# troubling conversation with a Messianic Jew



## els (Aug 16, 2007)

Hi all, I'm new to the board. I spent a good part of last night going through threads and using the search feature to see if I could find this question already answered, but didn't.

I've been talking with a Messianic Jew, who wants to know if one has to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I've shown him the Scriptures that most clearly show Jesus' Godship (John 1:1-18, Phil 2:6, etc.) I talked about how in the OT God revealed Himself to be a jealous God and would not share worship with any creature. 
Now he's going at it from the Greek (this is usually what happens to me when witnessing to Jewish aquaintances- they go back to the original language and because I have VERY little Greek and absolutely no Hebrew, they can yank stuff all out of context, disregard how words modify each other, and "prove" whatever point they want because I'm unable to see where they've performed this feat of verbal sleight of hand. It takes me forever to find the resources I need to realize what they've done, and by then they've moved on and don't want to talk about it anymore. And I understand that may very well be God hardening their hearts. I just wish I could be a better witness for Christ.)
So now with the John 1 passage, he's saying that the Greek always says ho theos in referring to God, and in the passage above it merely says theos, and so he doesn't think that means Christ is God. I just thought theos meant God.
He has this idea that Christ is something far greater than men or angels, but something not God. Which has no Scriptural backing, of course. The idea of avowing the Trinity bothers him because he doesn't like to see something "unnecessary for salvation" being put up as a stumbling block for those of other religions who would believe otherwise. I did say, in essence, that just because we want something to be true doesn't mean it is true, and we have to trust God's revelation about Himself and not add our wishes into our beliefs.
I'm also getting to the uncomfortable point where I feel like I'm close to overstepping bounds as a woman witnessing to a man. Are there any resources on this that I could point him to so that he can see the truth presented?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 16, 2007)

Sounds like he's trying to keep the Jewish concept of Messiah (merely a mortal man).


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 16, 2007)

This is the same argument that Mormon's use. Since there is no definite article, it must be indefinite, thus making the _logos_ as something less than God.

But, if you go to verse 2, there is no definite article with _theos_ either. They don't believe that the "God" referenced in verse 2 whom the _logos_ was with is also less that the *real* God, do they? Verse 6 also has _theos_ without the article. Was John sent from God or someone less than God? Same in verse 12. Do we become children of God or children of someone less than God?

The point is that John speaks of God both with the definite article and without the definite article and is referring to God, not someone less than God.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 16, 2007)

els said:


> Hi all, I'm new to the board. I spent a good part of last night going through threads and using the search feature to see if I could find this question already answered, but didn't.
> 
> I've been talking with a Messianic Jew, who wants to know if one has to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I've shown him the Scriptures that most clearly show Jesus' Godship (John 1:1-18, Phil 2:6, etc.) I talked about how in the OT God revealed Himself to be a jealous God and would not share worship with any creature.
> Now he's going at it from the Greek (this is usually what happens to me when witnessing to Jewish aquaintances- they go back to the original language and because I have VERY little Greek and absolutely no Hebrew, they can yank stuff all out of context, disregard how words modify each other, and "prove" whatever point they want because I'm unable to see where they've performed this feat of verbal sleight of hand. It takes me forever to find the resources I need to realize what they've done, and by then they've moved on and don't want to talk about it anymore. And I understand that may very well be God hardening their hearts. I just wish I could be a better witness for Christ.)
> ...



This is Arianism, and it is a heresy. Unless Jesus is God, He cannot atone for the sins of others (only God can pay the infinite sacrifice for sin). There are plenty of passages that deal with this: Acts 20:28; Hebrews 7:25; Titus 2:13.

The John 1 Greek canard has been dealt with at length. You might want to look at D.A. Carson's commentary, Ridderbos' and Leon Morris. Modern commentaries will _likely_ be more helpful on _this issue_, since they must directly address the JW arguments. That is not to say that Calvin and others would not be helpful either.


