Only God (Christ) versus Only God (Father)

Answering a question on Quora: 

Why does the ESV contradict itself in John 1:18 versus John 17:3 (John, contradiction, Christology, Trinity, ESV, hermeneutics)?

The question is a non sequitur. It presumes, without evidence or specificity, that there is a contradiction. There is, in fact, no contradiction.

The first verse is a declarative sentence in the author’s voice:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. John 1:18 (ESV)

The second verse quotes a prayer by Jesus:

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

(The links take you to a page that lists over two dozen translations of the verses. Versions based on the five-century old Received Text, or Byzantine family of ancient manuscripts, have variations of “only-begotten Son” or “one-and-only Son.” The other versions, which include the ESV, are based on the oldest manuscripts, or Critical Text, which have variations on “only-begotten God” or “one-and-only God.”)

Most of the concepts in the two verses do not overlap. The parts that seem to conflict upon a superficial reading are the description of Jesus as the only God in 1:18 and the description of the Father as the only true God in 17:3.

To answer the question, one must understand the translation in 1:18 and how early Christians solved the paradox of three Persons or Personalities being identified as God, yet there eternally being a grand total of exactly one God.

The Quoran educated at the Theocratic Ministry School (i.e., the Watchtower, more commonly know as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) claims falsely that “The ESV dropped (Only Begotten). If you look the verse up in the Interlinear you will see that they dropped those (key) words.” This claim reflects a shocking lack of understanding of Koine Greek, or even of observing what the interlinear text shows.

The meanings of English words change over time; the same is true for Greek. According to qualified Koine Greek scholars, there’s uncertainty over whether monogenes, “onlybegotten,” had come to mean “unique” or “one and only” during the first century. Majority opinion had leaned toward “one and only” for a while, but opinion is swinging back toward “only-begotten.” In my opinion, “only-begotten” makes more sense in the context, but we should accept and live with the uncertainty.

“Only God” in the ESV, then, is an acceptable translation of monogenēs Theos (although it might suffer from under-emphasis of Christ’s uniqueness). The Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that the ESV dropped monogenēs is false.

Readers who resist the misdirection of attention toward monogenēs will notice that the verse calls Jesus, Theos, “God.” So, again, the Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that “Clearly because Jesus is not God” contradicts the text.

It’s tempting to go on a tangent showing how a triune God is the only solution to many scriptural claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, yet there is exactly one God. It is sufficient in this context to state that, if the Creator of space-time could use His creative power to exist in space-time as God the Father and God the Son, then “clearly” it is presumptuous to say “Clearly because Jesus is not God.”

So, while there is exactly one Creator, God, recognizing that God could exist within space-time as multiple centers of consciousness or “Persons” allows us to reconcile John 1:18 and 17:3.

“Only God” in 1:18 abbreviates a larger concept born out by reading the entirety of the book, or even the first three verses of the same chapter. The abbreviation has obviously caused confusion because, for a shallow reading, Christ cannot be the “only God” and the Father being the “only true God.” That’s why immediate, book, and New Testament levels of context and digging deeper into the language underlying the translation matter.

One more detail from the larger context is needed. The Author of the New Testament anticipated Modalism and ruled it out. Modalism asserts that the one God is one Person who changes modes (roles and costumes) to give the appearance of being three Persons. For that reason, it uses three titles of God: God (the Father), Lord (Christ the Son), and Spirit (the Holy Spirit).

Thus, depending on context, “only true God” can refer either to the eternal, One-as-Three God or to the temporal Person called the Father. And monogenes Theos (only God, one-and-only God, or only-begotten God) refers specifically to the Person who added a human nature to His spirit nature.

When you understand how the writer meant the language, there is no contradiction, even if the ESV is less verbose than it needs to be to prevent confusion by people who take snippets of scripture out of context.

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

God's Name: Holy, But Not Magic

Another question from Quora

Why are some words capitalized in the Bible?

Which Bible? Which words?

