One God Worship

[williamjordan]

Correction to Post #40 (in red). The original post referred to Hebrews 1:4, but Hebrews 1:3 was intended.

The significance of Ps. 2:7 is that it is a coronation psalm—the ceremony of crowning the Davidic king (and by extension, all the physical heirs of David, and ultimately finding its culmination in Jesus). The Apostle Paul interprets Ps. 2:7 as a reference to the coronation process initiated by the resurrection of Christ when He was “begotten” by the Father in the sense of giving Him life from the dead (Acts 13:29-33, cf. Romans 1:4). Similarly, the author of Hebrews cites Ps. 2:7 in the context of Jesus providing purification for sins and sitting at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven (Hebrews 1:3). Conjoined together in its citation of Ps. 2:7, the author of Hebrews cites 2 Samuel 7:14. In 2 Samuel 7:12-16, God promises to establish the throne of David’s offspring’s kingdom forever. The third quotation (Hebrews 1:6) is introduced with an allusion to Ps. 89:27 (“I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”), a psalm which includes the promise of an eternal throne (Ps. 89:29, 36-37). This “firstborn” language in 1:6 corresponds with the “begotten” language of 1:5—one of the many thematic links. In 1:8-9 there a reference to God’s anointing of His Messianic king. And finally, in 1:13 there is a reference to a classic Messianic text: Ps. 110:1.

 

[soberxp]

This kind of question can only be schizophrenic. Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Biologically speaking, anyone is born from human beings, but God is the creator of this process, and human beings are just vessels.

A vessel filled with human traditions is only human, but if the vessel is filled with the word of God and will of God, then the vessel belongs to God.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hebrews 2:9，So we can't fully call Jesus the Son of God,we call him the Son of Man and the Son of God.

 

[Runningman]

This is going to be another two-parter.

You do understand the difference between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism, right? Unitarianism is the idea that God exists as one sole individual. That’s what differentiates it from Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism isn’t the idea that Jesus is the person of the Father, but that they are truly distinct persons, existing alongside one another, communicating with one another, and sharing in the divine nature. But even in your latest response it seems that you are conflating this idea with a form of Unitarianism referred to as Modalism,



As if this is even what I’m arguing for. Modalists cite John 10:30 to teach that Jesus and the Father are the same person. They believe that prior to the incarnation Jesus existed as the Father, and that it was the Father that came down from heaven in flesh. So your comments here are out of place.

Monotheism is simply the belief in one God, not that God is necessarily one “entity.” By “entity” I think we can safely assume you’re using the term as a synonym for “individual,” or “person.” “Entity” is a rather ambiguous word and could be construed in various ways. Unitarians often conflate the meaning of “Unitarianism” (the idea that God exists as one sole individual) with “monotheism.”

You keep insisting that the Jews are falsely accusing Jesus of being the Father (John 10:30); however, you are not interacting with what I have put forth as arguments against your interpretation. I will repeat those arguments here:

• Prior to His statement made in John 10:30 (“I and the Father, we are one”), Jesus refers to God as His “Father” seven times.
  
  
• The neuter adjective ἕν (“one”) is used, indicating a unity of essence, not personal identity.
  
  
• The plural verb ἐσμεν (“are”) is used. Thus, 10:30 is rendered, “I and the Father, we are (ἐσμεν) one.” This requires a distinction to be made between Jesus and the Father.
  
  
• The narrator nowhere indicates that the Jews falsely accused Jesus of being “the Father.”
  
  
• In John 10:36, Jesus reiterates and clarifies what the Jews are accusing Him of in v. 33 — “you say… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Notice the emphasis on the words “you say,” and “because.” Jesus is not correcting the Jews, rather, He restates what the Jews are already accusing Him of: blasphemy for claiming to be “the Son of God,” which is equivocal with “making Himself equal with God” (cf. John 5:18, 19:7). So it’s not that the Jews understood Jesus “incorrectly” in v. 33. The Jews understood this the application of “the Son of God” in a sense that made Jesus functionally on a par with God.
  
  
• Though the usage of θεὸν in John 10:33 could be construed as definite, given the earlier account in John 5:18, and the echoes of Ps. 95 and Deut. 32 in the John 10 discourse, I suggest that the anarthrous θεὸν in v. 33 is probably best understood as carrying a qualitative nuance.
  
  
• The reason for wanting Jesus dead remained consistent from John 5, through John 8 and 10, all the way to John 19: they regarded the claim to be the Son of God to be blasphemy.

