Here's a followup to my previous post:
Anti-Trinitarian apostate Dale Tuggy attempted to respond to this post:
Dale Tuggy:
The only problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually imply or even suggest the deity of Jesus.
Except that it does.
Of course, he *is* a prophet. (Deuteronomy 18:15)
Of course, that's equivocal. In typology, the antitype isn't just more of the same.
A prophet is a messenger. Jesus is the message.
We do "believe in" prophets - that is just to trust them. There's nothing idolatrous about such trust. We're trusting them to inform us about the God who (allegedly) sent them; we may thus entrust them with our very lives, our eternal destinies. It is trust in the man, and not only in what he says. Just so with Jesus. He too is a messenger from God. But it doesn't follow that he's "just" a messenger; he's the Messiah too, with all that implies.
i) Dale is disregarding a basic conceptual distinction. There's a difference between believing X and believing in X. That doesn't even depend on the preposition. In idiomatic English, that's a convent way of elucidating the distinction, but it doesn't require that verbal formula.
To believe a speaker simply means you grant the truth of what he said. To believe in someone shifts the emphasis from what was spoken to the speaker himself. From what was said to who said it.
ii) What the Messiahship of Jesus implies for a unitarian is very mundane.
Indeed, Jesus is a proper object of faith, and even of prayer in the NT ("calling upon the name of the Lord").
"Lord," where Kurios is a traditional rendering for Yahweh. Throughout the OT, moreover, the concept of calling on the name of the Lord means calling on Yahweh for deliverance.
He couldn't serve as the mediator between God and us, if we couldn't talk/pray to him. (1 Timothy 2:5)
John 14:1 - Yes, Jesus demands our absolute trust, like the trust we place in God. Of course, we trust God *by* trusting in the one he sent. Note his "also" there. If you trust in God, you haven't automatically trusted in Jesus - they're distinct. Some of his Jewish opponents thought they could do the first without doing the second; but since God sent, empowered, and confirmed the ministry of Jesus, rejecting Jesus was rejecting the one who sent him. (John 13:20)
i) I've been debating Dale since 2011, and he never updates his argument. He constantly recycles the same debunked arguments. He's the John Loftus of unitarians.
In NT usage, theos sometimes functions as a proper noun (i.e. a designation for a particular individual, the Father) and sometimes functions a common noun (denoting a member of a kind or class). Dale constantly treats NT references to the Father, where "God" is a proper name, as if that's equivalent to a common noun–distinguishing one kind of being from a different kind of being, as if "God" and "Jesus" belong to two different classes. But terminology alone doesn't justify his claim. Not to mention that the NT sometimes uses the same terminology for both.
How are we to account for Dale's persistent confusion? Is he too dimwitted to even absorb that distinction? Does he privately grasp the distinction, but is too unethical to acknowledge it in public because that would impede his efforts as a propagandist? Or does his bondage to diabolical falsehood create an intellectual impediment which prevents him from registering that distinction?
ii) Apropos (i), since Father and Son are different persons, NT writers naturally employ different designations for each, more so when discussing them together. In Johannine usage, this is typically "Father"/"Son" language. In Paul, this is typically "God"/"Lord" language. But all these designations are divine designations.
iii) Jesus isn't a prophet come from God. Rather, Jesus is the coming of God. Both events are revelatory of God. In that respect, both events are prophetic. A prophet reveals God indirectly, whereas Jesus reveals God directly. It's like the difference between meeting a king's emissary and meeting a king face-to-face.
iv) A prophet is essentially a figure of the past. He has a temporary and instrumental role to play. Once he delivers the message, he served his purpose.
Throughout the NT, by contrast, Jesus is a past, present, and future object of faith and devotion. A perpetual object of faith and devotion. It's not confined to something he said or did in the past. It's not even limited to something he has yet to do. Rather, it's about something he is, and always will be. Just like how we relate to God–because that's what he is.
Prophets and apostles don't have that future-oriented identity.
v) Throughout the Gospels, Jesus commands and demands faith in himself. And that feature continues throughout the NT.
