Documenting the

BLATANT FALSE TEACHING

Of Christian Apologetics
B! "e#re! Dean
I recently stumbled on an amazing article at CARM
(Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry). This
article is amazing because it is such blatant
deception a BLI! person can see it.
The sub"ect o# the article is $ohn %& '() *here the
$e*s sought to stone Christ a#ter Christ states that
+od is his ,AT-.R. /hen you read these 0erses in
their conte1t it becomes clear that the $./2 sought
to e1ecute $esus #or A3 R.A24 that they could
come up *ith. In T-I2 instance) they t*isted his
*ords. /hen he said 5my ,ather5 they sought to
stone him because they T/I2T.! his *ords to mean
that he *as claiming to be 5.67AL5 *ith the ,ather8
Christian apologetics ho*e0er has long since denied
this clear lesson in scripture. Instead) they
themsel0es see9 to t*ist the passage and ma9e it a
comment by $ohn the Apostle) the author. In other
*ords) *here the passage says) 5... but said also that
+od *as his ,ather) ma9ing himsel# e:ual *ith
+od...5 Christian apologetics tries to say that this *as
$4-;2 assessment o# Christ;s *ords and 4T the
$e*;s t*isted misinterpretation o# Christ;s *ords.
In other *ords) the article I #ound at CARM states
clearly that it *as 5not *hat the $e*s thought5 only
(that Christ *as ma9ing himsel# e:ual *ith +od) but
the scripture re<ects $4- the A=42TL.;2 0ie* that
Christ) by calling +od 5his ,ather5 *as actually
ma9ing himsel# .67AL *ith +od.
I *ill -I+-LI+-T e1cerpts #rom this article to dri0e
home the CL.AR deception o# Christian Apologetics&
FROM THE CARM ARTICLE:
$%hen using this &erse against the "eho&ah's
%itnesses (an) an! other group that )enies
"esus' )eit!*+ the response the! ha&e is as
follo,s- The! as. if "esus actuall! sinne) an)
/ro.e the Sa//ath- Of course He )i) not-
Then the! tr! to point out that "ohn the
Apostle ,as commenting a/out ,hat the "e,s
thought an) not ,hat "esus ,as actuall! )oing
an) claiming- Therefore+ the! sa!+ ,hen it
sa!s that "esus ,as $ - - - calling Go) His o,n
Father+ ma.ing Himself e0ual ,ith Go)+$ the!
respon) that that is ,hat the "e,s ,ere
thin.ing an) not ,hat "ohn ,as sa!ing- The
"eho&ah's %itnesses are 0uite ,rong-$
There are T/4 statements in the abo0e paragraph
*here the Christian apologetics completely brea9s
do*n. The >rst statement is in the #orm o# a 2.L,
C4TRA!ICT4R3 e1clusion and the second is merely
a blatant lie.
,irst the article concedes that $esus *as 4T in #act
brea9ing the 2abbath in this chapter (by healing a
man on 2abbath). This concession is) ho*e0er a
complete contradiction to their conclusion) and to
their proo#) as *e *ill see in a moment.
The main 0erse in the contro0ersy is "ohn 1 23-
In it;s entirety it reads&
23 Therefore the "e,s sought the more to
.ill him+ /ecause he not onl! ha) /ro.en
the sa//ath+ /ut sai) also that Go) ,as
his Father+ ma.ing himself e0ual ,ith
Go)-
The argument is) that $eho0ah;s *itnesses teach that
this 0erse re<ects *hat the $./2 T-47+-T (or
claimed) rather than *hat the author o# the passage
B.LI.?.!) and the apologist *ho *rites the article
says 5The $eho0ah;s *itnesses are :uite *rong.5 The
article then goes on to try and pro0e that 0erse '(
re<ects) not *hat the $e*s thought or CLAIM.!) but
*hat the A7T-4R himsel# C4CL7!.! regarding
Christ;s *ords.
FROM THE CARM ARTICLE:
"Yes, Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Obvousl!
that "as #$ht %o# H& to do, but the Je"s
thou$ht He "as b#ea'n$ the Sabbath.
