Dale Tuggy RetweetedRyanprott@ryanprott3 thing [sic.] that would make Jesus YHWH•1)Complete Superiority•2)Immortality that wasn't given•3)Without BeginningActs 3:13 "God has glorified his SERVANT Jesus"1 Cor. 15 "Christ DIED for our sins"John 3:16 "He gave his only BEGOTTEN son"1)❌X2)❌X3)X
1. Once again, unitarians keep demonstrating that they have no idea how to argue with folks who don't think like unitarians. They never leave their bubble.
If the aim is to show that Trinitarian, Incarnational theology is inconsistent with Scripture, then the onus is on the unitarian to show that the Trinitarian, Incarnational theology can't be harmonized with Scripture given the assumptions and resources of Trinitarians. You must assume the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, then explain how that's contradictory on its own grounds. Why is Dale unable to grasp that elementary burden of proof? Why does he plug Ryan Prott's incompetent objection? Is this social promotion for unitarians?
2. Jesus isn't merely Yahweh but Yahweh Incarnate. Yahweh Incarnate can undergo demotions or promotions in his status.
3. Immortality has reference to Jesus as Yahweh Incarnate. Biological mortality/immortality, and not immortality in the divine sense of aseity and timeless eternality. God is not physically mortal or immortal. He's not that kind of being. But God Incarnate assumes a body which can be mortal or immortal.
4. Dale must be aware of the fact that most modern-day NT scholars and lexicographers don't think monogenes means only-begotten, but unique, one of a kind.
5. Jesus has a point of origin in time: the Incarnation. The Son has no beginning. Jesus is a composite being. The Son in union with a human body and soul. ❌
1) complete superiority. In Revelation 2&3 Jesus say he holds the keys to death and Hades. That what he shuts no one can open. What he opens no can shut.
ReplyDeleteSounds like complete superiority to me.
2&3) Both covered by John 1:1.
Point 4 here is rather sad and shows how much christians are willing to defend insanity as long as they say "modern scholars say this nonsense". It doesn't mean "one of a kind". It is used in a huge amount of contexts while accompanying father-son terminology, and at times "one of a kind" doesn't even make sense. Furthermore, the Church fathers, native greek speakers, explained it is only-begotten, and constantly talk about Christ, the only-begotten. This is the final nail on the coffin.
ReplyDeleteIt is a crucial part of christian theology, the generation does not correspond to creation, but the eternal generation of the divine essence by the Father.
This is not an argument from authority, where we're simply appealling to "what modern scholars say". There's an argument that goes with this.
DeleteThe Greek Fathers are not the authority on NT Koine usage, any more than being a native English speaker makes you an expert on Shakespearean usage.
"This is the final nail on the coffin"
DeleteFinal nail on the coffin of what?
Steve, you're right about "begotten" in John 1. However, the miraculous conception accounts in Matthew and in Luke imply that Jesus thereby came into existence. And this is also presupposed by NT claims that he is a descendant of David, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't rely so much on playground rhetoric that unitarian Christians are stupid, uninformed, don't know how to argue, etc. Dude - this is a tweet! Honestly, I know more about "two natures" speculations than you do. I've literally taught a college class on this. See, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6wK-lRZP-k&feature=youtu.be If you want to get up to speed, the best book is this one: https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-143-dr-timothy-pawls-in-defense-of-conciliar-christology-part-1/
It's part of catholic ideology that "two natures" theories *somehow* solve all christological problems - so you get irritated when such speculations go unmentioned. But often I don't mention them because they cause as many problems as they allegedly solve, and they demonstrably don't solve certain problems. Nor is any such theory a clear NT teaching. If you want to see me go to the mat in showing that such theories don't show that it's non-contradictory for Christ to be divine and human - see my new debate book with Chris Date. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Divine-Essential-Christian-Debates/dp/1946971804/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=tuggy+date&qid=1588963987&sr=8-1
Now the reason I thought that this was worth a re-tweet, is that he correctly cites three features of YHWH which just supervene on his being YHWH - his complete lack of cause or source, his complete superiority, as ultimate source of and rightful ruler of all else, and his essential immortality. Just urging that there's also a "complete human nature" here, whatever that involves, doesn't address the fact that these properties follow necessarily from being fully divine, or the one true God. AND it seems that necessary, one can't have either feature and be a human. To take the latter: any human is *possibly* mortal - such that they can be killed. And necessarily, no human has complete (i.e. top level) superiority - of necessity, all humans are subject to God. Again, any human is necessary a first human, or else exists because of one or more humans which caused his existence.
Steve, you're answer here don't really help, as best I can tell. "Yahweh Incarnate [as opposed to Yahweh] can undergo demotions or promotions in his status." That's just ignoring that this is one and the same being, and that his superiority is necessarily implied by his being God. Unless you mean "Yahweh Incarnate" to be a composite, of which Yahweh is a part!
In the book we also talk about Jesus's partial ignorance vs. God's omniscience. And it doesn't go well for Mr. Date.
"DaleSteve, you're right about "begotten" in John 1. However, the miraculous conception accounts in Matthew and in Luke imply that Jesus thereby came into existence."
DeleteEquivocal. In biblical Christology, Jesus came into existence but the Son did not. "Jesus" is a contingent composite being. The divine Son in union with a human body and soul. The Son is a necessary being. A se.
"It's part of catholic ideology that 'two natures' theories *somehow* solve all christological problems"…
i) You try to shoehorn me into catholic christology, but I'm not committed to ecumenical councils, or all the refinements of patristic Thomistic Christology. I break with the Nicene paradigm, instead following the lead of theologians like Herman Alexander Röell (1653–1718), Warfield, Paul Helm, and John Frame.
The question at issue is not whether the two-natures doctrine "solve all Christological problems but whether unitarians simply omit that from consideration when alleging that Trinitarian/Incarnational theology is irreconcilable with the NT witness.
"any human is *possibly* mortal - such that they can be killed."
I don't regard the glorified body of Christ as indestructible. It's not immortal in that sense. It's immune to certain morbidities and senescence, to which bodies in a fallen world are liable, but his physical immortality also depends on providential protection.
"'Yahweh Incarnate [as opposed to Yahweh] can undergo demotions or promotions in his status.' That's just ignoring that this is one and the same being, and that his superiority is necessarily implied by his being God. Unless you mean 'Yahweh Incarnate' to be a composite, of which Yahweh is a part!"
God can and does assume economic roles and contingent relations, such as his status as Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. These incidental properties are subject to change or counterfactual alternatives in a way that God's necessary existence and essential attributes are not. The same applies to God Incarnate.
Yahweh Incarnate is a composite entity. God is David's ultimate creator, but there are possible worlds in which David does not exist even though God exists in all possible worlds.
"In the book we also talk about Jesus's partial ignorance vs. God's omniscience. And it doesn't go well for Mr. Date."
It goes just fine for me.
BTW, as an open theist, you deny God's omniscience.
"AND it seems that necessary, one can't have either feature and be a human. To take the latter: any human is *possibly* mortal - such that they can be killed. And necessarily, no human has complete (i.e. top level) superiority - of necessity, all humans are subject to God"
ReplyDeleteNot really. Phillipians 2:6-8
This post on the deity of Christ might be interesting to readers:
ReplyDeletehttps://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/01/romans-109-proves-jesus-is-god-almighty.html