Your interpretation is not driven from the language; and requires quite a bit of pretexting. You can either interact with these points or you can continue to insist upon your interpretation. As it stands, I do not find your argument convincing for these reasons.

(Continued...)

Thank you for the reply, but my reply will be relatively short because, ultimately, the point I am trying to make is quite simple. The Pharisees who were falsely accusing Jesus of being God didn't believe in the Trinity to begin with nor is the Trinity compatible with Judaism.

When they said that claiming to be the Son of God was tantamount to claiming to be God Himself, it was a false charge because they didn't even believe in there being a Son of God in a Trinity who is co-equal with God in any way, shape, or form.

As far as Jesus being the the begotten Son of God, that isn't something that was a problem to the Pharisees either and he didn't inform them he is God's offspring, but I think that's something he told his disciples. If he did then that wouldn't have been a problem either since the Pharisees claimed it too.

Below, the Pharisees make no distinction between being direct descendants of Abraham or God Himself. An interesting thing said here is, "We are not illegitimate children..." That is open to interpretation, but it was most likely a verbal jab at Jesus; they may have been suggesting that Jesus is an illegitimate Son.

John 8
39“Abraham is our father,” they replied.

“If you were children of Abraham,” said Jesus, “you would do the works of Abraham. 40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing. 41You are doing the works of your father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”

Anyway, the Pharisees didn't later switch positions and come to believe that there is a Son of God in a Triune Godhead. The Jews view their Messiah as a savior, liberator, and/or redeeming figure but they don't believe the Messiah is God Himself. Jesus never directly claimed to be God, but it can possibly be interpreted or inferred from various quotes.

 

[williamjordan]

Thank you for the reply, but my reply will be relatively short because, ultimately, the point I am trying to make is quite simple. The Pharisees who were falsely accusing Jesus of being God didn't believe in the Trinity to begin with nor is the Trinity compatible with Judaism.

When they said that claiming to be the Son of God was tantamount to claiming to be God Himself, it was a false charge because they didn't even believe in there being a Son of God in a Trinity who is co-equal with God in any way, shape, or form.

As far as Jesus being the the begotten Son of God, that isn't something that was a problem to the Pharisees either and he didn't inform them he is God's offspring, but I think that's something he told his disciples. If he did then that wouldn't have been a problem either since the Pharisees claimed it too.

Below, the Pharisees make no distinction between being direct descendants of Abraham or God Himself. An interesting thing said here is, "We are not illegitimate children..." That is open to interpretation, but it was most likely a verbal jab at Jesus; they may have been suggesting that Jesus is an illegitimate Son.

John 8
39“Abraham is our father,” they replied.

“If you were children of Abraham,” said Jesus, “you would do the works of Abraham. 40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing. 41You are doing the works of your father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”

Anyway, the Pharisees didn't later switch positions and come to believe that there is a Son of God in a Triune Godhead. The Jews view their Messiah as a savior, liberator, and/or redeeming figure but they don't believe the Messiah is God Himself. Jesus never directly claimed to be God, but it can possibly be interpreted or inferred from various quotes.

This is quite a strange argument. Why would Jesus’ audience necessarily need to believe in trinitarianism? Of course the Jews of Jesus’ day didn’t hold to a trinitarian doctrine of God per se; but that’s what makes it all the more scandalous: Even if the Jews were (for all intents and purposes) unitarian; for Jesus to claim equality with God would be to challenge their traditions, perception, and doctrine of God. For the Jews, there is only one who occupies the heavenly throne, but now here comes this man (Jesus) claiming that He occupies a place at the right hand of the Father, seated on God’s heavenly throne. Would that not be a reason to cry afoul?

If the NT teaches us anything: Just because the Jews held to certain doctrinal beliefs in no way makes them correct.

Second, you claim trinitarianism is incompatible with Judaism. But as scholars of Jewish antiquity can frequently attest (as echoed by Daniel Boyarin),

“There is significant evidence (uncovered in large part by Segal) that in the first century many—perhaps most—Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God.” (Daniel Boyarin, Two Powers in Heaven; Or, The Making of a Heresy, p. 334).

As Alan Segal points out in his book, Two Powers in Heaven, throughout the Talmud, Jews attempt to deal with OT texts which seem to indicate that there is more than one divine person. 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch are post-Christian works, written by Jews, in an attempt to combat the Christian response to these OT texts.

