Jesus as God: A Biblical Case

This is a video in the Jesus as God series, if you have not already, please watch the first video, which clears the ground of objections before watching any other videos in the series. And if you have watched it, but not recently, then you might want to watch it again. Then you can come back to this one. Ok moving right along.

Here is what's at stake in this video series. If Jesus is anything less than Yahweh, the God of Israel, then any worship of him on any level is absolutely inappropriate and is avodah zara, or idolatry: a crime that in Biblical times carried the death penalty. Yet if he is God in the flesh, then any denial of his deity is blasphemy against the God of Israel and a rejection of Jesus. And as Jesus clearly said in Luke, anyone who rejects Jesus rejects the Father. John corroborates this in his first epistle: anyone who does not have the Son, Jesus, also does not have the Father. If Jesus truly is God incarnate, then no one who denies his deity can ever truly worship the God of Israel.

In this video, I present to you a Biblical case that Jesus of Nazareth is Yahweh, the God of Israel. There are several ways in which Scripture portrays Jesus as God:

1. Jesus is called God
2. Jesus is described as only God can be described
3. Jesus freely receives worship

As we examine many texts from the New Testament, always ask yourself the following question: could these words be applied to a mere creature? If Jesus of Nazareth is not the God of the universe incarnate, then he would have to be a mere creature, highly exalted perhaps, but a mere creature nonetheless, as Ebionites, Arians, and some Orthodox Jews such as Pinchas Lapide believe.

The first category of passages are those that specifically describe Jesus as God, or θεός in the Greek. We think of Thomas when he sees the resurrected Jesus in John 20:28, who says his confession of faith: My Lord and my God. If Jesus was not God, then Thomas' words were inappropriate and Jesus should have rebuked Thomas instead of accepting his confession as a confession of faith.

In Titus 2:13, Paul refers to the blessed hope we have of the appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Greek bracketing the phrase God and Savior so that both God and Savior can only apply to one subject: Jesus. And Peter used the same language in 2 Peter 1:1, so it isn't just Paul who is using this title.

In Romans chapter 9 verse 5, Paul called Jesus who is over all, the eternally blessed God, amen. In Hebrews Chapter 1, the writer to the Hebrews in verse 6 talks about how all the angels of God worship Christ, and then refers to Christ as God. In this chapter it is God the Father who refers to Jesus as God, and if God the Father is willing to do so, I think we should as well.

Isaiah was given a vision of God high and lifted up and in chapter 9 refers to the one who is born (Biblical Hebrew does not have a past, present, or future tense). Isaiah refers to him as the Mighty God, that's El Gibbor in the Hebrew, a term that Isaiah uses in the next chapter to refer to God himself, and cannot be used of a mere creature, not even King Hezekiah.

In Paul's letter to the Colossians, Paul says that in Jesus, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. The Greek term θεότητος, deity, means "that which makes God God" and it dwells in the resurrected Jesus in bodily form.

In Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8, "But of the Son he says, 'your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteouseness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions'"

But this is only one way in which the writers of Scripture teach that Jesus is God. In Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 through 7. Paul presents his theology of Jesus before he came to Earth. Before he voluntarily made himself of no repute. He did not regard the equality he had with the Father, something to be exploited or held on to but emptied himself of his glory. He existed long before his birth in Bethlehem, and had equality with the Father. What creature has equality with the Father?

In Revelation 22:13, Jesus is described as the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. These are terms that frequently describe Yahweh in the Tanakh. And they also describe the Almighty God in chapter 1 verses 7 through 8. How could one writer describe Jesus as the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end when he had already described the almighty God in those terms? Because for that writer, Jesus is the almighty God.

Another way that Jesus is described as God is when he is called the creator of all things. This means that Jesus the Messiah is your creator. In Colossians chapter 1, Jesus is described in words where Paul literally exhausts the Greek language to communicate his point. He said for by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things and in him all things hold together. This was written in response to people who would say that Jesus was a great person, even a great prophet, even the highest angel, but is not God. Paul corrected this.

In Hebrews chapter 1, Jesus is called the creator of all things who laid the foundation of the earth from the beginning. And in John chapter 1, the fact that Jesus was both God and the creator of all things is made plain. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him and without him was not any thing made that was made. The word was indicates eternal pre-existence. And if Jesus was a mere creature, then apart from him many things were made.

