1. Unitarians reject church councils like Nicea and Chalcedon, reject the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, &c. They think Christianity was hijacked by the emperor, along with power-hungry popes and bishops.
But to be consistent, they should reject the NT canon that comes down to us from the same nefarious process. Logically, they should say the church made a mistake when it canonized books like the Gospel of John, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation. Given their viewpoint, it would be more intellectually honest for them to admit that the NT canon has conflicting Christologies. Marcion was more consistent.
2. Suppose for the sake of argument that the Synoptic Gospels don't teach the deity of Christ. That doesn't disprove Trinitarian theology. In principle, all that Trinitarian theology requires is for the Synoptics Gospels be consistent with Trinitarian theology, be consistent with the "higher" Christology of John, Paul, Hebrews, and Revelation.
Compare two statements:
i) The Synoptic Gospels don't teach that Jesus is deity
ii) The Synoptic Gospels teach that Jesus isn't deity
Those are not convertible propositions. Even if (i) were the case, that's consonant with the witness to the deity of Christ in other NT documents.
3. The original audience for the Gospels was comprised of basically two kinds of readers: Jews and Gentiles. The ancient world had an honor code about hospitality to strangers. The basis for this honor code was cautionary tales. You should be nice to strangers because you never know who you might be dealing with. You never know when the Yahweh or the Olympians might pay a visit in disguise.
There are tales about that in Greco-Roman mythology (e.g. Acts 14:11). In addition, this has a counterpart in the OT. A "man" might turn out to be an angel, while an angel might turn out to be Yahweh!
Sometimes the Angel of the Lord has that deliberately enigmatic quality, to throw people off-guard. How people act when they don't know who they're dealing with exposes their true character.
There are OT stories in which God appears to people incognito. They don't initially know who he is. The reader may know, because the narrator tips off the reader, but a character in the story must discover the true identity of the stranger in their midst.
I think there are parallels between this and the Synoptic Jesus. At times he seems to be deceptively human, as if that's all there is to him, but at other times, he says and does thinks that make the hair of spectators stand on end. There's that sudden, hair-raising recognition you get in OT theophanies as well as Greco-Roman myths about divine spies slumming as humans to test what humans are really like when they don't know the immortals are watching them. Indeed, when unbeknownst to them, they're speaking to Zeus or Yahweh face-to-face. You had to be on the alert lest you dis a deity!
The Synoptic Jesus is open-textured in that regard. There's more to him than meets the eye, and that can manifest itself in a flash. The Synoptic Gospels are peppered with those "uh-oh" moments where the God-incognito motif rises to the surface. The mysterium tremendum. Both Jewish and Gentile readers would be very sensitive to that motif.
4. Likewise, just consider the provocative "Son of God" title. In terms of the father/son metaphor, fathers and sons are essentially equals. They occupy the same plane.
Fathers may be initially superior because they get a head start. But in time the son catches up with the father and overtakes the father. Sons succeed their fathers. They may be temporarily subordinate, but not indefinitely. Take the related theme of royal sons who eventually ascend to the throne.
If you put father and son on different sides of the scales, it takes constantly pressure to keep the side of the scales with the son lower than the side of the scales with the father. For the metaphor naturally balances out. Divine sonship already connotes two of a kind.
1. This is indeed an interesting issue, and is always one which Catholics demand an answer on from any Protestant who denies the authority of those old catholic councils - the ones retroactively elevated, really. My short answer: a somewhat vague canon was fine before then. Why, exactly, not now? And it is not clear that the bishops where right in ripping away from scholars the right to determine if, say, 2 Peter is genuine or a forgery. We must remember that those councils, despite what many now imagine, were a consensus of Christian scholars in service of the Church.
ReplyDelete2. The synoptics presuppose throughout that the one God is the Father himself, which is inconsistent with the one God being the Trinity. So, it's worse than you admit. Due to your Bible-must-imply-Trinity ideology, you're not able to admit facts which are obvious, say, to liberal Catholic scholars like Kung: http://trinities.org/blog/hans-kung-on-new-testament-theology/
"The Synoptic Gospels are peppered with those "uh-oh" moments where the God-incognito motif rises to the surface."