The#e%o#e, "hen John sa!s that Jesus "as
b#ea'n$ the Sabbath, he "as (lea#l! sa!n$
that Jesus "as b#ea'n$ the Je"s e##n$
(on(e)ton o% the Sabbath and not the #eal
Sabbath. Then, n addton, John sa!s that
Jesus "as (alln$ *od Hs o"n %athe# and
&a'n$ H&sel% e+ual to *od. John s &a'n$
t"o (o&&ents,,one about the Je"s e##n$
(la& and the othe# about Jesus (la&n$ to be
dvne."
o*) here) the Christian apologist) Matt 2lic9 tries to
R./RIT. the 0erse completely. Instead o# ha0ing
$ohn say) in 0erse '( that 5the $e*s tried to stone
$esus because he bro9e the 2abbath)5 2LIC@
C-A+.2 *hat is said completely. -e has it to say
that 5the $e*s sought to stone $esus because he
bro9e the $./2 erroneous C4C.=TI4 o# 2abbath.5
-e literally A!!2 *ords to the T.AT.
Let;s read the original 0erse and then compare it to
Matt 2lic9;s 5slic9ed5 up 0ersion o# it...
"ohn 1 23
23 Therefore the "e,s sought the more to
.ill him+ /ecause he not onl! ha) /ro.en
the sa//ath----
Matt 2lic9;s R./RITT. ?.R2I4 o# the te1t&
23 Therefore the "e,s sought the more to
.ill him+ /ecause he not onl! ha) /ro.en
the "E%S E44ONEO5S CONCE6TION OF
sa//ath+----
Matt 2lic9 M72T add this not so subtle R./RIT. o#
the 0erse so that he can ma9e the 0erse) not a
re<ection o# *hat the $./2 thought or CLAIM.!
about $esus; actions and *ords) but also so he can
a0oid the C4TRA!ICTI4 I mentioned earlier. ,or)
i# $ohn) the author says 5the $e*s sought to stone
$esus because he bro9e the 2abbath)5 because i#
0erse '( is to be made a C4MM.TAR3 on *hat
$4- the A=42TL. thought $esus actually 2AI! and
!I! that day) then $ohn the Apostle is CL.ARL3
saying in 0erse '( that $esus did in #act BR.A@ T-.
2ABBAT-) and not 4L3 did he brea9 the 2abbath
(according to 0erse '() but he also 5made himsel#
e:ual *ith +od5 by calling +od 5my ,ather.5
/hen *e read $ohn %& '( *ithout Matt 2lic9;s
R./RIT.) *e see that the author says that the $e*s
sought to stone $esus) not "ust because (they
claimed) he bro9e sabbath) but because they claimed
he made himsel# e:ual *ith +od by calling +od 5my
,ather.5
Let;s read $ohn %& '( again and *e can not only
clearly see that) either $ohn *as saying that $esus
BR4@. 2ABBAT-) or $ohn *as merely e1plaining the
.RR4R the $e*s *ere ma9ing) not only by accusing
$esus o# brea9ing 2abbath but by accusing $esus o#
ma9ing himsel# e:ual *ith +od8
"ohn 1
23 Therefore the "e,s sought the more to
.ill him+ /ecause he not onl! ha) /ro.en
the sa//ath+ /ut sai) also that Go) ,as
his Father+ ma.ing himself e0ual ,ith
Go)-
Common sense dictates that i# the $e*s *ere in error)
and $esus did not brea9 2abbath) then 0erse '(
CA4T be the opinion o# the A7T-4R (unless the
author is admitting that $esus brea9s +od;s la*s
openly). ?erse '( M72T be $ohn) e1plaining /-3 the
$./2 sought to stone Christ and those reasons are
clearly gi0en... '. because the $./2 *ere ACC72I+
him o# brea9ing 2abbath and B. because the $./2
*ere #alsely accusing $esus o# claiming to be .67AL
*ith +od.
4ne 2IM=L. #act pro0es the Christian apologist Matt
2lic9;s deliberate deception. 2lic9 maintains that
$4- states the $e*s sought to stone $esus because
$esus I ,ACT !I! claim to be .67AL *ith +od. 2lic9
then thro*s up a 2M4@. screen by saying the
#ollo*ing&
FROM THE CARM ARTICLE:
"I% t "as onl! the Je"s "ho thou$ht that Jesus
"as &a'n$ H&sel% e+ual to *od, then (an the
Jehovah-s .tness )ont out n the (onte/t o%
"hat Jesus sad and dd that "ould (ause the
Je"s to thn' ths0 I% he (annot 1nd the )la(e
n s(#)tu#e, then the onl! thn$ le%t to
(on(lude s that the (o&&ent s John-s and not
that o% the Je"s."
