Description: Second chapter with Jesus as focus. Sections: Non-Messiah, Debunked, Incarnation, False Prophet, Virgin Birth, Trinity. This chapter purports to examine Jesus' credentials and determine whether Jesus "meets the requirements laid down throughout the Bible as the one who is to be recognized as the messiah, the savior of humanity." [109] ...A number of these objections are either repeated elsewhere or are answered by material outside of this page.

Non-Messiah

2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Objections about genealogy of Jesus; see Glenn Miller's work on this subject.

7, 8. Misunderstanding of typology; outside our purview, though keep alert for a future article on this subject.

Debunked

2. Misapprehension of typology; outside our purview, but an example will suffice for now. In one case Nahum 1:11 ("There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counsellor.") is pitted against Is. 9:6 ("For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."), and it is asked why the verse in Nahum is not applied to Jesus while the one is Isaiah is. Considering that Nahum's book is a message to Nineveh (1:1), it is quite unlikely that one could make even a typological application here, unless one can show that Jesus somehow "came out of" Nineveh; moreover, the appellation in Nahum is to a wicked counselor, which one must show Jesus was.

3. Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Also Job 25:4, 15:14)

Said to operate against the possibility of Jesus being born sinless; ignores the proverbial and therefore non-absolute nature of the passages in question, as well as that they are merely records of what was said and therefore not, of necessity, true teachings.

5. Misapprehension of typology; outside our purview.

See entries in Encyclopedia for Dan. 2:11 and Gen. 6:3.

False Prophet

vs.

Now answered here.

Now answered here.

Said to be unfulfilled since the high priest never saw any such thing in his lifetime. Our subject fails to understand the eschatological context of the statements. No Jew would have interpreted this to mean that he would one day look out the window and see Jesus riding by on a cloud. The language expresses symbolically the exaltation of the Son of Man, which the high priest did indeed live to "see" in the Resurrection and in the foundation of the new community of believers. (See N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God.) See more here.

vs.

and

Now answered here.

11. Matt. 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again. (Parallel Mark 10:33-4, Luke 18:32-3)

vs.

The former said to contradict the latter which indicate that Jews were involved in the killing of Jesus. Our subject omits the verses previous which indicate the Jewish role of delivering him unto the Gentiles.

Said to be in error since Jesus was not beheaded as John the Baptist was. The "likewise" does not refer to method of execution but to the "have done unto him" whatever they wanted. But is our subject so naive as to think that "likewise" means "in exactly the same manner with absolutely no variations"?

Said to be in error since John the Baptist didn't restore anything. The Greek word here has the connotation of reconstitution; in that sense, John did indeed "restore" something, inasmuch as he paved the way for the new covenant offered by Jesus.

15. John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

vs.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (Also John 13:21, 25-27)

The alleged problem: Jesus supposedly "lost" some sheep in the second set of verses. The first two verses do not contradict the third , for Judas was not one of the sheep. John 18:9 and 17:12 complement each other and the former is informed by the latter since it precedes it. The last has no application for the point of the second and third is loss by death.

Now answered here.

17. Now answered here.

Said to be easily shown false, and indeed it can be if read outside the social context. God's will in the matter is presumed to be a pre-condition for any prayer or petition in Judaism; to ask for something in someone's name presumes, under the Hebrew rubric that name = authority, that you have permission and clearance to use the authority given and would not abuse it.

2,000 years is said to disprove this verse, but it was fulfilled in 70 AD (see here).

Said to be disproven by the Dark Ages, which is a rather naive and reductionist statement about history.

1. Cites verses where Joseph is called the "father" of Jesus. (John 6:42, Matt. 13:55, Luke 2:48, etc.) Some of these are recorded perceptions of people who obviously would not know of the virginal conception (like the townspeople of Nazareth). Others are a case of Mary speaking publicly, where we would hardly expect her to say, "I and this man who is not really your father..."

3. Repeat of previous objection on Job 14:4, with the added note of purification of Mary indicated in Luke 2:22-4, which has nothing to do with Jesus needing purification.

4. The old saw about Is. 7:14; see Glenn Miller's item on that verse.

5. A critique of the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, which we will not defend.

6. An observation that several OT figures had births that our subject thinks were more spectacular or miraculous, which reflects his own opinion well, and really doesn't make a lot of difference.

(As a side note, our subject downplays the miraculous mature of the virgin birth by suggesting that such a birth is not miraculous, since artificial insemination can produce a virgin birth. This does well to remind us that it is the conception that was miraculous, not the birth per se, but one wants to ask how our subject thinks artificial insemination was done in the first century.)

Various complaints about the Trinity, which is a subject we will not reply to in-depth, for it is the height of arrogance for our subject to think that he can cover the matter adequately in just 6 pages. We will note that he major complaint is that the Trinity is contradictory. Contradiction comes about when one says that "A" is also "non-A", but that is not what the Trinity states. The Trinity doctrine states that God is "A" and "3B" - one essence, but three persons. This is not in violation of the law of non-contradiction at all. On this subject, we refer the reader to Glenn Miller's trinity series and several works on this page, notably the claims of Jesus (here) and especially our analysis of Wisdom theology. We consider that between these items every one of our subject's objections are answered and every concern he presents is alleviated. Neither our subject nor his sources Gerald Sigal, Shmuel Golding, or John Biddle have any comprehension of how the Trinity works or of the Jewish background of the concept. Unlike many of the apologists our subject quotes, I see no reason to resort to describing the Trinity as a "mystery" or as somehow incomprehensible. Here is one miscellaneous note: 2 Cor. 4:4 ("In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.") is cited as a problem of some sort, inasmuch as the devil is called a "god" just as Jesus is. This verse identifies the Devil as the "god of this world," however -- not as the Wisdom or Word of God. The "god" belongs (within the obvious context of Jewish thought) in sarcastic quote marks; it reflects the position given the devil by the world.

Sources

1. Brow.GJ -- Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John I-XII. Doubleday, 1966.
2. Gue.Mk -- Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Waco: Word.