tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8001751411566943203..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The name above every nameRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41126372175440719192011-07-01T19:31:32.333-04:002011-07-01T19:31:32.333-04:00DALE SAID:
"Jesus, like other agents of YHWH...DALE SAID:<br /><br />"Jesus, like other agents of YHWH in ancient Jewish lit, has the name "YHWH" bestowed on him by YHWH."<br /><br />Scholars like Darrel Bock and Craig Evans have sifted through that material, drawing a very different conclusion, viz, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41370304100178987652011-07-01T17:32:01.592-04:002011-07-01T17:32:01.592-04:00Also, Dale, still wondering about the idolatry que...Also, Dale, still wondering about the idolatry question. <br /><br />You said Unitarians believe Jesus is worthy of worship. But I would think not worthy of worship *as God* which is how Christians worship him. <br /><br />So how is that not being an idolater?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20793307692009292782011-07-01T17:29:23.847-04:002011-07-01T17:29:23.847-04:00Dale,
"In a religious atmosphere where it is...Dale,<br /><br />"<i>In a religious atmosphere where it is presupposed that God is not a man</i>"<br /><br />But aren't trinitarians arguing that the apostles and first Christians thought Jesus was God? In that case, it looks question begging to say that they "presupposed God is not a man" and then say that therefore they couldn't mean Jesus was God.<br /><br />"<i>YHWH can be fulfilled in his special agent, and that beings other that YHWH can be called by names and titles normally reserved for YHWH - even the proper name, "Yahweh"!</i>"<br /><br />And apparently the special agent can also do things one would think only YHWH could do. So we have an agent who can act like YHWH, receive worship like YHWH and all the titles of YHWH, but not be YHWH.<br /><br />So then, how could a trinitarian ever prove his case with you, Dale? <br /><br />Even if there were a verse that said "The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." You could just say this is an instance of theos or YHWH applied to non-divine special agents. <br /><br />If we show them doing works ascribed to God then this is just an instance of non-divine special agents acting in behalf of God.<br /><br />So verses that say Jesus is God can be dismissed. Verses that say Jesus acts as God acts can be dismissed. So what other sort of verse is one supposed to marshal?<br /><br />It looks pretty clear that you're starting with the "one true God" idea and taking it in such a way that one could never derive something other than unitarianism.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56894596955523342102011-07-01T17:00:05.777-04:002011-07-01T17:00:05.777-04:00DALE SAID:
“In a religious atmosphere where it is...DALE SAID:<br /><br />“In a religious atmosphere where it is presupposed that God is not a man, one can heap exalted terms, terms normally reserved for God, onto that special man, the Son of Man, and people will not infer that that man is God himself.”<br /><br />Your argument is self-defeating. If any term, however exalted, that’s “normally” reserved for God, can be transferred to creaturely agents, then you lose any monotheistic benchmark to distinguish the true God from the creature, or false gods. <br /><br />“Over and over, you ignore the crucial points that predictions about YHWH can be fulfilled in his special agent, and that beings other that YHWH can be called by names and titles normally reserved for YHWH - even the proper name, ‘Yahweh’!”<br /><br />What I ignore is when you repeat tendentious assertions. <br /><br />Let’s go back to Rev 2:23. How does a creature “fulfill” the attribute of judicial omniscience? <br /><br />Likewise, in what sense can a creature be the final judge of other creatures? They are not ultimately accountable to a fellow creature.<br /><br />“These are points well know to careful interpreters, both trinitarian and unitarian.”<br /><br />Which is circular inasmuch as you dismiss any interpreters who disagree as careless interpreters. <br /><br />“This is the very point at issue. We see a line shaped like this: _/ And by ‘we,’ I don't mean just unitarians. I mean them, plus super heavyweight trinitarian exegete Dunn, who reads it as a case of Pauline Adam theology - Jesus, new Adam, being contrasted with the old Adam, who grasped after equality with God. This passage is among the most disputed and most important for christology, and deserves much more discussion.”<br /><br />Needless to say, scholars like Bauckham, Bockmuehl, Fee, O’Brien, and Silva have scrutinized the alleged Adam-typology. And even if there’s something to it (which is disputed), that’s an echo, not a prism. <br /><br />“About the ref to Is 45 - sure, he's raised to God's position, by God, all to the glory of God. (v. 11) Jesus, like other agents of YHWH in ancient Jewish lit, has the name ‘YHWH’ bestowed on him by YHWH - at least, we assume this is the name in question. (v.9)” <br /><br />Which begs the question of whether creaturely agents can be raised to Yahweh’s own level. Also, vague, indiscriminate allusions to “ancient Jewish lit” won’t do the trick. There’s a lot of sorting that needs to be done by date and provenance, as well as what the texts actually say. <br /><br />“All of this, as plain as day, supposes them to be numerically two, and hence, not one God.”<br /><br />You’re oblivious to the logical tensions that your own position generates. If divine indicia are transferable, then the “two” become interchangeable at a fundamental level. <br /><br />You have no basis for affirming the unicity of God in the first place when you erase any discernible (pardon the Leibnizian pun) distinction between God and creaturely agents.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34614428676739752942011-07-01T16:17:28.974-04:002011-07-01T16:17:28.974-04:00Steve, this is an avalanche of stuff, only some of...Steve, this is an avalanche of stuff, only some of which is relevant to the dispute. <br /><br />I'll sift through a few points.<br /><br />Of course Jesus appears before ch 4 - I was talking of his entry into the throne room scene. <br /><br />In a religious atmosphere where it is presupposed that God is not a man, one can heap exalted terms, terms normally reserved for God, onto that special man, the Son of Man, and people will not infer that that man is God himself. Over and over, you ignore the crucial points that predictions about YHWH can be fulfilled in his special agent, and that beings other that YHWH can be called by names and titles normally reserved for YHWH - even the proper name, "Yahweh"! These are points well know to careful interpreters, both trinitarian and unitarian. <br /><br />About Rev 5 - note that there are two objects of worship there. Also, interestingly, the Holy Spirit is not an object of worship there.<br /><br />"the V-shaped line of Phil 2:1-11" <br /><br />This is the very point at issue. We see a line shaped like this: _/ And by "we," I don't mean just unitarians. I mean them, plus super heavyweight trinitarian exegete Dunn, who reads it as a case of Pauline Adam theology - Jesus, new Adam, being contrasted with the old Adam, who grasped after equality with God. This passage is among the most disputed and most important for christology, and deserves much more discussion. About the ref to Is 45 - sure, he's raised to God's position, by God, all to the glory of God. (v. 11) Jesus, like other agents of YHWH in ancient Jewish lit, has the name "YHWH" bestowed on him by YHWH - at least, we assume this is the name in question. (v.9) All of this, as plain as day, supposes them to be numerically two, and hence, not one God.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.com