A. Others have explained how words such as pronouns are capitalized out of reverence when the words refer to God. Sometimes that practice is helpful because ancient writers were not always clear about whom a pronoun referred to. If a sentence referred to a prophet, a king, and God, figuring out which one of them “he” refers to might be difficult. When the pronounce is capitalized, you know that at least the translator believes it refers to God.

B. The New American Standard Bible uses all-capitals to identify quotations, particularly quotations from the Old Testament.

C. But I think what you really want to know about is the word LORD, in all capital letters.

Before the time of the exodus from Egypt, those who worshiped God referred to Him descriptively as “God” or “Lord.” Egypt had many gods, so after God told Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses wanted a name so he could tell the Israelites who sent him to them. God answered, “Tell them I AM has sent you.” That name was spelled YHWH. Hebrew did not have vowels, so if you did not learn Hebrew by hearing it, you would not know how to pronounce the name.

A thousand years later, Israel had departed from worshiping YHWH. God removed His protection, so other nations destroyed Israel and deported the leaders for seventy years. When the leaders were sent back to Israel a few years before 530 BC to re-establish the nation, they had learned their lesson and become extremely serious about worshiping God.

They became so serious that they refused to pronounce that holy name, YHWH. Consequently, later generations forgot how to pronounce it! By the time of Christ’s birth, it had become regular practice to add the vowels from Adonai (“Lords”) to YHWH to make YaHoWaH.

Since the actual pronunciation was lost, this new pronunciation stuck. Over time, the name was Hellenized for Greek translations. Then that was Latinized for Roman translations. Then that was Anglicized for English translations. That’s how it came to be pronounced Jehovah. Sometimes, some translations use the name Jehovah; other times, they use LORD in its place.

LORD is still used in place of YHWH in many modern translations. Sometimes LORD is used for Adonai, too, especially in compound names such as Adonai Elohim (literally, “Lords Gods,” but often translated “LORD God”). It’s done partly out of respect, partly out of tradition, and partly because we have no confidence that Yahowah is the correct pronunciation. It’s just assumed that readers know; but obviously, not everybody does.

Watch out for organizations of movements that stress knowing God’s “name” such as Yah, Yahweh, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, or Jehovah. They take advantage of people who lack biblical education. It’s good to learn the meanings that words and names convey. However, God understands all human languages, even when we mispronounce His name. Biblical faith is not a religion of sorcery and incantations wherein the words themselves have power. Our goal is to know and experience God, not magical words.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Free for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due rather than committing plagiarism.

Kingdom of God versus Kingdom of Heaven

From a question on Quora:

Is Matthew 4:17 occurring soon with the Kingdom of Heaven coming on the horizon?

No. The kingdom of heaven is not on the horizon. The kingdom of heaven, as referenced in Matthew 4:17, is here and has been here all along.

Christians rightly look for the return of Jesus Christ and the assertion of God’s rule on Earth, but that is not what Jesus meant by "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." We could read all the references to the phrase kingdom of heaven, but we can find a strong clue in Luke 17:20-21. (Before you read it, you need to know that kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are synonyms. More about that, below.)

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20–21, NASB).

The word translated midst is Greek entos, which means within, among, or in their midst. The statement describes a fact that was already present as Jesus spoke, not somewhere off in a future age. This is consistent with what Jesus said in Matthew 11:11–12:

“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force” (NASB).

Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven as existing even before His sacrifice and resurrection. (So if somebody knocks on your door preaching a future kingdom, know that they have been severely misled by a heretical organization. Don’t argue with them because they won’t listen. Just know that biblical Christians don’t preach a kingdom; they preach a living King, Jesus Christ.)

The kingdom that Jesus preached was not God’s political rule or Judgment Day. It was a time of a new type of relationship in the spiritual dimension of God’s kingdom.

I appreciate the question because I learned from looking up the answer. I thought kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God existed at two different times. However, as you can see in the table, they are synonymous. Matthew tends to use one and the other gospel writers use the other. You can see a further discussion of this on the Got Questions website.