The is a paradigm case of what I call gnostic or esoteric readings of the gospels. The explicit theses therein - e.g. John 20:31 or Matthew 16:13-20 are passed over because the REAL message is encoded in little winks and nods, little allusions to language about Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. The REAL message is something first heard in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th centuries.
"They may be temporarily subordinate, but not indefinitely."
In human cases yes. But in the case of God and his human Son, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.
At the end of this post, you seem willing to dismiss a whole raft of NT passages which seem to clearly subordinate the man Jesus to his and our God (many of which do not easily yield to the spin that it is a merely functional subordination). Don't have much to say about that, other than that a Christian's theology ought to well fit them too.
"Due to your Bible-must-imply-Trinity ideology, you're not able to admit facts which are obvious, say, to liberal Catholic scholars like Kung"
DeleteActually, the standard liberal view is that the NT contains disparate Christologies: high and low christologies, depending on the writer. It would be more consistent for unitarians to go that route.
"The is a paradigm case of what I call gnostic or esoteric readings of the gospels. The explicit theses therein - e.g.John 20:31 or Matthew 16:13-20 are passed over because the REAL message is encoded in little winks and nods, little allusions to language about Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible."
i) There's nothing esoteric about the suggestion that the Synoptic Gospels reflect OT motifs, including a God incognito motif. This is a common, easily documented trope in both OT and Greco-Roman literature. The original readers of the Gospels would be sensitive to these parallels.
Likewise, there's nothing gnostic about a God incognito motif, since that, by itself, doesn't select for a particular modality. That's completely consistent with a full-blown Incarnation.
ii) And, no, I'm not suggesting that the "real message" is encoded in winks and nods and little allusions. There's an explicitly high Christology in John, Hebrews, passages in Paul and Revelation. That's more muted in the Synoptic Gospels.
iii) Your prooftexts are counterproductive to unitarianism.. The "Son of Man" alludes to the princely figure in Dan 7:13-14. He comes in the clouds, which is divine insignia. Riding on the cloud chariot is a divine prerogative (e.g. Ps 68:4; Isa 19:1). Classic theophanic imagery.
Likewise, he's the object of "worship" (Dan 7:14), which, as one commentator observes, is an "Aramaic word" that "always has reference to deities" (Duguid, 117).
"Son of God" functions as a divine title in NT Christology.
"But in the case of God and his human Son, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28."
Which overlooks the fact, as one scholar documents, that Paul is using Last Adam typology in that passage. Cf. Gregory Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 261-62.
"At the end of this post, you seem willing to dismiss a whole raft of NT passages which seem to clearly subordinate the man Jesus to his and our God (many of which do not easily yield to the spin that it is a merely functional subordination)."
To the contrary, in OT and NT messianism alike, there's the paradigm of messiah as the heir of God's kingdom. The royal son. The conquering hero.
That dovetails with a limited type of subordination, where the crown prince is temporarily subordinate to the old king. The faithful, dutiful royal son who will some day assume the throne, after vanquishing adversaries of the kingdom.
There's an anthropomorphic aspect to that paradigm, but it combines several fundamental theological metaphors (father/son, king/prince, divine warrior), and it naturally harmonizes the egalitarian passages with the subordinationist passages.
"Christianity was hijacked by the emperor" In a sense, yes. But let's be clear, that this is Theodosius I, who forcibly ended the long post-Nicea controversy, not Constantine, as Da Vinci Code mythology would have it.
ReplyDeletePrimary source quotation here: http://trinities.org/blog/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-6-get-a-date-part-2/
"Actually, the standard liberal view..."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but besides the point. Of course, my view is that John and Paul etc. are fundamentally consistent with the synoptics.
"explicitly high Christology in John, Hebrews, passages in Paul and Revelation"
"High" in a sense, yes - but in a sense wholly compatible with my views. It is amazing how much confusion this recent "high" rhetoric has caused. When Dunn and Hurtado, on the one side, and Bauckham and evangelical apologists on the other, are rallied around this slogan, something has gone wrong, for they profoundly disagree, even while being officially on the "trinitarian" team.