2ut, so&eone &$ht as' the Ch#stan "he#e
and "hat t "as that Jesus sad that &eant He
"as (la&n$ to be e+ual "th *od. The ans"e#
s s&)le: (alln$ *od Hs o"n Fathe# s
(la&n$ to be e+ual to *od as John the A)ostle
sa!s. "
I need to -I+-LI+-T 2lic9;s conclusion #or you all to
see8 According to the abo0e) 2lic9 maintains in 4
7C.RTAI T.RM2 that *hen Christ called +od 5-I2
,AT-.R5 this *as a CLAIM to be .67AL *ith +od8
It bears repeating) Matthe* 2lic9 says this&
"... (alln$ *od Hs o"n Fathe# s
(la&n$ to be e+ual to *od as
John the A)ostle sa!s."
According to Matthe* 2lic9) $ohn) the Apostle ma9es
the clear argument that since $esus called +od)
5,ather5 that means (according to $ohn) that $esus
claimed to be 5e:ual *ith +od.5
In other *ords) Christian Apologists clearly state that
4 4. can call +od 5my ,ather5 unless they are
ma9ing themsel0es .67AL *ith +od8
3ou ha0e to be completely brain dead to not see the
Christian Apologist;s horrible .RR4R here. 4ne need
only read ho* the Lord taught us to =RA3 to see that
calling +od 5my ,ather5 is not a claim to be e:ual
*ith +od.
THE LO4D'S 64A7E4
$O54 FATHE4+ ,ho art in hea&en+
hallo,e) /e th! name---$
Christ taught us to call +od 547R ,AT-.R.5 The *ord
47R is a plural personal ad"ecti0e and the *ord M3 is
a singular personal ad"ecti0e. They carry the e1act
same connotation) e1cept 47R is used by more than
4. person and M3 is used by 4. person. I# a
person *ere to say the Lord;s prayer AL4.) by
himsel# or hersel#) he *ould not pray 5our #ather...5
but *ould pray 5M3 ,ather.5
But there is ,AR more e0idence that $ohn did 4T
thin9 calling +od 5M3 ,AT-.R5 *as a declaration that
one is .67AL *ith +od8
$ohn made it clear that +od is our (my) ,ather as
*ell...
"ohn 2 28
28 But as man! as recei&e) him+ to them
ga&e he po,er to /ecome the sons of
Go)+ e&en to them that /elie&e on his
name
All through the +42=.L o# $ohn) he ma9es it clear
that +od is not "ust C-RI2T;2 ,AT-.R but is 47R2 as
*ell.
Matt 2lic9 as9s 5can the $eho0ah;s /itness point out
in the conte1t o# *hat $esus said and did that *ould
cause the $e*s to thin9 thisC 5 Then 2lic9 concludes
that it *as Christ calling +od 5my ,ather5 that *as
Christ;s declaration that he *as .67AL *ith +od.
But) let us L44@ 4. ?.R2. earlier and see *hat
.AACTL3 did Christ 2A3 that set the $e*s oDC
"ohn 1
29 But "esus ans,ere) them+ :! Father
,or.eth hitherto+ an) I ,or.-
It *as not "ust that $esus said 5M3 ,AT-.R5 but that
$esus said his ,ather 5/4R@.!5 through him8 That is
*hy the $e*s sought to stone $esus in this te1t and)
according to Christian Apologist Matt 2lic9) Christ;s
saying that 5M3 ,AT-.R /4R@2 I M.5 is the same
as saying 5I am .:ual *ith +od.5
3et) Christ stated clearly that all the *or9s he did
*ere 4T -I2 4/) but the ,ather;s in hea0en and
he AL24 said that /. *ould do -I2 /4R@2 (and
e0en greater *or9s).
"ohn 2; 28
28 <eril!+ &eril!+ I sa! unto !ou+ He that
/elie&eth on me+ the ,or.s that I )o shall
he )o also= an) greater ,or.s than these
shall he )o= /ecause I go unto m! Father-
o*) since Matt 2lic9 states that $esus claiming that
+od is his ,ather (and that he does the ,ather;s *or9
on earth) that this is tantamount to be claiming to be
.67AL *ith +od) then common sense dictates that
*hen Christ says /. do the 2AM. /4R@2 as -. (the
,AT-.R;2 /4R@2) then Christ is claiming that /.