(You may need to open the figure in a new window. You can look up the individual verses and read them in their contexts in a couple dozen translations and in the original Greek using Biblehub.com. I use the New American Standard version because it has a reputation as the best word-for-word translation.)

Did you notice Matthew 19:23–24? Jesus used the two terms interchangeably in the same conversation.

The phrase, kingdom of heaven/God, has two meanings. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. Although God does not visibly assert His sovereignty, all of time, space, heaven and Earth is His kingdom.

And yet, there is a metaphorical sense in which we fail to enter into that kingdom. We are not born into it; blame Adam for that. The Fall made us foreigners, stripping Adam’s descendants of their citizenship and placing them, metaphorically, outside the kingdom.

We enter into the kingdom by repenting from sin, false religion, and self righteousness, and consenting to the gift of everlasting life from the great Giver of gifts. With that gift, we receive citizenship in the kingdom of heaven. This is what Jesus referred to in Matthew 4:17: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

One could divide the history of the kingdom of God into periods and milestone events. The first period lasted from creation to Adam and Eve’s fall from grace. Whether you take Genesis as literal or metaphorical does not matter. Man was created in innocence and introduced decay to all creation and estrangement from God with the first sin.

Before Jesus, the Old Testament sacrifices were inadequate to pay for human sin (Hebrews 10:4, 11), so the relationship between God and any person was tentative. Believers were called servants and friends of God. The Holy Spirit would anoint and be with believers, but that could be lost (for example, 1 Samuel 16:14 and Judges 16:20).

Since Jesus’s perfect, complete sacrifice, believers have had a permanent relationship with God (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30). They have been called children of God, and even little siblings of Jesus himself. In this sense, the kingdom of heaven/God is here, available to all who will enter and become sons and citizens. As Romans 14:17 says, the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

The next period of the kingdom of heaven will begin with the return of Jesus Christ. God does not completely assert or micromanage His rule over Earth today. When Jesus returns, He will establish His kingdom in every area of life.

The final period will follow Judgment Day. Whereas heaven and Earth are like separate universes today, God will transform and merge them into a single plane of existence.

We will all enter the final period of the kingdom of heaven — some to be judged, and some to rule with God the Son. Which role God will place us in depends on whether we obtain our citizenship in this age. To those who have not entered, the kingdom of heaven is near, yet they remain outside. It behooves us, therefore, to be certain that the gospel we follow is biblical and to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10).

For further reading:

• What is the kingdom of God? — God Questions article
• Kingdom of Heaven — Bible Dictionary
• From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." — Commentaries
• The Kingdom of God Cometh not with Observation. (Luke, xvii. , 20. ) — Why the adverb means among or midst rather than within — Augustus Neander

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use this for non-remunerated purposes, but please give credit where credit is due.

Who is Jesus?

From a question on Quora:

Who is Jesus, and who is God?

First, let’s describe God.

This question is a bit like pointing at a picture of Joe and asking two questions. First, you point at Joe’s face and ask, Who is that? Then you point at Joe, as a whole, and ask, Who is that?

Since God created the universe, which includes time and space, God exists outside of time and space. (Philosophers debate about whether God exists timelessly or in super-time-and-space dimensions.)

When God created time and space, God chose to enter His creation. He could have used His creative power over time and space to enter as one Person or as billions.

According to Christian scriptures, God chose to exist in and experience His creation as three Persons. (Being both Creator and Spirit, the physical laws that prevent two people from occupying the same space at the same time do not apply to God. It is probable that God existed as three Persons outside of time and space, as well. I have not seen any commentary on that question.)

These three Persons voluntarily differentiate into three roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three roles demonstrate relational truths to us and met God’s relational needs before He created man. (God is relational. If God did not exist as three Persons, God would have an unmet need for experiencing and exercising relational attributes such as love.)