You don't have anything comparable with respect to apostles. That's because the faith in view is faith in God.
vi) In Jn 14:1, "God" is shorthand for the Father. In the Fourth Gospel and 1 John, you have a Father God/Son of God relation. Sometimes the full titles are used, but sometimes abbreviated expressions are used, since the reader is expected to know by now who they denote. But all these variant designations are used to denote a deity or divinity.
vii) The NT treats the Father as God, as well as Jesus. At the same time, the NT distinguishes the two. The NT doesn't attempt to harmonize these classifications.
viii) The Trinity means God is one in one respect, but three in a different respect. At that level there is no contradiction, not even a prima facie contradiction, inasmuch as that formulation denies that God is one and three in the same respect.
Problems occur when we frame the issue more strictly than Scripture does. Using a more exacting category or definition of "one" than Scripture does.
It's sufficient for a Christian to say God is "one" is whatever respect Scripture intends by that. We don't need to begin with an a priori definition which we impose on Scripture.
If Scripture reveals that there is only one true God, even though the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, yet each is fully divine, then God is "one" in whatever sense is necessary to accommodate all the facts. There's no requirement that our formulation be more precise than the revealed truths which sum the Trinity.
As far as a philosophical definition goes, my preferred model symmetry. There are types of symmetries where you can put two (or more) distinct (abstract) objects in a relation of one-to-one correspondence.
One-to-one correspondence is a typical way of unpacking identity. Yet these are distinct objects. For instance, one may be right-handed while the other may be left-handed. You can pair each element, yet these aren't interchangeable.
And because these are abstract, they can be distinct objects without being separate objects. They aren't differentiated by time and space.
Dale himself fudges on numerical identity in relation to personal identity, for he makes allowance for diachronic identity and counterfactual identity in reference to human persons. How can I be the same individual through time if I change over the course of time?
Likewise, his strictures create problems for counterfactual identity. What I might have done. But is that the same "me"?
But he refuses to accommodate the Biblical revelation of the Trinity.
Both a monkey and a child can manipulate a Rubik's Cube. But what's incomprehensible to a monkey is comprehensible to a child. What's incomprehensible to a child may be comprehensible to an adult. What's incomprehensible to the average adult may be comprehensible to a genius. What's incomprehensible to a genius may be comprehensible to an angel.
Ah, Steve, hardheaded and bomb-throwing as always.
ReplyDeleteOf course, one may be a prophet, a messenger, and in a sense "be" the message.
"Dale is disregarding a basic conceptual distinction. There's a difference between believing X and believing in X."
No, you trust the man *by* trusting what he says.
"What the Messiahship of Jesus implies for a unitarian is very mundane."
This is so mind-bogglingly wrongheaded, that I'm just going to facepalm and leave it at that.
""Lord," where Kurios is a traditional rendering for Yahweh. Throughout the OT, moreover, the concept of calling on the name of the Lord means calling on Yahweh for deliverance."
Undisputed facts, Steve. They don't imply, though, or even suggest, that Jesus is one ousia with God.
"Dale constantly treats NT references to the Father, where "God" is a proper name, as if that's equivalent to a common noun–distinguishing one kind of being from a different kind of being"
ReplyDeleteSteve, there's a consistent pattern; when you accuse me of ignoring some distinction, you're just missing my point. I'm not, and have never been confused about this distinction. The assumption of NT authors is that "God" that is to say, the Father, is the only god. I'll spare you the copious references which show this.
"Not to mention that the NT sometimes uses the same terminology for both."
Very rarely, so as to not confuse the two. We all know that titles and even proper names can be ambiguous, can refer to more than one being, in various contexts. So, all agree, less than a dozen times (but I think in reality less) Jesus is referred to as "God." I think the one indisputable case is Hebrews 1 - in which this "God" (Jesus) is said to *have* a god (obviously, God). There is, of course, clear OT precedence for beings other that God being called "gods" or even addressed as "god". Both are called "Savior." Both "Lord." No problem, no confusion, as the writers are constantly distinguishing between God and his Son.
"Apropos (i), since Father and Son are different persons"
Indeed. And all the NT writers think the first of those is the one God himself. The second is a man, his unique Son. They don't hold, as perhaps you'd like, that both are "Persons" (or somethings) within the one god, and equally sharing the divine nature.
"NT writers naturally employ different designations for each, more so when discussing them together. In Johannine usage, this is typically "Father"/"Son" language. In Paul, this is typically "God"/"Lord" language. But all these designations are divine designations."
