Pages

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Composition fallacy

Apostate anti-Trinitarian Dale Tuggy did two new posts in response to me:




One’s normal life functions are relative to one’s kind. Yes, they did think back then that God is alive, that he enjoys divine life-processes (whether temporal or timeless).

i) This is one of Tuggy's trademark equivocations. That's his modus operandi. Yes, Bible writers say God is the "living" God. That stands in contract to the idols and nonexistent deities of paganism. 

But that hardly means "alive" in the sense that alive is an antonym for "dead", where "alive" and "dead" mean biological life and biological death.

ii) What's a timeless process? A process is temporal. A serial event. 

iii) Tuggy imagines that ancient Jews thought God had life-functions and life-processes? What is that even supposed to mean? A divine metabolism? 

The triad is interesting because many will want to affirm all three. But on the face of it, they ought not, since it can’t be that all three are true. One sort of reply is showing that the three could all be true after all.

Once again, the truth or falsity of the propositions that comprise a triad are not what make it a consistent or inconsistent triad. Tuggy repeats his category error. In principle, all three propositions could be false, but be logically consistent with each other. 

Nope. What died is Methuselah, the human person. The dier is not at issue; it’s him. Yes, this will understood to have different implications on different views of human persons.

Tuggy is simply reiterating his equivocation. Sure, we can say the decedent is Methuselah. But if we wish to be philosophically precise about what died, that's specific to his body, and not to Methuselah in every respect.

Again, there is no ambiguity about who or what dies. It is the man Methuselah.

But according to substance dualism, that statement surely is ambiguous. Since Methuselah is not reducible to his body, then it's mereologically inaccurate to say that Methuselah dies. It's okay to say that as a matter of popular usage, but a part is not equivalent to the whole, especially when the whole is a composite of two categorically different kinds of substances. 

So no, the dualist should not say that “Bob died” means “Bob’s body died.” It does not mean that. 

It's revealing to see Tuggy's aversion to philosophical precision. Evidently, his fanatical commitment to unitarianism requires him to champion slipshod formulations.  

It means that Bob died, which (according to the dualist) involves the separation of soul from body, and normally the dissolution of the latter. And according to everyone, dying is losing all or most of one’s normal life processes.

But according to Tuggy's own definition, the soul didn't lose all or most of its normal life processes, so if Bob is a composite being, and death involves the separation of soul from body, then it's philosophically inaccurate to say "Bob died". 

We can say that for ease of reference, since death is something that happens to Bob, just as we can say Bob underwent a tooth extraction or had a haircut. But Tuggy is addicted to the composition fallacy. What's true in reference to a constituent of the whole may not be true of the whole. To say I drank a glass of water doesn't mean oxygen is water or hydrogen is water. Rather, they are only water in combination. 

If he just is (we’re assuming) the soul, that soul (= that human being) is the one thing here that can undergo a human death. 

i) I didn't equate a human soul with a human being. A discarnate human soul is an incomplete human being.

ii) I didn't say the soul can undergo death. Just the opposite: only a body can die. Or, if you prefer, you can say death is when body and soul are decoupled. But that's because the body ceases to function.

“All of him” here is not supposed to be an additional human person who might die. Of course, “Methuselah died” does not imply that all parts of Meth died. But it does imply that the whole Methuselah died!

Tuggy repeats the composition fallacy. Methuselah died in the sense that Methuselah is the possessor of the body that expired. But that doesn't mean what happened to his body happened to Methuselah in toto. 

Specious, yes. That is not even apparently an inconsistent triad, unlike the one I’ve been discussing.

Tuggy's original presentation was based on the apparent inconsistency in saying "the immortal dies". My parallel triad mimics his own illustration. 

You’ve granted that the person just is the soul. 

i) I never said that. To begin with, I've avoided the word "person" since that has lots of baggage which isn't germane to the issue at hand. Rather, I've used the more neutral term "individual".

ii) Moreover, I never said a human being just is his soul. Indeed, I explicitly said a disembodied soul is an incomplete human being. Tuggy is such a careless thinker. 