Jesus also used the I am statements, that's ἐγώ εἰμι, in Greek. Jesus uses this phrase repeatedly to describe himself. In John 8:58 it says "before Abraham was, I am" in John 13:19, he specifically cites from the Septuagint Isaiah 43:10. Jesus takes a statement about Yahweh and applies it to himself. In John 18, the soldiers look to arrest Jesus. He asks them who they are looking for and they say "Jesus of Nazareth" Jesus responds "I am he" and the soldiers fall to the ground. Why did that happen? This is important because in John 8:24 Jesus says that "unless you believe that I am (that's ἐγώ εἰμι) you will die in your sins" Those are Jesus' words.

In Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 quotes from the Tanakh, specifically Psalm 102:25-27. This is a passage about how God is uniquely the unchangeable creator of all things. All of creation will pass away, but God will remain. The writer to the Hebrews takes that passage which is uniquely about the God of Israel, and applies it to Jesus.

In John chapter 12, when Jesus is about to hide himself from the people. John is commenting that while the people has seen so many miracles from Jesus, yet they were not believing. He explains why and quotes two passages, one from Isaiah 53 and one from Isaiah 6:10. Then the author of John makes a comment that many of us miss. He says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus. When we look back at Isaiah chapter 6, Isaiah says he sees Yahweh sitting upon a throne. He saw his glory. If you ask Isaiah "whose glory did you see?" Isaiah would say "the God of Israel" If you ask John "whose glory did Isaiah see" he would say "Jesus" You don't make that kind of application to a mere creature. It would be blasphemous.

Finally, Jesus is worshipped in a way that only God can be worshipped. Those who deny that the New Testament teaches the deity of Jesus are quick to point out that the word used for worship προσκυνώ can sometimes mean homage. If that were the extent of the argument then this would be enough to shoot it down. The question is: can it refer to full religious worship and is it used this way of Jesus. The answer is most definitely yes.

We know that Peter refused to accept προσκυνώ in Acts 10. And we know that the angel who showed John many wonders in Revelation twice refused προσκυνώ in Revelation 19 and 22. Instead, the angel instructed John to προσκυνώ God alone. When Satan tempted Jesus and showed him all these wonderful kingdoms if Jesus would only προσκυνώ him. Instead, Jesus told Satan that we are to προσκυνώ God alone. In each situation, we see that προσκυνώ in the New Testament refers to a form of worship that is only to be given to God, and is absolutely inappropriate to give to any mere creature, even the most exhalted angel. That is what makes this form of προσκυνώ different from the secular, non-religious usage.

Not only is Jesus declared worthy to receive such worship, but he also freely receives it. In Matthew 14, after Jesus fed the 5000, Jesus withdrew to a mountain, while the disciples went to the Sea of Galilee on a boat. And a storm came, and Jesus went to his disciples, walking on the water, and got into the boat. When the storm ceased, the disciples worshipped Jesus, saying "truly you are the Son of God." If the term THE Son of God, meant anything less than full deity, why did the disciples worship Jesus and why did Jesus allow them to do so? In Matthew 28, after Jesus' resurrection, he freely received worship twice: once just after his resurrection by a group of his disciples, and again on the mountain in Galilee.

In John 9, a blind man came to the pool of Siloam, and Jesus healed the man of his blindness. After the newly sighted man conversed with the Pharisees, he was kicked out of the synagogue for denying that Jesus was a sinner. Jesus then found the man and then Jesus called himself the Son of Man. The formerly blind man said "I believe" and worshipped Jesus. If the term Son of Man was a denial of deity, why did this man worship Jesus?

In Hebrews chapter 1 verse 6, the author says Let all God's angels worship him.

In Revelation chapter 4:9-11 we see a vision of the highest form of worship as it exists in heaven. God is seated upon the throne and all the holy inhabitants of heaven are involved in constant worship before that throne. "And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and whorship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne saying: Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created" Not only does John use προσκυνώ in its highest sense, but we read of worthiness, glory, power, and honor. These are terms that are commonly used of worship alone. If it is not absolutely inappropriate to give this kind of worship to any creature no matter how exalted, then we have no possible way of defining true worship from the biblical texts.

In Revelation 5 we see the same level of worship being given to Jesus. Starting verse 8 we read regarding the lamb that looked as though it had been slain: "And when the lamb had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song saying, Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its eals, for you were slain and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God and they shall reign on the earth. Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voice:

Worthy is the lamb who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing. And I heard every creature in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them saying "To him who sits on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever" And the four living creatures said Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped.