The three Persons have one and the same substance and all attributes in common: God. Existing “before” creating the universe is hard enough to deal with. Existing both outside of and within time and space is a mind-blower.

Then we can describe Who Jesus is.

Jesus is Creator of the Universe. According to the apostle Paul, by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16–17) Another follower who was personally trained by Jesus for three years wrote, All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

As a Person of God and as Creator, “Jesus” seems too familiar at times. He has the title of Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek), both of which mean Anointed One. Jesus is both fully human and fully God. To emphasize Jesus’s humanity, we often call Him Jesus Christ; to emphasize His deity, we often call Him Christ Jesus or God the Son.

Anointed One refers that not only is Jesus God in the flesh, but the full wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit rested upon Him. Jesus normally refrained from using His power as God, and instead allowed the Holy Spirit to perform His miracles. Through such action, the Holy Spirit bore witness to the hidden identity of Jesus.

Part of Jesus’s role is to be the representation or metaphorical face of God to humans. Jesus’s disciple John said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. This resolves Genesis chapter 1′s cryptic, “In the beginning Gods (plural noun) created (singular verb) the heavens and the earth…. And Gods (plural noun) said (singular verb), “Let there be light, and there was light.”

The Word (Greek: Logos) expresses that Christ Jesus is the earthly revelation of God. For this reason, Paul called Christ Jesus the image of the invisible God, and the unknown writer of the scriptures epistle to the Hebrews wrote, Christ Jesus is the radiance of His (God’s) glory and the exact representation of His (God’s) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. The words the exact representation literally mean, in the original Greek, “the exact, three-dimensional imprint and representation of the substance of God.” Note that it does not say Jesus reflects or channels God’s glory; rather, He is the radiance of God’s glory. Christ does not depict God, but is the exact representation of God’s nature. To do so, He must have the same nature as God.

The Watchtower organization (Jehovah Witnesses) adds the indefinite article a into John 1:1 so that it reads, “the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Greek grammar does not allow this. In fact, in the Greek the word order is, the Word was with God and God was the Word.

The Watchtower also mistranslates firstborn in the second half of Colossians 1:15. After He is the image of the invisible God, the text says, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Firstborn has two meanings. The obvious meaning is first one born. However, in Hebrew culture, the word became a metaphor for preeminence. That is why the original Greek text says, firstborn OVER (not of or among) all creation. He is the preeminent one over all the things He made. As the text continues in verses 16 and 17, For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

The Watchtower teaches that Christ Jesus is a created being, less than God the Creator. Notice that this demotes God the Son to the same level as the fallen angel, Lucifer (AKA Beelzebub, the devil, and Satan). That is why they have to twist the scriptures to say Christ was a god (which contradicts their belief in only one god) and to say Jesus Christ was the first one born among all creation. They cannot make an honest case, so they tamper with the evidence.

That God the Son took on a human nature has already been addressed. The writer of Hebrews wrote in chapter 4, verses 14 and 15, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

In his human body, Jesus suffered growing pains, tummy aches, stomach flu, and the loss of loved ones (specifically Joseph, his adopted father, and Lazarus, his friend). He suffered splinters, fatigue, blisters, hunger and thirst, and the attempts of aunts to match Him up with a nice Jewish girl — just like all of us. He suffered false accusations, opposition, attempts on his life, and finally ridicule, torture, and execution. He can fully empathize with us in all our trials and temptations. Together with His divinity, His humanity makes Him the ultimate High Priest for us.

So Who is Jesus? Jesus is a Person of God within space and time who added human substance to His divine substance. He is Almighty Creator, Judge of the universe, and the exact representation of God — not just what God is like, but what God is. He is the Anointed One who suffered in our place to provide us the sole way of escape from the consequences of our wrong thoughts and actions. And He is the ultimate intercessor and representative between us and God.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Maybe posting this on Quora voids the copyright. I still expect people to give credit where credit is due.

Could God Be a Monad?