So contrary to scriptural teaching and common sense, you’re asserting that all humans are always immortal. 

That piggybacks on Tuggy's equivocal misrepresentation of my stated position. But there is a sense in which all humans are always immortal. That's not contrary to scriptural teaching and common sense if we bother to define our terms.

It doesn’t help to say that the body dies. 

It helps if you wish to speak with analytical clarity. 

Sure, even if the soul is immortal, the body may rot and fall apart. But it does not die a human death, the death of a human self – not on dualism, which we’re assuming.

His syntax is ambiguous, but Tuggy seems to be saying the body doesn't die a human death (rather than the soul). And what reason is there to accept his denial? 

I note in passing that this requires the natures to be concrete beings. Abstracta can neither die nor be alive.

I already anticipated that objection in my initial response to Tuggy ("The Immortal dies!") when I carefully defined my terms: Human nature isn't something a human being is, but has. A human being is a concrete exemplification or property instance of a human nature. If we view human nature as an abstract universal, then to be human is to be a concrete particular. By "concrete," I mean existing in space and/or time. Angels exist in time, but not in space. Humans naturally exist in both, although humans can exist in time but not in space (the intermediate state).

Is Tuggy too addlebrained to keep track of what I said? If he's going to interact with my position, is it asking too much to pay attention to what I actually said? 

If God is timeless and spaceless (my own position), then in that respect God is analogous to abstract objects. 

And I agree that God can't die or be alive–in the biological sense. God isn't that kind of being.

“Jesus died” is a claim about Jesus.  In effect, the view you’re suggesting is just denying that Jesus died. Not the NT view of course. 

Is Tuggy playing dumb or is he really that obtuse? Sure, "Jesus died". But the question is how to unpack that claim, given substance dualism as well as the hypostatic union. A two-word phrase is hardly exhaustive. 

Perhaps you want to say that “Jesus died” should be counted as true because his body…

As if I haven't been explicit on that point.

 – or maybe you mean to say here, is human nature – died.

I explicitly denied that in my initial response. Once more, is Tuggy too scatterbrained to keep track of my stated position? 

i) All J are D.  (All things which are Jesus are things which have died.)

ii) All J are F.  (All things which are Jesus are things which are fully divine.)

iii) No F is D.  (No thing which is fully divine is a thing which has died.)


(i) is false. All things which are Jesus include his immortal soul and his divine nature. Those things never died. Those things are incapable of dying.

(ii) is false. All things which are Jesus include his human body and human soul. Those are not divine. 

"All things" which are Jesus comprise disparate things. Not all of a kind. Neither death nor divinity are true of "all things" that are Jesus, but only some things that are Jesus. A subset of "things" that are Jesus. 

In (iii), notice Tuggy's illicit slide from "all things" to "a thing" (or "no thing"). He abruptly collapses a plurality of things into a singular thing. Tuggy is addicted to systematic equivocations. 

If “God” is systematically ambiguous between: the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, then user of “God” would (normally) fail to unambiguously refer to any of those. If Steve has, say, three kids, and I go around talking about “Steve’s kid” – where nothing about the context fixes the referent as one of them – I fail to refer to either Huey, Duey, or Louie, or even to the group of them.

You only fail to refer X if you unsuccessfully attempt to refer to X. 

No NT term was then understood to mean the tripersonal God. This is just a fact about the terminology of that era. But what Mr. Hayes says here is trivially true if by “Trinity” here he just means this group: Father, Son, Spirit. The NT writers of course refer to each of these using various terms. What they do not do, is refer to all three together as a single being. They have no singular referring term for the triune god. By the time of Augustine, catholics have acquired such a term: “Trinity.”  (Earlier, c. 180-370,  this was used only as a plural referring term, for God, his Son, and his Spirit/spirit.)

Any term, of any kind, “technical” or not – which was then understood to refer to Father, Son, and Spirit as being one god.

Suppose NT writers used the term "Trinity". But that would be opaque without definition. The Bible isn't written like a systematic theology, with complex abstract definitions and formulations. Church fathers like Augustine don't just use a "singular referring term for the triune God". Rather, that's prefaced by lots of background exposition to explain the terminology. But the NT is a different genre. 