This is the continuation of the scene we have seen in chapter 4. But now it includes the lamb that was slain. It has the same complex of words including worthiness and power and glory and honor and blessing with their direct object being that of the lamb. Among those that worship the lamb are all creatures, including the highest and most exalted heavenly beings. If Jesus was in any sense a created being, then it would have been his absolute duty to refuse this kind of worship, and join all of creation in worshiping the one who sits on the throne. But such is not what we see because the lamb is indeed Jesus who is Yahweh.

So the next time you hear such a radical claim as "the New Testament does not teach that Jesus is God" you will know that whoever is making this claim is either ignorant of what the New Testament so plainly and repeatedly teaches about the subject, or that person is a deceiver, a con artist trying to swindle you out of your faith. Do not believe that person's lies.

Jesus as God: Clearing the Ground

This video is the first in a series of videos explaining and defending the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Before going on to other videos in this series, I strongly recommend watching this one in its entirety, as it clears the ground of Biblical objections that Jesus of Nazareth is the God of monotheism incarnate.

Like James White, I think there is truly no question as to what the New Testament teaches on this subject. When one lays aside traditions, prejudices, and other outside influences, the answer to the question is plain and unambiguous. Think for a moment of some of the titles and descriptions used of Jesus.

He is the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is the Word of God, he is the Risen Lord. He is the Creator of All Things, Sustainer of All Things, the One for whom all things were made. He is worshipped by angels and men, and in fact all of creation itself. He is the object of prayer and the author and finisher of our faith. He is given the name which is above every name, so at the name of Jesus every knee bows and every tongue swears allegiance. All the fullness of deity dwells in him in bodily form, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him, and every thought is to be taken captive in obedience to him. Paul describes him as our great God and Savior, the Eternally Blessed God. John records Jesus' own words, calling himself the I Am, and John speaks of Jesus as the Word who existed eternally and is as to his being absolute deity. Thomas confesses him as his Lord and his God. Peter calls him God and Lord, and the early church prays to him and suffers in his name. Lord, God, Creator, Savior, Lamb of God, Risen and Coming King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Truly there is no question of the New Testament's teaching on the deity of Christ.

So why is it that Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and Jewish antimissionaries say that the New Testament teaches otherwise?

I think it is because they allow their own beliefs and prejudices to overthrow the plain testimony of Scripture. To an antimissionary, the idea that God could enter into his own creation in physical form is so scandalous that the New Testament writers could not have believed it.. Only by assuming the falsity of Christianity, ignoring the context of the New Testament, and inserting what you seek to prove could you make statements as absurd as those made by these antimissionaries.

When I say that Jesus is God, I am not saying that Jesus is The Father. Such is not the belief of historic Christianity, nor is it the testimony of the New Testament. Therefore, all the passages that distinguish Jesus from the Father are not denials of the deity of Jesus. The apostle Paul plainly distinguished between the Father and the Son, and yet plainly said that in Jesus, all the fullness of deity (theotetos, a word meaning that which makes God God) dwells in bodily form in Colossians 2:9.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion, always has been, always will be. We believe in one and only one God. We affirm that Yahweh is denying from the category of god anyone but himself in Isaiah 45, when he says "I am Yahweh and there is no other. Besides me there is no god." The word god in this passage means that there are no other gods, and is not just referring to idols. Interpreting it as "besides me there is no idol" makes no sense. There were lots of idols. But there is only one God.

Likewise in Isaiah 44: "I am Yahweh who made all things, who alone streched out the heavens, who speard out the earth by myself" God acted alone in creation, without the aid of any other gods, and God does not share His glory with anyone. There is no true god with a small g.

Therefore, any arguments that there is one major God, the Father, and that Jesus is a lesser deity fail, because they contradict the plain testimony of Isaiah. The option that Jesus is a god with a lowercase g is simply not open to anyone who believes in the inerrancy and infallability of the Bible. He is not the great archangel Michael or anyone else.

When Paul teaches the deity of Christ, he is not proclaiming Jesus to be a second god, but was a trinitarian monotheist like the rest of us. A confusion arises when the antimissionary confuses monotheism with unitarianism. Monotheism is the belief that there is one being that is God, unitarianism is the belief that God is one person. Being and person do not mean the same thing. We make the distinction every day. Being is what you are. Person is who you are. Trinitarian monotheism teaches that in the one being that is God, there are three distinct persons. This is made clearest in Matthew's baptismal formula where Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The word for name "nouma" appears once in the verse. You do not baptize in the name of God, a prophet, and a force. Instead, the three persons share the one, divine, trinitarian name of Yahweh.