T44 are 5e:ual *ith +od.5
ot only that) anyone *ho B.LI.?.2 Christ;s *ords
and goes about saying 5I do the *or9s o# Christ5 that
person is ma9ing himsel# not only e:ual *ith C-RI2T
but e:ual *ith +4! (#or Christ;s *or9s *ere the
,ather;s *or9s and *e claim to do T-42. 2AM.
*or9s).
o*) Matt;s position is that it *asn;t Christ claiming
to do the ,ather;s *or9s that ma9es him e:ual *ith
+od) but claiming that +od is 5M3 ,AT-.R.5 /ell)
$ohn in his letters made it clear that *e are 5born o#
+od5 and that +od is 47R ,AT-.R8
2 "ohn >
? %hosoe&er is /orn of Go) )oth not
commit sin= for his see) remaineth in
him an) he cannot sin+ /ecause he is
/orn of Go)-
2@ In this the chil)ren of Go) are
manifest+ an) the chil)ren of the )e&il
,hosoe&er )oeth not righteousness is not
of Go)+ neither he that lo&eth not his
/rother-
I# you ha0e A3 !47BT that the Apostles taught that
+od is not "ust Christ;s #ather but 47R2 as *ell all
you need do is read Romans (&
4omans 3
2A The Spirit itself /eareth ,itness ,ith
our spirit+ that ,e are the chil)ren of
Go)
29 An) if chil)ren+ then heirs= heirs of
Go)+ an) BointCheirs ,ith Christ= if so /e
that ,e su#er ,ith him+ that ,e ma! /e
also gloriDe) together-
These 0erses are 4T T-. 4L3 ones) ho*e0er that
ma9e it clear that +od is M3 ,AT-.R as much as he is
C-RI2T;2 ,AT-.R....
4omans 3
8? For ,hom he )i) fore.no,+ he also )i)
pre)estinate to /e conforme) to the
image of his Son+ that he might /e the
Drst/orn among man! /rethren-
Christ is the ,IR2TB4R and *e are his BR.T-R.
and by 0irtue o# his being our BR4T-.R it is clear
that *e ha0e T-. 2AM. ,AT-.R8
But *ait... there;s M4R.....
4omans 3
2; For as man! as are le) /! the Spirit of
Go)+ the! are the sons of Go)-
21 For !e ha&e not recei&e) the spirit of
/on)age again to fear= /ut !e ha&e
recei&e) the Spirit of a)option+ ,here/!
,e cr!+ A//a+ Father-
The -4L3 2=IRIT in us declares that *e are T-. 242
4, +4!) that +4! I2 47R ,AT-.R) and e0en cries
*ithin us 5ABBA ,AT-.R5 *hen *e pray8
Clearly) saying that +od is M3 ,AT-.R is 4T a claim
to be .67AL *ith +od (as Christians erroneously
claim).