Let the readers judge. An ill-tempered blogger vs. a couple of leading trinitarian scholars – Harris and Rahner. For now, I’m happy to appeal to excerpt and hostile (to my theology) witnesses.There is no fallacy in so doing.

I didn't say it was fallacious for Tuggy to cite them. The fallacy, rather, is for him to claim it's scholarly for him to selectively agree with them, but unscholarly for me to selectively agree with them.  

The evidence is strong though. Sample: writers swapping out “God” with “the Father” for purely stylistic reasons. eg. John 1:18, John 6:45-6, Acts 2:33, 1 John 3:1, 2 John 1:9. This only works in a non-confusing way when “God” normally means the Father.

That begs the question of whether the reason for the variation is merely "stylistic". 

The difference between Harris and me, is probably something like 4- 5 passages (where he thinks theos refers to Jesus but I think it refers to the Father) – out of many hundreds of passages. Not a significant % difference, no.

Tuggy missed the point, even though I explained it to him. I don't contend that there are many NT passages which designate Jesus as "God". 

Because the Gospels record the earthly ministry of Christ, when the Gospels talk about "God", that normally refers to someone other that Jesus to differentiate the Deity in heaven from the Incarnate Son. So the terminology will draw that distinction.

But although, in this context, the word "God" will most often be used in contrast to Jesus, that doesn't imply that the word "God" is used to designate the Father in contrast to the Spirit. For the Father and the Spirit are both in heaven, in contrast to the earthly ministry of the Son.

Tuggy's fallacy is to infer that because the word "God" typically doesn't refer to the Son, it must refer to the Father instead. But this is not a process of elimination between two candidates, for there are three candidates. The alternative to Jesus isn't the Father, for the alternative to Jesus can be both the Father and the Spirit of God. In the Gospels, both the Father and the Spirit are in heaven, in contrast to the Son on earth–except when the Spirit of God descends from heaven to earth. 

I agree that Jesus is “the” Son – a Son in a sense in which a Christian is not. But it is just special pleading to suggest that NT writers would be “deceptive” unless they meant Jesus to be divine. They shout uniformly that he’s the unique Messiah, which seems to be synonymous with “the Son of God” – see Matthew 26:63, Luke 4:41, Matthew 16:16, John 11:27, John 20:31. And yet, he is also a man. Again, it is catholic tradition (“He’s not ‘true Son’ unless he’s divine!”) vs. the NT. And the “sola scriptura” guy takes the catholic side.

Two basis problems with Tuggy's claim:

i) In Johannine theology, the Son is the mirror image of the Father. Same thing in Hebrews. In that setting, sonship indicates resemblance. Two of a kind. Like Father/like Son.

ii) In Biblical theology generally, you have the paradigmatic metaphor of royal succession, whether "God" is to the aging king as messiah is to the crown prince. On this metaphor, what makes the prince the rightful heir is that he is the biological son and, indeed, firstborn of the king. 

By analogy, we need to keep both on the same ontological plane. A divine monarch and a human successor destroys the parity within the metaphor, and the analogy must carry over at an equivalent level. A prince is the same kind of being as the king whom he succeeds. Indeed, as son, he's more like his father than anyone else. 

9 comments:

  1. No NT term was then understood to mean the tripersonal God. This is just a fact about the terminology of that era.

    But as Anthony Rogers has pointed out, "The word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; both of these words are plural nouns in Hebrew."

    Moreover, God is spoken of in the OT in various plural ways. As Anthony Rogers says in one of his articles:

    When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives for God.