The statement "there is one true God" is not the same as saying "the Father alone is God" These are two separate statements with two different meanings. Therefore, such passages as Isaiah 43, which states that "Before me was no god formed nor will there be any after me" or 1 kings 8:60 which says Yahweh is God and there is no other, or Deuteronomy 6 "Hear O Israel, Yahweh your God, Yahweh is one" establish monotheism but do not establish unitarianism. We believe that the Triune God is the one and only, and that no God came before Him and none will come after Him. Such statements that there is one God are not denials of the Trinity.

But what about 1 Corinthians 8:6 when Paul says that there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist? Is this saying that only the Father is God and that the Son is not? Such erroneous reasoning would mean that the Father is not Lord. Yet in Luke chapter 2, Jesus was presented in the Temple to the Lord, and in Revelation 4, the Father is called Lord. It would also mean that God did not create all things by himself, contradicting Isaiah. And for those who object and say that "through him" means that Jesus is only a passive agent in creation, may I remind you that in Romans 11:36, Paul speaks of Yahweh when he says "From him and to him and through him are all things." Also, the Greek word for Lord, kurios, is the term that the Greek Septuagint uses in place of the Hebrew name Yahweh. In this passage, Paul is taking the Shema and applying it to both the Father and the Son.

Numerous other errors made by those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ are based on their failure or refusal to allow for the Biblical teaching that Jesus was both God and Man. The eternal and divine word became flesh as in John 1:14. They cite passages such as Mark 13:32 where Jesus denies that he knows the day or the hour of his return. This is divine knowledge, and not within his self-limited knowledge. They also cite passages such as Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29 and Hosea 11:9 which all say that God is not a man.

Not only do they fail to point out that the incarnation had not yet taken place, the Word had not yet taken on flesh, but the whole point of all of these verses was to point out that God is superior to any mere human. And Jesus was no mere human.

In John 14:28, Jesus said that the disciples should have rejoiced that he was returning to the Father, because the Father was greater, meaning in a greater position in heaven than the Son was while on Earth. The Son voluntarily took the position where he set aside the independent use of his divine perogatives, which include divine knowledge. To say that Jesus cannot be God because he set aside the independent use of his divine knowledge makes about as much sense as saying that the Father is not God because he does not know what it is like to be a human or to eat food. The Father and the Son took about different roles in bringing about the redemption of God's people. They distinguish the difference between the Father and the Son but do not tell us that the Son is any less deity.

In John 5, Jesus said the Son can do nothing of Himself unless it is something he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does. Does this mean that the Son who is elsewhere described as having all power and authority has no power or authority? Of course not. Jesus is not denying his power or deity, but is describing the absolute and perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son. The Father, too, can do nothing apart from the Son. This is why in that same chapter, the Son claims the same divine right to be active on the Sabbath day as the Father. This is also why he says that he and the Father are one, meaning unified in their mission and purpose, just as he wants the disciples to be unified in their own mission and purpose.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Does that mean Christ is not God? Of course not. This is like arguing that I am a nobody and nobody's perfect so I'm perfect. The word God in the New Testament can have more than one meeting. It can mean deity. It can mean the Triune God as a whole, or it can mean The Father. In this case it means the Father. Of all the New Testament writers, Paul has been the most explicit in calling Jesus God, which we will get into in a later video. Does this mean that Jesus is inferior in some way to the Father? By that logic, it would also mean that the woman is an inferior being to the man. But man and woman both bear the image and likeness of God. We are equal in our worth. Instead, this passage just explains that men and women play different roles, just as the Father and the Son took on different roles. It does not mean they are anything less than equal in their being.

In John 20:17, Jesus speaks after his resurrection from the dead of the Father as his God. Such words make perfect sense in the context of Scripture. What else do we expect the resurrected Christ to say? Is the holy one an atheist? Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and is still the God Man. Hence, he speaks of his Father and his God. And within only a few verses, Thomas will express the faith of all true believers, when he bows in adoration to the risen Jesus and calls the Risen One "Ha kurios mu kai ha theos mu" which means "The Lord of me and the God of me"

In John 17:3, Jesus prays to the Father, calling Him "the only true God" Those that deny the deity of Christ pass over the fact that according to the passage, eternal life means knowing both the Father and the Son. And they also ignore the testimony to the deity of Christ found two verses later. To those who think that Jesus is a mere creature, how is it that eternal life is merited through knowing God and a mere creature, joined on equal footing with his creator? And why is it two verses later, when Christ asks the Father to "restore to me the glory that we shared together before the world was"? What creature shares the glory of the Father before creation? Saying that there is only one true God is not the same as saying the Father alone is deity. This again confuses monotheism with unitarianism.