"Divine designations" - note the theoretical assumption here thrust upon the texts. Says who? In the Bible, *all* those terms are at various times used for beings which *in your view* don't have the divine nature. e.g. various men, angels Inconvenient for your theory, I would say.
"Jesus isn't a prophet come from God. Rather, Jesus is the coming of God."
ReplyDeleteClassic example of catholic tradition changing plain NT teaching. There, God sends his Son, a man. This gets changed to: God shows up, as a man. Many problems with this theory, one being that the man dies, whereas God is essentially immortal. Also, Steve, do you just deny that Jesus is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15?
"A prophet is essentially a figure of the past. He has a temporary and instrumental role to play. Once he delivers the message, he served his purpose."
Thus saith Steve. But why should anyone agree? It's hardly self-evident, it's not taught anywhere in scripture, and it would seem that Jesus is a counterexample to this general principle.
" Throughout the Gospels, Jesus commands and demands faith in himself. And that feature continues throughout the NT. You don't have anything comparable with respect to apostles. That's because the faith in view is faith in God. "
Thus saith Steve. Feeling Pope-y today? Why should anyone accept that *all* talk of faith in the NT is in God alone, and never in the mediator between God and man, the man Jesus? "Believe in God, believe *also* in me." Okay, Jesus. I guess I'll have to set aside the speculations of this hotheaded triabloguer.
"The NT treats the Father as God, as well as Jesus. At the same time, the NT distinguishes the two. The NT doesn't attempt to harmonize these classifications."
Thus saith Steve: folks, the NT is, rightly interpreted, contradictory, or at least apparently so.
All reasonable Christians: Pope Steve, if the reading is contradictory... maybe you've made a mistake. Like, thinking that being call "Lord" means that Jesus is God himself, when the NT also teaches that he's someone else! You'll forgive us if we don't salute your confusion as a holy mystery.
"Problems occur when we frame the issue more strictly than Scripture does. Using a more exacting category or definition of "one" than Scripture does."
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. That must be the problem. Thanks, Pope Steve.
Seriously, Steve, the Bible, like any human document, assumes the concept of identity. Paul and Saul - they are the same, those names co-refer in, say, Acts. Luke of course knows this. The concept of numerical sameness is a part of the basic conceptual repertoire of all humans. We employ it in interpreting any human communication.
"then God is "one" in whatever sense is necessary to accommodate all the facts."
When the scripture says that God is one, it is saying that Yahweh is unique, that he's the only god. (But not the only possible referent of the words "god" and "God"!) That is, Yahweh is a God, and for anything whatever, that thing is a god if and only if it just is (is numerically identical to) Yahweh. This is the *meaning* of saying that Yahweh is the only god, the one true God/god, etc. http://trinities.org/blog/the-only-true-president-of-the-usa-another-laugable-fox-news-blunder/
"If Scripture reveals that there is only one true God, even though the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, yet each is fully divine, then God is "one" in whatever sense is necessary to accommodate all the facts."
I agree with this completely, because of the "if." The problem, Steve, is that the facts include the NT *identification* of the Father as the one god, not the lesser claim that the Father "is divine."
"As far as a philosophical definition goes, my preferred model symmetry. There are types of symmetries where you can put two (or more) distinct (abstract) objects in a relation of one-to-one correspondence.
ReplyDeleteOne-to-one correspondence is a typical way of unpacking identity. Yet these are distinct objects. For instance, one may be right-handed while the other may be left-handed. You can pair each element, yet these aren't interchangeable.
And because these are abstract, they can be distinct objects without being separate objects. They aren't differentiated by time and space."
Steve, this is quite the spectacle. My sin, you think, is supposing too precise of notion of unity, when I think about the Trinity, as in, I'm too attached to some speculation. But no, I'm just reading and employing undisputed tools of logic. You, on the other hand, are off in speculative la-la land. I can't even parse your statements above, enough to criticize them. It seems you're suggesting that sometimes things - abstracta? - should be counted as one, even though they are not one. A bold claim, to be sure. And yet another claim which is authorized neither by reason nor by scripture, but by the Word of Steve. Sorry, man, that's not enough. But it's your speculation. Feel free to make your proof, and we'll weigh it.
"Dale himself fudges on numerical identity in relation to personal identity, for he makes allowance for diachronic identity and counterfactual identity in reference to human persons. How can I be the same individual through time if I change over the course of time?"