It amazes me when people point to Dan 7 as supporting the deity of Christ. There, God gives *someone else* power, authority, rule - things God has already, and which he can't lack! That there is "theophanic imagery" in this and in other christological passages is wonderful - and is consistent with "fully divine" or two natures christology. Problem is, it's also consistent with biblical unitarian views. What you need, to mount any argument, are claims or features which *only* a fully divine (etc.) person could have. You take a stab at this with worship - but it would seem that the NT refutes this, where "the man Christ Jesus" is worshiped *in addition to* God (Rev 5) and for the glory of God (Phil 2). In contrast, God/YHWH/the Father is not worshiped for the sake of any other. Have addressed worship issues pretty fully here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IPJq1kcDuc
""But in the case of God and his human Son, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28."
Which overlooks the fact, as one scholar documents, that Paul is using Last Adam typology in that passage."
How is that relevant to what I was saying? My point was that Paul seems to hold the subordination to last forever - the one Lord will always be under the one God, his and our God.
"There, God gives *someone else* power, authority, rule - things God has already, and which he can't lack!"
DeleteThat's the nature of royal succession. The transfer of power. Scripture routinely uses royal succession as part of the messianic paradigm. You're blind to the dynastic framework.
"Problem is, it's also consistent with biblical unitarian views."
Not in Scripture.
"What you need, to mount any argument, are claims or features which *only* a fully divine (etc.) person could have."
Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. Everything that's said of Yahweh is said of Jesus. There are no features uniquely reserved for Yahweh in contrast to Jesus. Everything OT monotheism marks out as distinguishing the one true God from rival deities is transferred to Jesus in the NT.
"My point was that Paul seems to hold the subordination to last forever"
Dale, it's the economic role of the Last Adam that's eternally subordinate.
Even in unitarianism, God has different economic roles. These are contingent relations rather than essential relations.
DeleteLikewise, economic roles can be temporary or permanent. A father is always a father, but a husband isn't always a husband (if his wife predeceases him).
Whether functional or not, you agree that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. Well, that was my point. So, your human analogy, with temporary subordination of prince to king, was not a very good one. That was my point, Steve.
DeleteDale, try not to be simpleminded.
Deletei) There are different economic roles that God can and does assume. That's true even on unitarianism. God as Creator, providential sustainer, redeemer, judge. Some of these are temporary, others are eternal.
Hence, an individual can have a subordinate role in one respect but an egalitarian role in another inasmuch as the same individual can assume multiple economic/social roles.
ii) As the divine Son Incarnate, the Son assumes (in a sense resumes) the role of Adam, as the Second or Last Adam. That's naturally subordinate to God because it's a human role. Adam was human. To say the Son qua Last Adam is eternally subordinate to the God hardly makes The Son qua Son eternally subordinate to God.
Yes, you reject the Trinitarian/Incarnational paradigm, but if you're going to attack that paradigm as internally inconsistent, then you need to adopt that viewpoint for the sake of argument. Your unitarian prooftext is entirely consistent with the Son qua Son's coequality with the Father.
Speaking of the Synoptics...
ReplyDeleteJesus is worshipped both before and after His resurrection Matt. 2:11; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52 [cf. John 5:23; John 20:28; John 9:38]. Some instances before the resurrection might plausibly be translated "do/did obeisance" as Unitarians do, but the post-resurrection one's seem to better interpreted as true religious worship. Something which would be uncharacteristic of Second Temple Judaism.
Matthew's use of "ho theos" for Jesus in Matt. 1:23 might plausibly be teaching Christ's full deity given the rest of what Matthew says of Christ.
Matthew has Jesus being greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). How could Jesus claim to be greater than the temple when it's the place were YHVH resides unless God resides in the body of Christ as well [cf. John 1:14]?
Matthew's statement that Jesus is present whenever/wherever two or three gather in His name is an allusion to a famous passage in the Mishnah about the Shekinah glory and presence of YHVH (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2).
Both Matthew and Luke imply that Jesus' "Wings" are YHVH's "Wings".
The Synoptics uniformly teach Jesus' (apparently favorite) self-indentification of being "the Son of Man". As Steve said, that has clear divine implications as many have argued [and which I've argued in brief in one of my blogposts].
Matthew's concluding command to baptize in the Name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit suggests the Trinity. As Steve wrote in a recent blog, to which I added my own comments in the combox. See Dale's excellent interview with Robert Bowman. One of the things I can complement Dale on is his great interviews. Unlike other interviewers, Dale allows the guest to give his full comments with little interruption. Then Dale's latter interactions often get to the heart of the issues.