In Mark 10:17-18, a man calls Jesus a good teacher, and Jesus responds "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone?" If this was a denial of his deity, Jesus should have said "Do not call me good." Instead, Jesus points out that the young man does not know with whom he is dealing. Remember that Jesus already claimed to be able to forgive sins in Mark chapter 2 verses 5 through 7, which is a divine priviledge.

In John 10, Jesus almost gets himself stoned to death when he claims in front of his fellow Jews, "I and the Father are one." They responded "You, being a man, make yourself God" and were about to stone Jesus when he responded quoting Psalm 82: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and Scripture cannot be broken, you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming' because I said 'I am the Son of God'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father"

Is Jesus denying his divinity here, or worse, claiming that we are all divine? That's quite an interpretive stretch. Jesus was being charged with blasphemy, and wanted to avoid getting on the Sanhedrin's hit list prematurely. He had two ways of doing this: 1. By denying that he claimed to be God, or 2. By showing that it is not necessarily blasphemy to claim to be God. Jesus chose option 2. He said that it is not blasphemy to call someone god if they deserve the title, and Jesus deserves the title, and then said "the Father is in me and I in the Father." If Jesus was denying his deity in this passage, why is it they tried to arrest him for blasphemy anyway in verse 39? Why didn't they just say "ok, as long as you are not claiming to be God. Just a misunderstanding"? Instead, they tried to seize him. They did not believe Jesus was denying his deity, so why should we?

Nor does Psalm 82 teach that men are gods. This psalm is a song of lament over unjust and oppressive rulers. It is these wicked tyrants that the Psalmist sarcastically calls gods, who will nevertheless die like men.

Finally, in Philippians 2, Jesus, who was in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be held on to, but made himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant. Does this emptying "kineo" mean that Jesus gave up his divinity? Not at all. He made himself nothing by taking the form of a servant and giving up the independent use of his divine perogatives. It describes how the glorious one seen in Isaiah chapter 6 can be seen walking among us.

In any case, most of these misunderstandings come from either reading short phrases from the Bible in total isolation, ignoring what is written around it, or from assuming that God cannot take on corporeal form, in other words, that an omnipotent God who can do anything cannot do something.

The Kuzari Principle

The Kuzari Principle argument is the primary outreach argument of Orthodox Jews to establish that Orthodox Talmudic Judaism is the one true religion. The Kuzari principle is as follows: Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred. Since only Judaism claims that its origins are in national revelation rather than merely personal revelation, it must be the true religion. There are two versions of this argument of which I am aware. Here is the first.

Judaism makes these four claims:

1. At least 600,000 Israelites gathered at the bottom of Mount Sinai over 3,300 years ago.
2. All of the Israelites heard God speak to them at Mount Sinai, and they then asked Moses to be His prophet.
3. Moses received the entire Torah from God and taught the Torah to all of the Israelites standing at Mount Sinai.
4. The Israelites transmitted the Torah and also the history of the transmission process of the Torah from generation to generation in an unbroken chain of generations for over 3,300 years until today, with at least one hundred thousand Israelites in each generation of the chain.

Here is how the proof is supposed to work: Suppose that 100,000 people all claim to see a flaming unicorn appear in their midst. Is their testimony likely to be true? I think so. Suppose these 100,000 people form a community and all tell their children about the flaming unicorn incident. Is the witness of that entire second generation enough to establish that the first generation believed they saw a flaming unicorn? I think so too. When a third generation is produced, it attests the validity of the second generation's beliefs, which attests to the validity of the first generation's beliefs, which attests to the validity of the original event.

No matter how many generations away from the event you go, as long as you have that unbroken chain with at least 100,000 in each generation, you have proof of the original event. In this way, the modern Jewish people are in a sense direct witnesses to the events on Sinai.

So what's the catch? Why is this argument so thoroughly rejected by liberal Jews, many Modern Orthodox Rabbis, and even some Haredim?

The fatal flaw with this entire argument is in the central claim itself. Remember what it states: Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred. Do you see the flaw? This version of the Kuzari Principle argument is really nothing more than a Sorites paradox.

What is a Sorites paradox? A Sorites paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. The paradox of the heap is an example of this paradox which arises when one considers a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Is it still a heap when only one grain remains? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?

Just because a sand heap can remain a heap when you remove one grain of sand, it does not follow that you can remove any number of grains of sand and expect that it will remain a heap. Likewise, if you hear the testimony of 100,000 people that they witnessed an event, is that the same as witnessing the event yourself? Is there absolutely no difference? I think there is. Hearing the testimony of the second generation attesting to the first generation is not as reliable as hearing the testimony of the first generation directly. You lose credibility with each generation.