For further reading on the subject, I refer you to Peter Schäfer’s book entitled Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity), Alan Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven, Moshe Idel’s Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism), and Daniel Boyarin’s Two Powers in Heaven; Or, The Making of a Heresy.

There are a number of OT texts that have historically been pointed to in order to demonstrate that there is more than one divine person. One of these classic texts is Genesis 1:26,

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.”

The unitarian response to this is that God was speaking to the heavenly hosts, i.e., angels. But there is a natural problem that arises: For this interpretation to hold true, it would suggest that angels were participants or co-regents in creation. Michael Heiser’s solution to this: Though a group is being addressed when God utters the words, “Let Us make,” when it actually comes down to the act of creation itself, God is the one performing the action, not the angels.

But this raises more problems than it does solutions. Each time the verb na-‘ă-śeh (Gen. 1:26, “Let Us make”) is used in the OT, it always has reference to a plurality of personal subjects who are always involved in the action. For example, consider Ex. 19:8,

Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do (na-‘ă-śeh)!” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also trust in you forever.” Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.

Further examples include, but are not limited to, Ex. 24:3, 24:7; Numbers 32:31; Joshua 1:16, 9:20, 22:26.

Here in Ex. 19:8, would it be acceptable by God for the people to say, “All the words you have spoken, we will do this” when all they really meant was one guy was going to obey God’s command, while the rest are off to do their own thing?

Gen. 1:26 has historically been understood through the centuries to refer to a plurality of persons who were involved in the act of creation. Hence, through the second and third centuries, this was the most commonly held interpretation in the Christian world. To cite a few,

For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.” And the Lord said, on beholding the fair creature man, “Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” These things were spoken to the Son. (Barnabas 6:12)

Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, "Let Us make man." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:4 cf. 20:1)

Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let Us make man in our own image, after our likeness”), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V)

Piggy-backing off of Genesis 1:26, there are further OT texts which seem to indicate that there are more than one divine person active in creation,

But none says, “Where is God my Maker (`osay), who gives songs in the night” (Job 35:10)

The word ‘osay is the plural participle of asa’ and literally means, “my Makers.” Also see Ps. 149:2,

Let Israel be glad in his Maker (`osayw); let the children of Zion rejoice in their King! (Psalm 149:2)

Again, ‘osayw is a plural participle and refers to “his Makers.” Again, in Isaiah 54:5,

For your Maker (`osayika) is your Husband (bo`alayika), the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. (Isaiah 54:5)

The word `osayik is the plural participle of asa’ and bo`alayika is the plural noun form of baal, and can, therefore, be read, “For your Makers are your Husbands.” Again, in Ecclesiastes 12:1,

Remember also your Creator (bora’eyka) in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, “I have no pleasure in them” (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

Bora’eyka is a plural participle, which is literally, “your Creators.”

(Continued...)

 

[williamjordan]

As far as Jesus being the the begotten Son of God, that isn't something that was a problem to the Pharisees either and he didn't inform them he is God's offspring, but I think that's something he told his disciples. If he did then that wouldn't have been a problem either since the Pharisees claimed it too.

Excuse me, but weren’t you the one that brought up John 3:16? In the very context Jesus, does in fact, refer to Himself as "the only begotten Son" while speaking to Nicodemus, whom the text refers to as, "a man of the Pharisees," and "a ruler of the Jews,"

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews… . Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:3, 14-16)

To argue that Jesus' use of "only begotten" wouldn't be a problem for the Pharisees, negates the fact that Jesus didn't just refer to Himself as "an offspring," but as the "only" begotten; with emphasis on the term "only." The term "only" (mono) carries with it connotations of uniqueness, whatever that may be.

At the end of your post you say,

Anyway, the Pharisees didn't later switch positions and come to believe that there is a Son of God in a Triune Godhead. The Jews view their Messiah as a savior, liberator, and/or redeeming figure but they don't believe the Messiah is God Himself. Jesus never directly claimed to be God, but it can possibly be interpreted or inferred from various quotes.

But what do you mean, "Jesus never directly claimed to be God"? As "God," do you mean "the Father"? Instead of relying so heavily on John 8:41, you really need to interact with Post #34 instead of ignoring it.