Can God the Father be God without Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

(From a question on Quora)

The question is asked in present tense, and it is a bit ambiguous. I take it to mean, Is God the Father able to remain God if God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were split off, eliminated, or retracted from the universe?

Your question could also be taken to mean, Could God the Father have chosen to be a unitary God without having also existed as Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

Based on the relationship between God and the universe, I would say yes with respect to His substance but no with respect to His character. The same answer applies to either interpretation of the question.

One of the arguments for the existence of God is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It states:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  
• The universe began to exist (around 13.8 billion years ago)
  
• Therefore, the universe has a Cause. 

From the nature of the universe and related arguments, one can derive (without turning to revealed information such as the Bible) that the Cause is timeless, spaceless, non-contingent, unimaginably powerful, volitional, and unfathomably intelligent. In other words, God.

According to General Relativity, time, space, matter, and energy are so intertwined that if God created the universe, He created time and space, as well. Creative power over time and space allows their Creator to be omnipresent and omnitemporal — which explains omniscience with respect to both every location and every time.

Creative power over time and space also allows God to enter and experience time and space as one Person (or center of consciousness) or as a billion Persons, yet remain One God outside of the Universe. As it happens, He chose to exist in time and space as three Persons. Those three Persons, while remaining in every way equal, voluntarily took on different roles and titles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Due to the feat of entering time and space, all three Persons have the same substance (spirit). If God were a creature of the universe, this would be counter intuitive. However, with God having His “home” or “natural” existence outside of time and space, all three Persons can consist of the same spiritual substance.

We would be bothered by the physical law that two things can simultaneously occupy the same space at the same time. However, God’s substance is Spirit, not physical; so He is not subject to the same limits as we are.

Since all three Persons consist of the same substance, eliminating one or two of the Persons would not affect the existence of the third Person. Neither would it affect the existence of God outside of time and space.

So, with respect to God’s substance, one Person of the Trinity could exist without the other two.
But is this consistent with God’s character? God is relational and loving, and He has no needs. To exist as a unitary Person (a “monad”) would leave a relational God without any source or object of love until He created intelligent life. If God has no needs, then this makes it probable that God existed as three Persons even “before” creation. As Genesis 1:1 says, In the beginning, Gods (Elohim, “gods”) created (singular) the heavens and the earth.….

If the Son and the Holy Spirit ceased to exist in the universe, God the Father would still be God. However, He would cease to be “the Father” because you can’t be a father without at least one person in the role of “the Child” (or “the Son”).

Also, the roles of the three Persons teach us about relationships and solve problems that I won’t go into now. (For example, how can God remain untouched by corruption and at the same time experience incarnation? Or how can God simultaneously express His wrath and be the subject of that wrath in our place?) God would have to either fulfill the functions of all three Persons or eliminate some of those functions.

If God is God, then He is maximally great. If God is maximally great, then any other form in which He existed in the universe would be less than maximally great. By definition, a less-than-maximally great god would not be God.

To Modalists such as Oneness Pentecostals and to sects such as the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Oneness is not a problem. Modalists believe God is a quick-change artist, switching between three hats in order to deceive people into thinking He is three Persons. But that makes God a deceiver. The Watchtower teaches that only the Father is God because the Son is just an exalted archangel and the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force of God.

But we are approaching this from the view that all three Persons are God, so a lonely, God is an unsolvable problem for Modalists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and Muslims.

So my final answer is that, if two Persons ceased to be, the third Person could continue to be God. However, as a monad, God would have had or might still have unfulfilled needs and would be less than maximally great, so without the Son and the Holy Spirit, He would not be God.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Since I originally posted this answer on Quora, I probably lost the right to claim copyright. However, I ask that if you use this material, please give credit where credit is due.

Isaiah 42:8 and Glory Not Shared

Asked on Quora: What is the meaning of Isaiah 42:8?

Isaiah 42:8 can be taken at face value.

I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (NASB)

Unfortunately, certain churches tack onto it meanings that violate the context. Those must be addressed.