In order for the argument to actually work, the Kuzari Principle would have to be reformulated as: Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then 100% certainly (or 100% minus some infinitestmal amount certainly), this event must have occurred. But that's obviously false. Hearing the testimony of 100,000 witnesses just isn't the same as being an eyewitness to the event.

If we think about this proof in mathematical terms, suppose we attached a percentage of certainty to the 100,000 witnesses. Let's say that the witness of 100,000 people gives you a 97% certainty that the event was true. The 97% figure is only for illustration purposes. It was chosen just as arbitrarily as the 100,000 figure. So speaking to the eyewitnesses of the event, you're 97% certain it happened. Speaking to the children of the eyewitnesses, you're 97% certain that the parents believed it, which if true would give you a 97% chance that the event happened. So 97% of 97% is about 94%. Not too bad, but at the 20 generation mark that brings you to about 54%. Twenty more generations takes you to about 30% certainty. Twenty more generations which would get you to around the time of the Macabees, and you're at 16%. Today, we are somewhere around 150 generations from the time of the event, which even under these generous probabilities, would you about 1% certainty based on oral tradition alone.

Here is the second version of this argument:

1. Suppose that a group of 100,000 people claim they have an unbroken line of tradition that a certain number of generations ago at least 100,000 people saw a single, spectacular, memorable event which we will call a national experiential tradition or NET for short.
2. If that claim is false, it would have to be introduced at some point without the event taking place
3. But such a claim of that type cannot be introduced without the event taking place
Conclusion: The claim must be true.

This is a better argument, at least this version is not fallacious. However, premise 3 seems weak. Why can't such a claim be fabricated? Proponents of the argument will usually give two reasons to support this premise.

First, all proposed scenarios where the claim slips into a national culture are implausible. How do you convince a nation of 100,000 people that such an event took place? Do you do it all at once?

My answer is: No, you can bring it in gradually through legendary development. Legendary development is a process by which oral traditions change as they are passed from generation to generation. The details change, and the stories often take on larger than life characteristics. Once you get past two generations from the original event, legendary development begins to wipe out the historical core. An example would be the legend of King Arthur.

Worse, the argument assumes a society in which texts and information are widely distributed, so that the people, when receiving a new text or story, will know that it is new. However, this is often not the case in ancient societies. People often had only the vaguest knowledge of their own family or national pasts, and were aware that information might well be in slow circulation about which they knew nothing. If an individual learned of what appeared to be that information, it would be welcomed and not questioned.

The second reason to believe premise 3 supported by Dovid Gottlieb, is that there are no counterexamples. Specifically, there are no stories that fit these five criteria:

1. The story must describe an event witnessed by a nation of at least 100,000.
2. The event must be one that would have created a national tradition.
3. The story was in fact believed to be true.
4. The believers included the nation composed of the descendants of those to whom the event was supposed to have occurred.
5. The story is in fact false.

These criteria seem both conveniently vague and enormously ad hoc i.e. contrived. It's almost as if in formulating the argument, Gottlieb did a survey of religions, observed which characteristics make Talmudic Judaism different, and made those characteristics his criteria for what constitutes true religion. Even if documents of a previously unknown ancient religion founded on national revelation were unearthed, Gottlieb could use the ambiguity in terms such as "national tradition" and redefine it to include Judaism and exclude the other ancient religion. And since such a religion would be long dead, one could not prove that all the descendants were were believers.

Also, why the figure of 100,000. Is 5,000 somehow not enough to verify an event? Gottlieb's methodology is like shooting an arrow into a tree and then painting the target around it.

Since Gottlieb has a degree in philosophy and mathematical logic, I hope he also realizes that there is no such thing as proof by lack of counterexample. Not in mathematics, not in philosophy, not even in history. A theorem is not proved by failing to find a counterexample. Otherwise, theorems like Goldbach's conjecture or the continuum hypothesis should be considered proven. This goes for science as well. If I claimed that there can be no gold spheres larger than 20 feet in diameter, and claimed as my proof the fact that there are no counterexamples, I do not think anyone would accept that.

Similarly, a historical hypothesis is not verified by a failure to find evidence against it. Instead, you have to show that if the hypothesis is false, there would be evidence against it. In this case, the proponent of the Kuzari Principle argument has the full burden of the proof. Good luck with that.

Besides, if we drop the arbitrary 100,000 requirement from the argument, then there is a plethora of counterexamples. The Kurukshetra War in India, the founding of Thebes, and the fouding of the Aztec nation to name just a few.