    Meaning, plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God.
    Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:

    1. Plural Verbs

    o Genesis 20:13
    English Translation: God caused me to wander
    Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
    Literally: They caused me to wander

    o Genesis 35:7
    English Translation: God appeared
    Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
    Literally: They appeared

    o 2Samuel 7:23
    English Translation: God went
    Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
    Literally: They went

    o Psalms 58:12
    English Translation: God that judges
    Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
    Literally: Gods that judge

    2. Plural Adjectives

    o Deuteronomy 5:26
    English Translation: living God
    Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
    Literally: Living Gods8

    o Joshua 24:19
    English Translation: holy God
    Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
    Literally: Holy Gods

    3. Plural Nouns

    o Ecclesiastes 12:1
    English Translation: thy Creator
    Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
    Literally: Creators

    o Isaiah 54:5
    English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
    Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
    Literally: Makers, Husbands9

    o Malachi 1:6
    English Translation: Master
    Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
    Literally: Masters10

    o Daniel 7:18
    English Translation: Most High
    Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
    Literally: Most High Ones

    footnotes:
    8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
    9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
    10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. As I've said before, if the NT authors were Unitarians it seems to me that they would have reversed their usual usage of kurios for the Son and theos for the Father for two reasons. One reason is that the OT uses the word elohim to refer to both good and bad spiritual beings that are in submission to Almighty God (i.e. angels, demons, and the high ranking "angels" in the Divine Council that Michael Heiser has reminded the Christian Church about in recent years). A second reason for why the NT authors would have reversed their usage if Unitarian were true is because kurios is the word the LXX used to translate the tetragrammaton. Contrary to Unitarian expectations the NT repeatedly refers to Jesus as kurios and even applies OT passages originally referring to YHVH to Jesus.

      i) In Johannine theology, the Son is the mirror image of the Father. Same thing in Hebrews. In that setting, sonship indicates resemblance. Two of a kind. Like Father/like Son.

      All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.- Matt. 11:27 ASV

      All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.- Luke 10:22 ASV

      Scholars have pointed out that Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22 sounds almost Johannine and so have nicknamed the statement the "Johannine Thunderbolt". Because it occurs in both gMatt and gLuke, if Q existed, then this goes to show how early this tradition is. And we have at least two reasons why this "Thunderbolt" suggests Christ's full Divinity. One reason is because we have the Son knowing the Father like the Father knows the Son. The Father being omniscient would naturally know the Son exhaustively. But for the Son to know the Father exhaustively would imply omniscience. Especially since the Father is not fully comprehensible to finite creatures. Hence, implying the Son is not a finite creature, but Divine. Moreover, the tradition says that no one knows the Son except the Father. This implies the Son, like the Father is incomprehensible to finite creatures. And so suggesting the Son is also incomprehensible, being also Divine. Only through the Son's revelation of the Father and of Himself (the Son) can human beings come to know something about *either* the Father OR THE SON. We can't fully comprehend either (both being Divine), but we can genuinely and truly apprehend some truths regarding both (via the revelation of the Son [and illumination of the Holy Spirit, cf. 2 Cor. 2:12-16]).

      Delete
    2. No NT term was then understood to mean the tripersonal God. This is just a fact about the terminology of that era.

      If the NT was expounding and expanding on the OT hints regarding the Plurality of the One God, then we wouldn't need the NT to use a plural term to refer to God's plurality. Since there are already some used in the OT (e.g. elohim, adonai, adonim). The fact that there are SOOO many triadic passages in the OT and [especially] NT is also evidence for some form of Trinitarianism.

      Some of my blogposts that might help Unitarians see the plausibility of Trinitarianism include:

      http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/old-testament-passages-implying.html

      http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html

      http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/09/all-three-persons-of-trinity-mentioned.html

      Delete
    3. I realize I didn't complete my point above. I wrote above:

      As I've said before, if the NT authors were Unitarians it seems to me that they would have reversed their usual usage of kurios for the Son and theos for the Father for two reasons. One reason is that the OT uses the word elohim to refer to both good and bad spiritual beings that are in submission to Almighty God (i.e. angels, demons, and the high ranking "angels" in the Divine Council that Michael Heiser has reminded the Christian Church about in recent years).

      To continue:

      If Jesus were one of God's creations (regardless of whether you affirm preexistence or not), then Jesus could have been called a god or a "God" using theos in the sense that el or elohim was used in the OT of beings other than Almighty God. If I were still a Unitarian, I sincerely would have expected the NT to use theos (and it's various forms) for Christ and reserved kurios in its exalted usage for the Father alone. But we don't see that.

