around the two words, Thomas answered and said to him, and I trust that that'll be the testimony of any Christian today, affirming the deity of our Lord, indeed, my Lord and my God. And that's going to do it for our show today. We sure appreciate you three gentlemen coming in and sharing with us today. Thank you very much for listening today. We appreciate your attention. Certainly a lively dividing line. We'll see you next week.