But speaking of counterexamples. Why are there no ancient Egyptian records of such an event taking place? The Kuzari proponent will reply: "The Egyptians did not record their defeats." Well hold on there, sparky. Does not that suggest that the Egyptians published a history and the millions of Egyptians that read it accepted it as true even though they knew it was untrue? So can you cause multitudes to accept a false history or not? Which is it? You cannot suck and blow from the same explanatory pipe at the same time.

It also may be the case that premise 1 of the argument is false. The Torah might not claim that there were at least 600,000 at Sinai after all. I think the problem is in assuming that the Hebrew word elef in the context of the Pentatuch only meant thousand. It could just as well have meant clan. If we are talking about 2,500 clans, we can get a number somewhere around 70,000 to 140,000. This figure is more consistent with ancient population statistics, as well as ancient archaeological evidence. Alexander the Great only had about 50,000 soldiers with him when he conquered Persia. Hannibal had about 20,000 soldiers with him. There were only about 20,000 soldiers in Egypt's army, so why would an Israelite army of 600,000 be afraid of them?

Also, if the larger figure is true, a mass exodus of 3 million people leaving Egypt, wandering through an uninhabited wasteland for 40 years, and then invading the Canaanite area would leave a massive trail of archaeological evidence. However, the much smaller figure would be able to make this type of journey without leaving such a massive trail. But if the smaller number is true, then the number at Sinai could be as low as 10,000, and we would not have the necessary 100,000 for the Kuzari argument to work.

To repeat, I am not arguing that the story of the Exodus is false. I believe that it is true. I am only arguing that it is not provable in the way that the Rabbis want it to be. By extension, the Rabbinic claim of an unbroken and uncorrupted line of Rabbinic Tradition and Oral Torah that dates back to Moses and Sinai is also not provable.

Consistency

When watching, listening to, or reading religious debate, you will need to look for one thing: consistency. It is one of the marks of a good argument. Holding one standard for evidence that supports your view and another standard for evidence that opposes your view is a fallacy so common in bad argumentation that it has its own name: special pleading.

When attacking the New Testament, the anti-missionary will engage in special pleading in a variety of ways. Hyper-literalism, the Bible Difficulties game, accusations of altering and misquoting the Tanakh, raiding the higher criticism of liberal scholars, and finally through the Zeitgeist game, where they try to connect the New Testament to pagan mythology.

On what consistent basis can an anti-missionary reject the inspiration of the New Testament? I have yet to meet a consistent Orthodox anti-missionary, one who is willing to hold one and only one standard of criticism, one set of presuppositions, one level of skepticism to apply to both the Tanakh and the New Testament. It intellectually dishonest to assert without question that the Tanakh is the infallible word of God and then put the New Testament on trial for its life, presuming it guilty until proven innocent. I believe most anti-missionaries are aware of the difference between humanistic and naturalistic scholarship that begins with the assumption that God has not and cannot speak, and scholarship that does not determine what God cannot do right from the start.

If the anti-missionaries want to hold the New Testament to the same standard as the Tanakh, they will be willing to harmonize the text, give flexibility in its interpretation, and give the authors the benefit of the doubt when assessing their motives, as they do with their own Scriptures. If they are unwilling to do so, then we know the anti-missionary position is untenable. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.

If the words of the New Testament are to be contradicted in regards to their validity and historical value, the anti-missionary will have to do more than point out that liberal, secular scholars tend to disagree with works that claim to be inspired. That is a given. Without hard, manuscript evidence that the text has been altered, accusations that certain parts of the New Testament were changed later on remain nothing more than pure speculation.

In attempting to discredit the New Testament, the anti-missionary will apply inconsistent standards being flexible and gracious when interpreting the Tanakh, Talmud, and Rabbinic writings while offering no flexibility when interpreting the New Testament. They will use quotes such as "If your eye causes you to sin, cut it out" or "Give away everything you have" then fault us for not following it. They will suggest that accounts such as the resurrection are hopelessly contradictory and cannot be historical. They will also accuse the New Testament writers of misquoting the Tanakh, and sometimes even deliberately changing the Word of God.

However, all of these issues have parallels in the Tankah itself. The opening chapter of Genesis indicates a 6 day creation process, and the Talmud interprets day as a 24 hour period of time. The Torah declares an eye for an eye, allows slavery and orders the extermination of the Canaanites. How literally do you want to take these passages? If you want some flexibility in interpretation so you are not chopping people's hands off, please give the same courtesy to the New Testament.