 

[williamjordan]

In Post #44, the citation from Irenaeus regarding Genesis 1:26 was cited incorrectly. This should have read, "Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Preface and Book IV, Chapter 20:1)"

 

[Runningman]

This is quite a strange argument. Why would Jesus’ audience necessarily need to believe in trinitarianism? Of course the Jews of Jesus’ day didn’t hold to a trinitarian doctrine of God per se; but that’s what makes it all the more scandalous: Even if the Jews were (for all intents and purposes) unitarian; for Jesus to claim equality with God would be to challenge their traditions, perception, and doctrine of God. For the Jews, there is only one who occupies the heavenly throne, but now here comes this man (Jesus) claiming that He occupies a place at the right hand of the Father, seated on God’s heavenly throne. Would that not be a reason to cry afoul?

If the NT teaches us anything: Just because the Jews held to certain doctrinal beliefs in no way makes them correct.

Second, you claim trinitarianism is incompatible with Judaism. But as scholars of Jewish antiquity can frequently attest (as echoed by Daniel Boyarin),

“There is significant evidence (uncovered in large part by Segal) that in the first century many—perhaps most—Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God.” (Daniel Boyarin, Two Powers in Heaven; Or, The Making of a Heresy, p. 334).

As Alan Segal points out in his book, Two Powers in Heaven, throughout the Talmud, Jews attempt to deal with OT texts which seem to indicate that there is more than one divine person. 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch are post-Christian works, written by Jews, in an attempt to combat the Christian response to these OT texts.

For further reading on the subject, I refer you to Peter Schäfer’s book entitled Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity), Alan Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven, Moshe Idel’s Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism), and Daniel Boyarin’s Two Powers in Heaven; Or, The Making of a Heresy.

There are a number of OT texts that have historically been pointed to in order to demonstrate that there is more than one divine person. One of these classic texts is Genesis 1:26,



The unitarian response to this is that God was speaking to the heavenly hosts, i.e., angels. But there is a natural problem that arises: For this interpretation to hold true, it would suggest that angels were participants or co-regents in creation. Michael Heiser’s solution to this: Though a group is being addressed when God utters the words, “Let Us make,” when it actually comes down to the act of creation itself, God is the one performing the action, not the angels.

But this raises more problems than it does solutions. Each time the verb na-‘ă-śeh (Gen. 1:26, “Let Us make”) is used in the OT, it always has reference to a plurality of personal subjects who are always involved in the action. For example, consider Ex. 19:8,



Further examples include, but are not limited to, Ex. 24:3, 24:7; Numbers 32:31; Joshua 1:16, 9:20, 22:26.

Here in Ex. 19:8, would it be acceptable by God for the people to say, “All the words you have spoken, we will do this” when all they really meant was one guy was going to obey God’s command, while the rest are off to do their own thing?

Gen. 1:26 has historically been understood through the centuries to refer to a plurality of persons who were involved in the act of creation. Hence, through the second and third centuries, this was the most commonly held interpretation in the Christian world. To cite a few,







Piggy-backing off of Genesis 1:26, there are further OT texts which seem to indicate that there are more than one divine person active in creation,



The word ‘osay is the plural participle of asa’ and literally means, “my Makers.” Also see Ps. 149:2,



Again, ‘osayw is a plural participle and refers to “his Makers.” Again, in Isaiah 54:5,



The word `osayik is the plural participle of asa’ and bo`alayika is the plural noun form of baal, and can, therefore, be read, “For your Makers are your Husbands.” Again, in Ecclesiastes 12:1,



Bora’eyka is a plural participle, which is literally, “your Creators.”

(Continued...)

It matters what the Jews believed because it reveals their intentions.

They were falsely accusing Jesus of claiming something he never said in order to find cause to kill him.

The thing they were claiming he said, based on saying he is the Son of God, isn't something they could have honestly recognized as blasphemy because they didn't believe being a Son of God made someone co-equal with God to begin with.

This is very simple. With this information in mind, try combing through the gospels again and see that the Pharisees had ulterior motives the whole time.

 

[williamjordan]

It matters what the Jews believed because it reveals their intentions.

They were falsely accusing Jesus of claiming something he never said in order to find cause to kill him.

The thing they were claiming he said, based on saying he is the Son of God, isn't something they could have honestly recognized as blasphemy because they didn't believe being a Son of God made someone co-equal with God to begin with.

This is very simple. With this information in mind, try combing through the gospels again and see that the Pharisees had ulterior motives the whole time.

Let's play Runningman's game: Let's insist I'm correct, and ignore any objections that might be levied against my position. Two can play this game!

In Mark 14:61–64, did the Jews accuse Jesus of being something or someone He hadn't claimed to be?