----------



## els (Aug 16, 2007)

I hope this doesn't sound too simplistic, but I'm looking for something short, simple, and concise for this guy. While he's going at it from a complicated process, I don't really think he knows what he's talking about. He seems blown about by every wind of doctrine- both he and his wife, and the way he talks, I don't think he's very well educated, either in the faith, or in general. Are there any articles online written for the layman? I thought I remembered Sproul handling this at one time, but I'm not remembering where I saw it.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 16, 2007)

I put together a document filled with resources to give to an Ebionite I met in a homeless mission. It has a listing of verses, and some good statements from a wide range of people (John of Damascus to NT Wright) that demonstrate the deity of Christ in a variety of compelling ways. If you'd like to see it, let me know and I can e-mail it to you. Even if it turns out to be over his head, it's something you could probably summarize for him.


----------



## Ravens (Aug 16, 2007)

Els,

The other responses to your query were solid in addressing John 1:1. I believe it was Luther (though possibly someone before him as well) who said that the Greek of John 1:1 is ideal to the Trinitarian, and the most apt way to avoid both Arianism and Sabellianism (modalism) at the same time.

I think one of the best ways to deal with a Jehovah's Witness, or someone dealing with the Deity of Christ, is to show them the "big picture" of John's Gospel. Obviously _each single claim_ is false, and can be proven false through solid agrumentation. However, its also helpful to show them the forest, when they are trying to distract you with trees.

Ask them for a moment of their time, and "rehearse" the Gospel of John for them:

*John 1:1*, the Word is said to be God. 
*John 1:2*, everything that comes into being, came into being via the Word. Thus, the Word did not come into being, but was eternal.
*John 5:17-18* shows the Jews' understanding of Jesus' claim to Sonship (which should be especially pertinent, since this man claims to be a Messianic Jew), namely, that they sought to kill him, "because he... said also that God was his Father, making himself equal qith God." 
*The Jews rightly understood Jesus' claims to Deity.
John 8:58*: Jesus quotes the Septuagint version of God's Self-Revelation to Moses ("Ego eimi"). "I am". Once again, point out that the Jews here tried to kill him for blasphemy.
*John 10:30*: "I and my Father are one." And, once again in v. 31, the Jews take up stones to kill him.
*John 20:28*: Thomas calls Jesus, "my Lord and my God" ("ho Theos mou", I think, that is, with the article).

If you have time, point out that in John 1:51, Christ claims to be the fulfillment of Jacob's "ladder", which Jacob knew to be a self-revelation of YHWH. In John 4, Jesus is the one offering living water, whereas in Jeremiah 2:13, it is YHWH who is the fountain of living waters. Furthermore, in John 12:41, the Isaiah 6 vision of the LORD in the Temple is said to have been a vision of Christ's glory. And, in John 18:5-6, when they come to arrest Christ, and ask for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus responds with, in my opinion, the Divine Name, i.e., "I AM", and the men "fell to the ground." Surely something is at play there.

That should show them the "big picture". They are getting lost in sophistic arguments (which, even then, are fallacious), the false doctrine and demons are leading their mind down a thousand grammatical trails of a language (Greek) that, in all likelihood, they can't even read.

That "presentation", in my opinion, should be enough to kind of jog them and help them see exactly what they are dealing with, and how much exegetical and slippery *effort* they have to put into the Gospel of John to make it not teach Christ's full Deity. And it doesn't require knowledge of Greek or anything to do, really. And the Spirit will either use that to convict them and change their mind, or they will be left to their own devices. But that is in His hands.

But if John thought Christ was God, and Thomas thought Christ was God, and John thought Christ was YHWH of the Old Testament, and Jews _thrice_ took up stones to kill Jesus in response to His statements; well, who is misinterpreting, and who is twisting? Not the Christian.