There are sects that make a big deal about God’s name. The Hebrew Roots movement makes a fuss over saying Jesus’s name in Hebrew or Aramaic, and the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses) make a fuss over God’s name being Jehovah.

But Christianity is not a religion of sorcery that ascribes magical power to words and their pronunciation. The term Jehovah is a great example.

The word translated LORD is the Hebrew word YHWH. The letters are all consonants. The Hebrew had no vowels.

Compounding the problem of the Hebrew word lacking vowels, Jews were forbidden from pronouncing it, for it was too holy; so the original pronunciation is lost to time. The majority of scholars believe it was pronounced Yahweh. Notice that the W is pronounced as in Water, not like the V in Victor.

A few centuries before Christ, instead of saying YHWH, Jews would substitute Adonai, which means Lord. Fast forward a thousand years, let Roman Catholic monks substitute J for Y and V for H to make it compatible with Latin, and add the vowels from Adonai to make JHVH pronounceable, and then let the first printed English Bible transliterate the word into Jehovah instead of translating it, and you’ve got a new “name” for God. And that new name is what some people are making such a big deal about.

Ironically — or hypocritically — the Jehovah’s Witnesses spend a lot of effort to reject all things Catholic, yet base their whole message on this Roman Catholic twisting of a word.

Most experienced Bible readers understand that LORD (in all caps) represents YHWH. The word means self-existent one or I AM. In Genesis 3:15, the NASB translates the word instead of substituting LORD Jewish style or the twisted pronunciation Jehovah. At the burning bush, Moses had asked God whom he should say sent Him to the Israelites in Egypt.

• God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Why a descriptive name?

• No god created God, so there was nobody to name Him.
• There is no higher power with authority to give God a name.
• There is no need to distinguish the God who IS from all those other gods who ARE NOT.

Can you see why the meaning, and not the pronunciation, is what’s important? Any movement or sect that makes a big deal about the right “name” (which isn’t even the original Hebrew word) is heading in the wrong direction.

Hebrew scriptures frequently use a form of parallelism in which an idea is restated from a different perspective. You already saw that:

• I am the LORD,
  that is My name

The rest of the verse does the same thing.

• I will not give My glory to another,
  Nor My praise to graven images.

The two statements dovetail; you cannot separate them because they state the same thing from different perspectives.

This theme runs throughout scriptures, from the Ten Commandments… 

• You shall have no other gods before Me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…. (Exodus 20:3–4)

to the gospels, where Jesus claimed to be God:

• Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." (John 8:58)

The Jews understood Jesus’s claim. Therefore, they took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (verse 59).

• Tangent:  Roman Catholic lists of the Ten Commandments skip the prohibition against making likenesses and serving them. When you point it out, Catholics rely on the technicality that their images are not graven and that the weasel-word venerate is not the word worship. Graven images, however, generalizes to any likeness. I’d like to know how they carve out wooden and marble statues without graving them. And if praising, burning candles to, leaving offerings for, and praying to people through icons is not worshiping, nothing is.)

Certain sects have a difficult time accepting that One God can be three Persons. The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) demote Jesus to a child of the Father, born on another planet, and brother to the devil.

Oneness Pentecostals make out the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be One Person who, like a quick-change artist, changes personas and deceives us, by praying to himself, into thinking the Son is not the Father.

The Jehovah Witnesses demote Jesus to an angel who became or will become “a god.”

Argument from Science

Einstein showed that mass, energy, time, and space interrelate, and astronomy and physics show that the universe had a beginning. From this, we learn several ways that modern science confirms Bible claims that have stumped sects and heretics for millennia:

• If, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, then God must have created time and space.
• If God has creative power over space, then He can be omnipresent. He “stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in” ( Isaiah 40:22).
• If God has creative power over time, then He can know the future. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done… (Isaiah 46:10).
• If God has creative power over time and space, then He can be omniscient. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:13).
• If God has creative power over time and space, then He can enter His creation as three Persons.