All three Synoptics quote Isa. 40:3 and/or Mal. 3:1 which originally in reference to YHVH [Mark 1:2,3; Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Matt. 11:10].
Apologist Tony Costa has saidthat Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.
CONT.
The "I have come" sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics is consistent with Christ's preexistence. Though, Dale gave a link to Dunn's critique of Gathercole which made some good points that weakened Gathercole's case [I'd link to Dunn's book review, but I can find the url].
DeleteAll three Synoptics refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in contrast to sins against the Father and Son [Matthew 12; Mark 3; Luke 12]. This implies the personality of the Holy Spirit and that the blasphemy is a sin against Him. I've addressed this issue and how it's consistent with and hints at the Trinity in my blogs [e.g. here, or here].
The Synoptics teach Jesus is the bridegroom of the future church in a way that parallel's YHVH's marriage to Israel. Since the Church is the fulfillment of spiritual Israel, Jesus would seem to be the eschatological fulfillment of YHVH's receiving back His divorced and/or estranged wife.
All three Synoptics teach Jesus is the "Lord of the Sabbath" even though one would think that only YHVH, who instituted the sabbath, could be its Lord [Matt. 12; Mark 2Luke 6].
All three Synoptics have Jesus applying Ps. 110:1 to Himself [Matt. 22; Mark 12; Luke 20]. The Masoretic vowel pointing of "adoni" was standardized after the beginning of the Christian era and so may not be the correct pointing and reading [as non-Messianic Jews would have a vested interest in pointing it "adoni" rather than "adonai"]. But if some Christian apologists are correct that verse 5—which does have "Adonai"—interprets verse 1, then that would imply Jesus is Adonai. See McLatchie's blogposts on Ps. 110:1 HERE and HERE. The second link has my comments in the combox which slightly weakens McLatchie's line of argument. But I make them for the sake of full disclosure.
I've also got a ENTIRE BLOGPOST focused on the VERY HIGH Christology of the Gospel of Mark. I meticulously comb through the entire gospel looking for every possible passage that I can find where Jesus is plausibly being taught to be YHVH. Ignore the text highlighted in yellow which I have to seamlessly trim away in the future. Many of observations I made in Mark can be seen in Matthew and Luke as well (sometimes amplified). Nevertheless, the assumption of Markan Priority enhances their authenticity and earliness in a way that GMatt and GLuke don't. Most scholars think Mark has the lowest Christology of the four Gospels. But I think Marks is definitely higher than Luke, and either equal with or higher than Matthew's. I haven't combed through Matthew like have with Mark and Luke.
Both Matthew and Luke teach Christ to be the future eschatological Judge [e.g. Matt. 19:28; Matt. 25; Luke 22:30; cf. John 5:22]. When one would think that only the omniscient [and therefore all fair/just] and all-authoritative YHVH would or could render such Judgment(s).
CONT.
All three Synoptics teach Jesus can forgive sins [Mark 2, Matt. 9; Luke 5]. Some/all of them refer to Jesus as the Son of Man on earth [presumably in contrast to in heaven as in Dan. 7]. Some/all say that the Jews thought only God could forgive sin, AND that Jesus was blaspheming for presuming to do so.
DeleteAll three Synoptics have Jesus being explicitly [Mark & Matthew] or implicitly [Luke] charged with blasphemy during His trial before the Jewish council and condemned as being worthy of death. The charge most plausibly was the [alleged] blasphemy for claiming to be on par with YHVH and to be the 2nd divine figure in Dan. 7 who was the Son of Man [divinely] "riding the clouds".
More could be said about the high Christology of the Synoptics, but that should do as examples.
Steve wrote: In addition, this has a counterpart in the OT. A "man" might turn out to be an angel, while an angel might turn out to be Yahweh!
There are many passages like that in the OT. For example, the interactions with the Angel of YHVH or the Word of YHVH by Hagar, Manoah, Gideon, Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel, Samuel etc. In some of those passages the entity is called the Angel of YHVH, then also called or predicated to be YHVH a few moments later without the qualifier of "the Angel/Messenger OF". Or it says YHVH looked or turned or had a form as if the Angel were YHVH Himself.