----------



## Ravens (Aug 16, 2007)

P.S., and someone with more knowledge can correct me (I don't even own a copy of the Septuagint, and I am far from an expert), but I think the Greek wording of the burning bush declaration in the Septuagint is "ego eimi ho wn". I had someone tell me at one point (one who was struggling with Nazarene Judaism, or something to that effect), that Christ here purposefully left off the "ho wn."

If he says that, I would just point out, once again, that the Jews who were there clearly understood Christ's claims to Deity when He said that, and that it isn't necessary to quote the whole phrase in order to identify Himself with what was spoken. The "Ego eimi" was sufficient to make His point, and, apparently, the point was made.


----------



## els (Aug 16, 2007)

I hope I didn't sound like I didn't appreciate the information given above- thank you! It will be great stuff for me to go over and be able to deal with this issue better in the future.
Essentially, I've done everything that you mentioned, JD- to show him the forest- using those verses you mentioned, and talk about the fact that the Jews knew exactly what Christ was claiming about Himself (This has been a LONG conversation with this guy). I guess there comes a point when it's time to step back because they don't want to be convinced? I can only present the truth so many times.
I'm not talking about giving up, just maybe it's time to (drat, I hate this phrase...) "let" God work through the evidence I've already presented, and do a whole lot of praying for this young man and his wife. It's gotten to the point where it's turning in circles, and whenever it turns to Greek and Hebrew arguments, it seems like they just don't want to hear.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 16, 2007)

JDWiseman said:


> P.S., and someone with more knowledge can correct me (I don't even own a copy of the Septuagint, and I am far from an expert), but I think the Greek wording of the burning bush declaration in the Septuagint is "ego eimi ho wn".



You are correct here.



> I had someone tell me at one point (one who was struggling with Nazarene Judaism, or something to that effect), that Christ here purposefully left off the "ho wn."



I am not sure what Christ's purpose was for leaving it off, though.



> If he says that, I would just point out, once again, that the Jews who were there clearly understood Christ's claims to Deity when He said that, and that it isn't necessary to quote the whole phrase in order to identify Himself with what was spoken. The "Ego eimi" was sufficient to make His point, and, apparently, the point was made.



Right. They knew exactly what He was saying, especially because it would have been out of the ordinary for someone to say,"_ego eimi_." They would have normally just said, "_eimi_" which has the pronoun built into it because of it's form.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 16, 2007)

[bible]John 20:28[/bible]
In this reference "ho theos" is used to refer to Jesus. If Jesus was not "the God" He certainly should have corrected Thomas here since it would be blasphemy if Jesus weren't "the God."


----------



## els (Aug 16, 2007)

The _ego eimi_ phrase is when He said "I am," correct?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 16, 2007)

els said:


> The _ego eimi_ phrase is when He said "I am," correct?



Yes. _Ego_ is the first person pronoun "I". _Eimi_ is the verb "am" for the first person. Because of the form of the verb, you do not need to add the pronoun and usually wouldn't in conversation. It is similar to other inflected languages like Spanish. In Spanish you could say, "_Yo soy_" to mean "I am", but you would normally just say, "_Soy_."


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 16, 2007)

els said:


> The _ego eimi_ phrase is when He said "I am," correct?



Yes it is. And in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT), the "I am" in Exodus 3:14 is exactly the same - ἐγὼ εἰμὶ (ego eimi)


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 16, 2007)

els said:


> I hope this doesn't sound too simplistic, but I'm looking for something short, simple, and concise for this guy. While he's going at it from a complicated process, I don't really think he knows what he's talking about. He seems blown about by every wind of doctrine- both he and his wife, and the way he talks, I don't think he's very well educated, either in the faith, or in general. Are there any articles online written for the layman? I thought I remembered Sproul handling this at one time, but I'm not remembering where I saw it.



Essentially what Rev Greco said. Unless Jesus is both God and man, he cannot offer an adequate sacrifice.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Aug 16, 2007)

The issue is simple - is Jesus of Nazareth the promised Messiah? Focus on fulfilled prophecy, especially Psalm 22 and Isaiah 52:13-53:12.


----------