ReplyDelete"Fudging." So, I think you think it is somehow cheating to say that one thing can differ from itself at two different times, but not at one and the same time (in the same way). But this last is patently impossible; that is self-evident, and I'm pretty sure that in your cool-headed moments, you'll agree. Why do I think that a thing can differ from itself at two different times? Because I know that I exist now, and that I was slightly different a few seconds ago. What's actual is not impossible. I'm calling your bluff on the "fudging" accusation, Steve. How are these two claims, in your view, somehow unreasonable - inconsistent, unwarranted, or whatever you please? (It's your accusation, so you can clarify.)
"Likewise, his strictures create problems for counterfactual identity. What I might have done. But is that the same "me"? "
What's the problem. e.g. I only drank coffee and ate Doritos growing up, I'd be shorter than I am. Why think this would be me? Because, we don't think that height is essential to a human.
"What's incomprehensible to a genius may be comprehensible to an angel."
So, Pope Steve's reading of the NT is seemingly contradictory. Could this be only apparently contradictory, appearing so to the smartest humans, while in fact it is self-consistent, which only God and angels can see?
I suppose so. But that's not sufficient reason to agree with Pope Steve's seeming confusions. That sort of defense could be marshaled for any bizarre claim. He is a man like us. So when we run into a contradiction (that is, what strongly and constantly seems so) we back up, and look for an apparently consistent reading of scripture. Pope Steve is full of swagger because he thinks he's on the majority side. He is in the majority that has existed since after 381, which thinks that the catholic formulas asserted there have some true interpretation. (The majority, by the way, was likely created by imperial force.) But there's no majority when it comes to which interpretation is right, and Pope Steve seems to inhabit an island of one (or a few?) when it comes to his own dark sayings about the Trinity.
A common problem, when later catholic traditions are allowed to override scripture. Speculation and, sad to say, persecution of the people who won't go along with the unclear speculations, are the constant pattern. Steve can't really muster any persecution to speak of, so he insults and accuses. The heart is the same though.
Dale wrote, "Classic example of catholic tradition changing plain NT teaching. There, God sends his Son, a man. This gets changed to: God shows up, as a man."
ReplyDeleteMalachi 3:1 predicts Messiah will come who is the Lord, "ha adon." Adon is the Hebrew word for lord that can refer to human lords, angelic lords or even the Lord who is Almighty God. However, the Hebrew term "ha adon" (THE [true] Lord) refers only to Almighty God in the OT. Yet, Mal. 3:1 predicts Messiah will be "ha adon." The parallel passage of Isa. 40:3 tells us that it is Yahweh Himself that will come as Messiah (actually using the tetragrammaton, the Divine Name YHWH/YHVH). Similarly, Jesus is called "ho theos" in John 10:28. And possibly "the only true God" in 1 John 5:20.
Matthew 1:23 quotes Isa. 7:14 and refers to Jesus as "ho theos." Regardless of whether one believes in a dual fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 or not, the original recipients of the prophecy would not have thought a lower elohim (i.e. angelic "divine" being) would be with them. They understood it to refer to Yahweh. Assuming a dual fulfillment, the original recipients understood that a child would be born during Isaiah's time who would by his birth indicate the time when the blessing of Yahweh for victory and prosperity would be ushered in. Yet, Matthew applies the passage to the coming of the Messiah who would literally be "with us" using "ho theos." The natural reading of the passage would seem to indicate that Matthew believed Almighty God Himself was come in the flesh. More on this Here.
Jesus is repeated compared to the Temple of God by others and by Himself (e.g. John 1:14; 2:19). Jesus Himself saying He's greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). Yet, the temple of God is where God Himself resides. Hence, Jesus is God in the flesh. More on this Here. He is in fact identified with the glory/presence/shekinah of Yahweh repeatedly in the NT.
Jesus is likely referred to as the Blessed God in Rom. 9:5. Jesus is likely referred to as being "our Great God and Savior" in Titus 2:13.
In Rev. 2:23 Jesus states He is THE ONE who searches minds and hearts, and gives to each of you according to their works. Clearly alluding to Jer. 17:10 and identifying Himself with Yahweh who says the exact same thing there. (cf. Ps. 62:12; 1 Kings 8:39).