Major typo corrections:
DeleteSomething which would be uncharacteristic of Second Temple Judaism.
Should say something like, "Something which would be uncharacteristic for Second Temple Jews to do if Jesus weren't fully Divine."
The other minor typos can be figured out by the reader without the need for correction.
I've also created a blog based on my commments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect Dale to interact with me because I'm basically repeating what I've shared with him in the past. I'd also like to see Dale focus his attention on Steve's comments.
ReplyDeleteHow is that relevant to what I was saying? My point was that Paul seems to hold the subordination to last forever - the one Lord will always be under the one God, his and our God.
Steve's response to this is all that was needed. Also, Christ forever remains incarnated having both a divine and human nature. In which case he ought to remain incarnationally subordinate to the Father. There are also Trinitarian conceptions which affirm eternal fuctional subordination of the Son which (IMO) doesn't necessarily collapse into ontological subordinationism. Unitarianism cannot fully embrace what John 17:5 teaches about how the Son shared the Father's glory before creation.
Additionally, some Unitarians argue against the fully deity of Christ because His Kingdom ends according to 1 Cor. 15:24. But if we interpret that passage without qualification, then that produces a contradiction between the the Old Testament and New Testament. Since the OT says concerning the Son of Man "his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" [Dan. 7:14]. Isaiah says of the Messiah, "Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this [Isa. 9:7]. So, it seems that it is both the case that Christ's kingdom will and won't end in different senses. It seems likely to me that the termination of the Christ's reign refers to the end of the millennium [whichever millennial view is correct]. But that in another sense Christ continue to reign during the Eternal State. All three major views of the Millennium can account for this termination and continuation.
Problem is, it's also consistent with biblical unitarian views. What you need, to mount any argument, are claims or features which *only* a fully divine (etc.) person could have.
With reference to Dan. 7, I think my arguments (based on Mike Heiser's statments) in my blogpost HERE provides just that.
You take a stab at this with worship - but it would seem that the NT refutes this, where "the man Christ Jesus" is worshiped *in addition to* God (Rev 5) and for the glory of God (Phil 2).
The problem for Unitarianism is that in Rev. 5 ALL [rational] CREATION worships both 1. the one who sits on the throne and 2. the Lamb. Implying the Lamb is not part of creation. Implying the Lamb is not created (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6 where the Father creates through the Son). Also, in Rev. 5 the elders fall down and worship the Lamb even though twice in the same book an angel(s) forbids John to worship them (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9). CONT.
If obeisance is okay for Jesus, so long as one understands full worship is due to the Father alone, why wouldn't it be alright for it to be given to a lower angel? The portrayal of Jewish piety in the New Testament on this issue seems to be stricter than in the OT (probably due to theological development). But the fact that Revelation allows for the worship of Jesus but not the worship of (or likely even obeisance toward) angels suggests Christ's full deity. Especially since Jesus is likely called not only 1. first and last, but also 2. alpha and omega and 3. beginning and end. Also, in Rev. 2:23 Jesus claims to be the person "who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works". This is a clear allusion to Jer. 17:10 where YHVH is the one who claims to do so. In which case, Jesus must be YHVH in some sense. Since He's claiming to be the one who does it.
DeleteRegarding Phil. 2, Paul applies to Jesus Isa. 45:23. Which is arguably the most monotheistic verse of the most monotheistic chapter in all of the Hebrew Scriptures. That would seem to shout the full deity and equality of Christ with the Father (cf. too how Paul apparently includes Jesus in the re-working of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6). For the longest time, even as a Trinitarian, I sided with Unitarians in saying that John 10:30 likely to oneness of purpose and not of being/ontology. I've recently changed my mind and think it leans the other way based on the evidence HERE.
In contrast, God/YHWH/the Father is not worshiped for the sake of any other.
But if Jesus is YHVH along with the Father, then He can be worshipped for His own sake as well. And there are plenty of reasons to think Jesus is predicated to be YHVH in the NT [e.g. Here and my other blogs]. There's also evidence that YHVH is multi-personal in the OT [e.g. Here, Here, and Here].
Annoyed - sorry, but these are so many specious arguments.
ReplyDelete"Implying the Lamb is not part of creation."