As far as the Bible Difficulties game is concerned, placing Samuel and Kings on one side and the Chronicles on the other, an uncharitable interpreter can alledge all sorts of contradictions. Did Jesse have eight sons or seven sons? Did Solomon have 40,000 horses or 4,000? Did Jehoram son of Jehosophat begin his reign before or after Jehoram son of Ahab? It depends on which account you view. In fact, imagine a world in which these books of the Chronicles do not appear in the Tanakh but instead appear in the New Testament. Is there any doubt these would be the focal point of anti-missionary attacks? While I beleive all these issues in the Chronicles are able to be harmonized by a charitable interpreter, the same goes for the New Testament.

Does paraphrasing a text mean that you are maliciously altering it? If you think so, then you will have to throw the Tanakh away as well. 2 Chronicles 25:4 is written slightly differently than Deuteronomy 24:16. Also, remember Matthew's quote "he will be called a Nazarene" Is this evidence of misquoting the prophets? Not unless you are willing to discredit Ezrah 9:10-12 as well.

The Zeitgeist game basically is the assertion that the life of Jesus in general and his resurrection in particular is derived from pagan mythology. This is not a new theory, but is characteristic of the old history of religion school of thought at the beginning of the 20th century. Scholars in comparative literature ransacked pagan mythologies to try to find parallels to Christian beliefs. The movement soon collapsed for two reasons:

1. Scholars realized that the supposed parallels were superficial. The ancient world was filled with mythologies of every kind. When you look at these myths carefully, you find great diversity among them. Some are mythical symbols of the crop cycle, in the case of Tammuz and Osiris and Adonis. Some are apotheosis tales of the assumption of the hero into heaven, as in the case of Hercules. Some are emperor woship stories as is the case with Caesar. None of these are parallel to the Jewish idea of resurrection. None of them are true parallels to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Describing pagan myths using New Testament vocabulary as we see in conspiracy movies like Zeitgeist is nothing more than pure charlatanism.

2. There is no causal connection between pagan myths and the New Testament writings. Jews found these pagan myths abhorrent. This is why Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus refused to immortalize or deify Moses. This is why there is no evidence of cults of dying and rising gods in first century Palestine.

What the anti-missionary forgets is that the same line of reasoning was applied to the Tanakh. Scholars such as Joseph Campbell believed that the Pentatuch was borrowed from ancient semitic literature and was reactionary against rival mythologies, such as the stories of Marduk in Babylon as well as the epic of Gilgamesh to name just two. Is the anti-missionary willing to apply that kind of scholarship to the Tanakh? If not, why not?

Aah, but liberal branches of Judaism such as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Judaism are willing to hold Rabbinic literature and the Tanakh to the same standard of criticism as the New Testament, and have consistency in that area. However, in another area, they are even more inconsistent than the anti-missionaries. A common question Reform rabbis receive is "why don't Jews believe in Jesus" but to me a more interesting question is "why aren't Jews allowed to believe in Jesus" Why is it that members of liberal Jewish congregations lose positions of leadership and even their membership in a movement where belief in God (the first and most important commandment) is usually optional, and is generally forbidden in Humanistic Judaism?

Besides, most of the courses I have taken with Reform and Conservative rabbis have stressed again and again that Judaism is not about what you believe but about action. It is about identifying as part of a people group and adopting a choice of lifestyle, culture, language, food, and cycle of holidays. Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christianity, is not about culture but is mainly about creed. So why can't you adopt the creed of Christianity and place it within the culture of Judaism. How would that be any less legitimate than humanistic Judaism at least? I asked one Modern Orthodox Rabbi, who told me that in Modern Orthodoxy, you can adopt any interpretation of the Bible, and pretty much any theology you want. You just have to follow the lifestyle prescribed by the Rabbis (which now allows being both gay and orthodox), and not believe in the deity of Jesus...or Schneerson. In other words, it's arbitrary. It's inconsistent, and inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.

Finally, it is important that we Christian apologists be as consistent as possible when we criticize other religions. In future videos when I criticize Talmudic Judaism, I will not give liberal critics of Rabbinic writings such as Jacob Neusner a free pass when they apply higher criticism to these texts. I am more than willing to allow for harmonization of the texts, and demand hard manuscript evidence whenever higher criticism asserts that the writings changed over time. Arguments that cut both ways and prove too much aren't of much use to anyone.

So in conclusion, when you hear an anti-missionary attacking the New Testament, you need to ask yourself "Would he be willing to do the same thing to his own scriptures?"