      Moreover, there are times when theos is used with the definite article when referring to Christ (John 10:28; Matt. 1:23). Similarly, the NT has no problem applying Mal. 3:1 to Jesus even though in Hebrew it uses the phrase "ha-Adon". A phrase that means "the Lord", or the [TRUE] Lord, i.e. Almighty God. The phrase is reserved for Almighty God alone. It's never used for any creature.

      None of this (and the other data I've collected on my blog) fits well with Unitarianism. Rather, it fits better with Trinitarianism.

      Delete
  2. Unfortunately, no "meat" re: the NT usage of "God" here. But will respond on your denial that Jesus died. The abuse was particularly funny this time. Still would like it all more without the logorrhoea. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "if the NT authors were Unitarians it seems to me that they would have reversed their usual usage of kurios for the Son and theos for the Father"

    Annoyed, various commenters have observed that in 1 Cor 8:6 Paul is exploiting a pre-existing, wider, Gentile distinction between higher deities ("gods") and lower deities ("lords"). I'm not really familiar with the primary sources there, but if these commenters are right, this would reverse what you claim should be expected.

    The two reasons you give for your expectation above don't, I think, lend significant support to it. More relevant would be LXX usage of kurios and theos. Think about Isaiah - "I am theos and there is no other." Yeah, that's the Father, "the only true god".

    Against your second point, there is clearly a middle usage of kurios in the NT based on Ps 110:1 which mentions YHWH elevating kurios mou ("my lord"). It is "middle" in that it means neither "Sir" nor "YHWH."

    You're making the right sort of argument: what would be expect in the NT if they were unitarian, or if they were trinitarian? But it's only a strong argument if you can make your points about expectations stick. It's a much more powerful argument when these are obvious points to most disinterested parties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul is exploiting a pre-existing, wider, Gentile distinction between higher deities ("gods") and lower deities ("lords").

      I'd be interested in reading those commentators/commentaries. From the context and text itself, I don't see where 1 Cor. 8:5 suggests a distinction between higher gods and lower lords.

      5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--- -1 Cor. 8:5 ESV

      For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;- 1 Cor. 8:5 ASV

      It seems to me that in 5b Paul is equalizing the terms "gods" and "lords" as equivalents. Possibly in order to set up what other NT commentators argue, namely Paul's novel division and application of the Shema to include both the Father and the Son. Also, which Gentiles? As I understand it, not all Gentiles would have conceived of their pantheons as having higher gods and lower lords. Maybe some pantheons in some Gentile religions, but all of them? I venture to say that some pantheons had higher lords and lower gods. As well as some pantheons having higher gods and lords, along with lower gods and lords.

      Also, Paul's comments in chapter 8 need to be seen in light of his statements in chapters 10 and 11 regarding the Lord's supper. Paul refers to demons and idols in contrast to worshipping God and/or the Lord via 1. the altar of the Lord 2. table of the Lord. In both instances it appears that Jesus is the Lord of the "table of the Lord" and the "altar of the Lord". Paul likely used both phrases with the concept of YHVH's table and altar.

      Just as the bema judgment seat is referred to as the Judgment Seat of God (Rom. 14:10) as well as the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). Similar to how psalms and hymns and spiritual songs can be sung to the God (the Father) in Col. 3:16, as well as to the Lord (Jesus) in Eph. 5:19

      Notice the parallel:

      Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.- Col. 3:16 ESV

      addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,- Eph. 5:19 ESV

      If I were still a Unitarian I would find these things troubling. Yet, there are MANY more things like these facts throughout the NT that don't fit well with Unitarianism (if at all) and fit better with Trinitarianism.

      CONT.

      Delete
    2. The two reasons you give for your expectation above don't, I think, lend significant support to it. More relevant would be LXX usage of kurios and theos. Think about Isaiah - "I am theos and there is no other." Yeah, that's the Father, "the only true god".