To dri0e home that it *as the $./2 *ho
misunderstood Christ) let us loo9 at another place
*here Christ *as nearly stoned. ot coincidentally)
this is yet another scripture *here those *ho preach
!.IT3 o# C-RI2T try to say Christ claimed to not only
be .67AL *ith +od) but to be +4! -IM2.L,&
"ohn 2@
8? :! Father+ ,hich ga&e them me+ is
greater than all= an) no man is a/le to
pluc. them out of m! Father's han)-
>@ I an) m! Father are one-
>2 Then the "e,s too. up stones again to
stone him-
>8 "esus ans,ere) them+ :an! goo)
,or.s ha&e I she,e) !ou from m! Father=
for ,hich of those ,or.s )o !e stone meE
>> The "e,s ans,ere) him+ sa!ing+ For a
goo) ,or. ,e stone thee not= /ut for
/lasphem!= an) /ecause that thou+ /eing
a man+ ma.est th!self Go)-
Matt 2lic9 in his apologist error) claims that it *as
Christ) calling +od 5M3 ,AT-.R5 that *as a claim to
being .67AL *ith +od and conse:uently it *as that
claim to e:uality that led to the $e*s trying to stone
$esus in $ohn %. 3et) notice) in $ohn chapter 'E $esus
says 5My ,AT-.R5 and the $e*s did not try to stone
him. It *as not until Christ said 5I and my ,ather are
one.5
Christian apologists use $ohn 'E& FE all the time as
=R44, that $esus claimed to be +od8 They also use
the $e*;s reaction to his *ords as proo# (*hich lends
credence to the $e*;s opinion) something that is
#unny in itsel# because the Christian apologists also
say that in $ohn % the $./2 /.R. /R4+ to accuse
Christ o# brea9ing 2abbath). I# the $e*s are /R4+
about Christ brea9ing 2abbath) *hy do the Christians
turn to the T.2TIM43 o# the $e*sC /hy do they
oDer the R.ACTI4 o# the $e*s to Christ;s statement
5 I and the ,ather are one5 as some sort o# proo# that
$esus literally M.AT that he and the ,ather are one
in the sameC5
This might seem li9e a digression on my part but it is
not. The Christians oDer $ohn 'E& FE and FF as
=R44, that $esus claimed to !.IT3. 3et) i# Christ;s
saying 5I and the ,ather are 4.5 means 5I and the
,ather are 4. I T-. 2AM.5 then /-3 do
trinitarians teach that *hile $esus is +od) the 2on is
4T the ,atherC5
More importantly) i# being 5one *ith the ,ather5
means that you are +od (or that you AR. the ,ather
himsel#) then /. T44 are +od) #or Christ said that in
the same *ay he is 5one *ith the ,ather5 *e too shall
be 5one *ith the ,ather.5
"ohn 29
8@ Neither pra! I for these alone+ /ut for
them also ,hich shall /elie&e on me
through their ,or)=
82 That the! all ma! /e one= as thou+
Father+ art in me+ an) I in thee+ that the!
also ma! /e one in us that the ,orl) ma!
/elie&e that thou hast sent me-
88 An) the glor! ,hich thou ga&est me I
ha&e gi&en them= that the! ma! /e one+
e&en as ,e are one
8> I in them+ an) thou in me+ that the!
ma! /e ma)e perfect in one= an) that the
,orl) ma! .no, that thou hast sent me+
an) hast lo&e) them+ as thou hast lo&e)
me-
Christ not only said that *e and the ,ather are 4.)
but also he says that he has gi0en 72 5the glory5
*hich the ,ather ga0e to him. This 5glory5 according
to Christ *as gi0en to him 5be#ore the ,oundation o#
the /orld5
"ohn 29
1 An) no,+ O Father+ glorif! thou me ,ith
thine o,n self ,ith the glor! ,hich I ha)
,ith thee /efore the ,orl) ,as-
Christian apologists and those *ho preach deity o#
Christ al*ays 72. $ohn 'G&% as proo# that $esus
e1isted *ith the ,ather *hen the *orld began)
ho*e0er that is 4T *hat it says. It says that $esus
possessed this +L4R3 5be#ore the *orld *as.5 I# you
read $ohn 'G& BB he says that he 5ga0e5 us that 2AM.
glory) and this he ga0e us be#ore *e *ere .?.
B4R) #or he is praying) not "ust about the disciples
but about them that *ould 5belie0e upon him
through their *ord.5
"ohn 29
8@ Neither pra! I for these alone+ /ut for
them also ,hich shall /elie&e on me
through their ,or)=
2o) be#ore *e *ere e0en born) be#ore $esus e0en died
#or us on the cross) $esus stated that he already +A?.
72 the +L4R3 that the ,ather ga0e to him. 2o it *as
ours) *e possessed it be#ore *e *ere e0en born
(e0en as Christ possessed it #rom the ,oundation o#
the *orld) be#ore he *as e0en born).
/hat is the conclusionC Christ said 5my ,ather5 and
Christian apologists say this *as a claim that he is
5e:ual *ith +od.5 There#ore) they deny that +od is
T-.IR ,AT-.R) #or) according to them) claiming +od
is your ,ather *ould be blasphemy. The same goes
#or saying 5I and the ,ather are one.5 According to
Christian apologists only Christ can say this) and i#
/. say it) it;s blasphemy8 Thus) Christians
e0ery*here deny that +od is their ,ather and deny
that they are 4. *ith +od (through the -oly 2pirit).
It shall come to pass upon them as they ha0e spo9en
*ith their mouths.
($eDrey !. !ean 2r.)