It took nearly two thousand years for science to catch up with the Bible’s claims that:

• There has been, is, and ever will be, exactly one God.
  (Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior (Isaiah 43:10–11). This eliminates Jesus becoming “a” god or even the Savior, if the Trinity is false. Sorry, JWs and Mormons!)
• The Father is God
• The Son / Christ / Jesus is God
• The Holy Spirit is God
• The Father is not the Son
• The Son is not the Holy Spirit
• The Father is not the Holy Spirit 

To be precise, science does not teach the Trinity, but it shows that the tri-une God is possible. For learning about the Trinity, we turn not to science, but rather to God’s revelation of Himself.

Back to Isaiah 42:8: Others claim that the verse disproves the Trinity (that is, the “tri-une” nature of God), but they err. Badly. If the three Person are one God, then the sharing of glory, worship, or divinity among those Persons does not contradict the verse at all. 

Argument from Creation

Let’s back up to verse 5. (By the way, read the context. It’s a beautiful prophecy about Jesus!)

• Thus says God the LORD,
  Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
  Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
  Who gives breath to the people on it
  And spirit to those who walk in it,

Compare it to Isaiah 44:24:

• Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone…

…and then compare it to John 1:3, which says of Jesus:

• All things came into being through Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

and Colossians 1:16–17:

• By Him [the Son] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (*) (See also Hebrews 1:2.)

So, within the immediate context of Isaiah 42:8, we have a claim that YHWH is the Creator, yet the same is claimed of Christ elsewhere. If the Trinity is a correct model, then the claims do not contradict. But if the Trinity is false and Christ was merely an archangel or a son born on another planet, then Isaiah 42:8 is false.

• Tangent: Colossians 1:15 uses the word firstborn. Those who deny Christ’s divinity ignorantly jump on that word to show that He was a born or created person. They do this despite the statement immediately following and the statement in John, which say that all created things were created by Him.
  
  They also do this in ignorance of the meaning of firstborn. The word does not mean first one born; it means preeminent one. If you trace the word throughout the Bible you will find that the word often applies to a leader even though he came later in the birth order. For example, as Israel devolved, different tribes bore the title firstborn at different times because God had reassigned leadership. Thus, the meaning indicates preeminence and does not indicate that Christ was created.

Argument from Shared Worship

Look at Isaiah 42:8 again. Glory received from man means worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving. Note the Hebrew poetic construction, using parallelism to repeat the same thought. I AM does not share His glory. And yet, Jesus never refused worship.

• After coming into the house they [the magi or “Wise Men”] saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. (Matthew 2:11).
• After Jesus walked across the lake, those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!" (Matthew 14:33).
• Upon seeing the scars of the crucifixion in the resurrected Jesus, Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)
• The Father Himself says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him [Jesus]” (Hebrews 1:6).

and the epistles predict universal worship of Jesus:

• [A]t the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10–11). Notice that glorifying Christ glorifies the Father. Also notice that Christ shares the title of Lord with the Father.
• In John’s vision, he saw a multitude of angels and saints saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." (Revelation 5:12)

Argument from Shared Glory

You already saw evidence of Jesus sharing glory with the Father (Revelation 5:12). Jesus Himself claimed to share the Father’s glory, praying:

• Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was… Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:5, 24). 

(See also Hebrews 1:3.)  Note that Jesus’s words reinforces the argument from creation, as well.

Argument from God's Mouth

Even God calls Christ, “God.”

• But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

If the Trinity is false, then either Isaiah 42:8 is false, or Jesus, the angels, the saints in heaven, and His followers on earth were all blasphemers, and numerous passages throughout the scriptures are false. But if the scriptures are true, and Isaiah 42:8 is true then the Trinity has to be true. 

The Trinity is the only model of the relationships between God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that explains all the scripture’s claims. And since the three Persons are One God, their sharing of glory and worship is not an issue.

- - - - 

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I can't copyright it. But I will ask that credit be given where credit is due.