That's just not in the sources. Any NT author can say that "all creation" is under the exalted Son, even if the Son was created. Words like "all" are contextual in their meaning. Paul pretty much makes this point about "everything" in 1 Corinthians 15:27.
"If obeisance is okay for Jesus, so long as one understands full worship is due to the Father alone, why wouldn't it be alright for it to be given to a lower angel?"
Doesn't follow does it? Non sequitur.
"But the fact that Revelation allows for the worship of Jesus but not the worship of (or likely even obeisance toward) angels suggests Christ's full deity"
No, only to the trinitarian hint-hunter. The explanation of this is right in the contents of the book, chapter 5. Only Christ has been exalted to God's right hand, in fulfillment of Dan 7 and Ps 110:1. As Larry Hurtado argues, this is why the earliest Christians think Jesus must be worshiped - in obedience to the one God who exalted him.
Re: Phil 2, sorry, you're changing the subject. You're just going back to the now-popular fulfillment fallacy. In many cases, the NT applies a YHWH text to Jesus as fulfiller, but that's not sneaky way of asserting that Jesus is YHWH - they never draw that conclusion. Rather, they are claiming a second meaning, a second fulfillment. This is clear, e.g. in the case of "Immanuel", and just as clear in "make straight the way of the Lord" e.g. Mark 2. Really, this is NT interpretation 101. I don't find this error in any ancient source!
Honestly, your standards are so low for what counts as evidence for the Trinity and for the "full deity" of Jesus, that I would like to hear you state just why, hypothetically, you would count as evidence for *my* sort of christology. What would you expect the scriptures to say, if I were correct?
What would you expect the scriptures to say, if I were correct?
DeleteI would expect Scripture not to blur the lines between Father and Son in terms of appellations, powers, honors, activities, attributes, authority etc. The interpretive grid that (some) Unitarians often use are nowhere in the Scriptures themselves. [Unitarians of course differ on issues like whether Jesus can or can't be worshipped, or to what degree.]
For example, nowhere does the NT explicitly say that OT regulations about only worshipping YHVH and having no other gods before or in addition to Him has been abolished and [actually] reversed(!) such that now there are two gods or being who can be worshipped. Or give instructions as to why this could be.
For example, nowhere in Scripture does it teach believers to grade one's level of worship between Father and Son. Or give instructions how to do that internally/psychologically.
Nowhere does Scripture actually or explicitly say Jesus is only described as YHVH representationally and as a second fulfillment, and isn't actually YHVH despite the ubiquitous application of OT YHVH passages to Him. Why would monotheistic Jews risk such possible idolatry. Why would Jewish apostles risk giving the wrong impression to Gentiles by making it appear that their graded worship in their pantheons should/could simply be transfer over to the Father and Son?
Nowhere does Scripture actually say Jesus wasn't personally preexistent, even though personal preexistence is the natural reading of many passages in the NT such that many [most?] Unitarians affirm it.
Nowhere does Scripture actually say that Jesus wasn't personally involved in creation despite Unitarian explanations as to how Jesus was somehow non-personally and non-preexistently "involved" in it.
Nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly that Jesus really isn't God in the flesh, contrary to the imagery or teaching of John 1:14; 2:19 or Matt. 12:6; 1:23; Col. 1:19, 2:9; Phil. 2; Rom. 9:5.
Nowhere does Scripture actually say that Jesus isn't really the Shekinah glory and presence of God, contrary to Heb. 1; Co. 2:9, 1:19; Matt. 18:20 [as an allusion to Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2].
Nowhere does Scripture explicitly say Jesus isn't fully God when it refers to Him as God [yes, even in Jesus own words in John 10, which Unitarians would natural appeal]. Or that Jesus is less divine than the Father. On the contrary Jesus is taught to be equal to the Father and equally worthy of worship [John 5:18, 23; 10:33].
Drew Lewis gives such examples in his video here: https://youtu.be/idUcmx8tw4g
I became aware of this video because of the recommendation given to it by one of the more well known Unitarian contributors to your Facebook group. Even though he's a Unitarian himself, he appealed to Unitarians to not make the mistakes Drew Lewis highlights and exposes.
In all the above cases (and more), it's the Unitarian interpretations and understandings that need to explain things away. Often contrary to and in absence of Biblical warrant or teaching.