In Matthew 26:63-66, did the Jews accuse Jesus of being something or someone He hadn't claimed to be?

In Luke 22:66-71, did the Jews accuse Jesus of being something or someone He hadn't claimed to be?

In John 19:7, did the Jews accuse Jesus of being something or someone He hadn't claimed to be?

In John 5:18-19, did the Jews accuse Jesus of being something or someone He hadn't claimed to be?

In John 10:36, for what reason does Jesus give for the Jews accusing Him of blasphemy? Because of a claim to be someone He is not? Rather, Jesus says, “you say… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Notice the emphasis on the words “you say,” and “because.”

In no account do the Jewish authorities ever accuse Jesus of being someone He hadn't claimed to be.

 

[Runningman]

Let's play Runningman's game: Let's insist I'm correct, and ignore any objections that might be levied against my position. Two can play this game!

In no account do the Jewish authorities ever accuse Jesus of being someone He hadn't claimed to be.

This isn't a game. I am just showing you what the New Testament says, rightly divided. I sense you think this isn't serious, but at least you're getting exposure to it.

The Jews accused Jesus of being someone he hadn't claimed to be here:

John 10:33
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Jesus never declared the he himself is God. In fact, he said that his Father is God. Here's a couple examples, but there's many more.

John 3:16
16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 8:54
54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. The One who glorifies Me is My Father, of whom you say ‘He is our God.’

 

[williamjordan]

This isn't a game. I am just showing you what the New Testament says, rightly divided. I sense you think this isn't serious, but at least you're getting exposure to it.

The Jews accused Jesus of being someone he hadn't claimed to be here:

John 10:33
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Of course I take this serious, which is why I've spent many hours, and thousands of words responding to you. But quite clearly you are either not taking the time to read through everything I said, or you are severely misunderstanding what I said.

In Post #39 I gave you reasons why I thought you were misrepresenting John 10:33, of which you haven't even tried to address. The arguments are posted again here,

• Prior to His statement made in John 10:30 (“I and the Father, we are one”), Jesus refers to God as His “Father” seven times. There's no way they are going to construe Jesus' words to then mean He is the Father.
  
  
• The neuter adjective ἕν (“one”) is used, indicating a unity of essence, not personal identity.
  
  
• The plural verb ἐσμεν (“are”) is used. Thus, 10:30 is rendered, “I and the Father, we are (ἐσμεν) one.” This requires a distinction to be made between Jesus and the Father.
  
  
• The narrator nowhere indicates that the Jews falsely accused Jesus of being “the Father.”
  
  
• In John 10:36, Jesus reiterates and clarifies what the Jews are accusing Him of in v. 33 — “you say… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Notice the emphasis on the words “you say,” and “because.” Jesus is not correcting the Jews, rather, He restates what the Jews are already accusing Him of: blasphemy for claiming to be “the Son of God,” which is equivocal with “making Himself equal with God” (cf. John 5:18, 19:7). So it’s not that the Jews understood Jesus “incorrectly” in v. 33. The Jews understood this the application of “the Son of God” in a sense that made Jesus functionally on a par with God.
  
  
• Though the usage of θεὸν in John 10:33 could be construed as definite, given the earlier account in John 5:18, and the echoes of Ps. 95 and Deut. 32 in the John 10 discourse, I suggest that the anarthrous θεὸν in v. 33 is probably best understood as carrying a qualitative nuance.
  
  
• The reason for wanting Jesus dead remained consistent from John 5, through John 8 and 10, all the way to John 19: they regarded the claim to be the Son of God to be blasphemy.

You are failing to make the connections between Jesus' words in John 10:36 with John 5:18, which is why you are misunderstanding John 10:33. The Jews make a charge in v. 33, and Jesus interprets the charge that is consistent with the earlier account (John 5:18) in v. 36. Your assumption of unitarianism is hendering your ability to rightly understand the argument being put forth. When Thomas refers to Jesus as "God," was he referring to Jesus as "the Father"?

Jesus never declared the he himself is God. In fact, he said that his Father is God. Here's a couple examples, but there's many more.

John 3:16
16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 8:54
54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. The One who glorifies Me is My Father, of whom you say ‘He is our God.’

Do you suffer from Red Letter Onlyism?
Are Jesus' words more important than the black letters?
What is the purpose of citing John 3:16 and 8:54? That the Son is personally distinct from God the Father? But who rejects that?