      I don't see how that helps seeing that in the LXX Almighty God is referred to as kurios more times than theos. Also, by the fact that Jesus is called God a number of times in the NT. And those places that are disputed have better arguments in favor of them actually referring to Christ than the Father (e.g. my blogpost on Romans 9:5 HERE, and 1 John 5:20 HERE). Also by the fact that Isaiah distinguishes Almighty God as the First and Last, yet Jesus is also termed First and Last (if not also Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End as I argued in my blogpost regarding Rev. 22:12-13 HERE). Also by the fact that Isaiah 44:24 says creation was YHVH's act alone (with no assistance), yet the NT teaches that Christ was involved in creation. The Unitarian appeal to non-preexistence to resolve this dilemma seems ad hoc to me (as even Unitarian Greg Stafford demonstrates in his arguments for Christ's preexistence).

      Against your second point, there is clearly a middle usage of kurios in the NT based on Ps 110:1 which mentions YHWH elevating kurios mou ("my lord"). It is "middle" in that it means neither "Sir" nor "YHWH."

      That's begs the question as to whether we know the original vowel pointing is adoni rather than adonai. As I understand it, our received vowel pointing can only be documented back to the post-Christian Masoretes. It could have been originally pointed as adonai and the Masoretes pointed it adoni to counter Christian claims. But even assuming adoni is the correct pointing, that doesn't necessarily disprove Jesus is also YHVH. Moreover, there is evidence that suggests (not proves) that the second Lord is adonai when seen in light of verse 5. I'll omit the arguments for this since they are only suggestive.

      Also, I've heard an interesting argument against reading verse 1 as "adoni" that I don't know works (or not). The claim is that "adoni" means "my lord" and that if that's the correct pointing in verse 1, then it would read "YHWH says to MY MY Lord..." The claim being it would be nonsensical and redundant for the psalmist to say "my my". Again, I don't know if that works linguistically.

      CONT.

      Delete
    3. You're making the right sort of argument: what would be expect in the NT if they were unitarian, or if they were trinitarian? But it's only a strong argument if you can make your points about expectations stick. It's a much more powerful argument when these are obvious points to most disinterested parties.

      If Unitarianism were true I would have expected many different things which I don't see in the NT. If I had time, I could list dozens of examples. But here's just a few.

      Whenever OT passages regarding YHVH is applied to Jesus I would expect the NT to often and explicitly explain that this is only agentival and representational in light of the principle of Shaliah (Jewish emissary/agent). Yet we don't see that. Rather many times that happens without qualification or explanation. As if those things truly and rightly refer and apply to Jesus (cf. my blogpost HERE).

      I would expect the NT to say explicitly Jesus is not YHVH. I would expect titles, symbols actions (etc.) of YHVH in the OT would not be used of Jesus For example: King of Kings, Lord of Lords, First and Last, True/Truth/Amen [cf. Isa. 65:16 with John 14:6], Light, Shepherd, Redeemer, Israel as the Wife of YHVH and the Church the Bride of Christ etc.

      I wouldn't expect Jesus to be likened to the OT temple where God was supposed to dwell. Nor would I expect Jesus to say He's greater than the temple. [cf. my blogpost Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity]

      I would expect worship to be reserved to the Father alone. Yet, Jesus is to be honored and worshipped in the same way as the Father (John 5:23; Rev. 5:6-14 etc.). I would expect Jesus wouldn't be sung to [see comments above]. Or prayed to. But He is. Paul prays to Jesus for his thorn to be removed, the Apostles prayed to Jesus in choosing Judas' replacement, Stephen prayed to Jesus to receive his spirit. I would expect that "knee bowing" would not be applied to Jesus (cf. Phil. 2:10). That Christians would not "call upon" in invocation the name of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2, and many places in Acts).

      I would expect that the (arguably) most monotheistic verse in the (arguably) most monotheistic chapter in the entire Hebrew Scriptures would not be applied to Jesus. But Isaiah 45:23 is applied to Jesus in Phil. 2.

      I would expect that Jesus wouldn't liken His words to that of YHVH's when He parallels the enduring nature of His words with those of YHVH's [cf. Matt. 24:35; Luke 21:33 with Isa. 40:8].

      I could go on, but that should suffice.

      Delete