Col. 1:19; 2:9 teaches that in some sense the fullness of deity dwells in Christ bodily. Phil. 2:6-7 states Jesus was in the form of God prior to His incarnation. Heb. 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102 and states Jesus, as kurios [or Yahweh in Hebrew] laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning and that the heavens are the work of his hands. Attributing creatorship, and the divine attributes of immutability and eternality to Jesus. Jesus is clearly called "God" or "a god" in John 1:1, and "My the Lord [ho kurios], and my the God [ho theos]" in John 10:28.
Daniel states the "Son of Man," the messiah, would come with the clouds of heaven. Riding the clouds was a prerogative of a deity in Semitic cultures. Therefore, Messiah would be divine in some sense (more on this Here).
So, based on the above passages (and more could be cited), I don't think Jesus being God come in human flesh is merely a latter Catholic teaching.
More evidence that God came in the flesh.
ReplyDeleteThe Angel of Yahweh's presence (Isa. 63:9), the Angel in whom Yahweh's Name resides (Exo. 23:20-21) is the likely the same as the Angel of the Covenant in Mal. 3:1 whom we know is Christ since Malachi 3:1 (paralleled in Isa. 40:3) is applied to Christ in Mark 1:2. This is likely the same Angel (messenger) who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:24ff.).
4 He [i.e. Jacob] strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us---5 Yahweh, the God of hosts, Yahweh is his memorial name:
Hosea 12:4-5 seems to be saying that the Angel who wrestled with Jacob was Yahweh Himself. Even though the New Testament states no one has seen Yahweh (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1 John 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). Trinitarians can make sense of that because we believe the OT saints saw Yahweh the Son, but didn't see Yahweh the Father. Since Jesus is Yahweh, therefore Jesus is God. Which means, (in the words of Dale) "God shows up, as a man."
I already quoted Isa. 40:3, but a few verses later verse 9 prophecies essence of the future Gospel.
9 Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!"
Even today, organizations like Jews for Jesus quote Isa. 40:9 as a prophecy of Jesus, Israel's God, who has come in the flesh. 1 Corinthians 2:8 refers to Christ as "the Lord of Glory" (cf. James 2:1 where Jesus is referred to as the "Glorious Lord" alternatively, "the Lord of Glory"). This parallels Ps. 24:8-10.
10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory! Selah
Assuming Granville Sharp's Rule applies, 2 Pet. 1:1 Peter refers to Christ as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." Which would be consistent with the last verse of the book which is a doxology to Christ (apparently "as God").
DeleteBut grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.- 2 Pet. 3:18
Jude cites Enoch's prophecy that "the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones" (Jude 1:13ff). This clearly parallels with Zech. 14:5c which states, "...Then Yahweh my God will come, and all the holy ones with him." Which also parallels with 1 Thess. 3:13b which states, "...at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints." The previous verse (Zech. 14:4) states, Yahweh's "feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives," and this parallels Acts 1:11 where after Christ's Ascension from the Mount of Olives two angels state, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.- Rev. 21:3
Notice Rev. 21:3 states that the dwelling place of God is a "He." Who else can this be but Jesus who is Emmanuel "God With Us" (Matt. 1:23//Isa. 7:14)? The Word who became flesh and dwelt (or "tabernacled") among us (John 1:14). It's no wonder Jesus is often compared to the Temple of God. Since, in Jesus there "resides," bodily, God Himself. As the presence of God filled the Temple of Jerusalem, so God Himself inhabits the body of Jesus. That is, the second person of the Trinity who is equal in divinity to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
How else can it be proper for Jesus to refer to Himself as "the first and last" when that's a Divine Title which has ontological implications. It includes the idea that He is the source or fountain of all being and meaning from first to last. For more on this see Here.
More evidence and arguments could be cited. I've collected some of them in my blog TrinityNotes.blogspot.com
One last example.
Delete7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.8 Therefore it says,
"When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men."
9 (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)- Eph. 4:7-9
In this passage Paul quotes Ps. 68:18 which is about Yahweh and he (Paul) applies it to Christ. What's interesting about this passage is Paul equates the ascension of Yahweh with Jesus' descent into the grave and His later ascent from the grave up into heaven. Well, if Jesus is Yahweh, then His original descent from heaven to earth and eventual descent into the grave is the descent of God. In which case, Christ's coming to earth in the incarnation is (in the words of Dale) "God show[ing] up, as a man."