tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1691411357390864160..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Composition fallacyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81163229462600239292017-05-02T23:59:24.453-04:002017-05-02T23:59:24.453-04:00You're making the right sort of argument: what...<i>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. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-claim-to-be-temple-of-god-proves.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity</a>]<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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].<br /><br />I could go on, but that should suffice.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11517634841325551652017-05-02T23:53:05.905-04:002017-05-02T23:53:05.905-04:00The two reasons you give for your expectation abov...<i>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><br /><br />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 <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/romans-95-and-christs-deity.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Romans 9:5 HERE</b></a>, and <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/concerning-1-john-520-from-trinity.html" rel="nofollow"><b>1 John 5:20 HERE</b></a>). 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 <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/revelation-2212-13-and-deity-of-christ.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Rev. 22:12-13 HERE</b></a>). 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).<br /><br /><i>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."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-594328998833808102017-05-02T23:52:07.536-04:002017-05-02T23:52:07.536-04:00Paul is exploiting a pre-existing, wider, Gentile ...<i>Paul is exploiting a pre-existing, wider, Gentile distinction between higher deities ("gods") and lower deities ("lords").</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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<br /><br />Notice the parallel:<br /><br />Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, <b>singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs</b>, with thankfulness in your hearts <b><i>to God</i></b>.- Col. 3:16 ESV<br /><br />addressing one another in <b>psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing</b> and making melody <b><i>to the Lord</i></b> with your heart,- Eph. 5:19 ESV<br /><br />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.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59193285056177234512017-05-02T22:17:52.552-04:002017-05-02T22:17:52.552-04:00I realize I didn't complete my point above. I ...I realize I didn't complete my point above. I wrote above:<br /><br /><i>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).</i><br /><br />To continue:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />None of this (and the other data I've collected on <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow"><b>my blog</b></a>) fits well with Unitarianism. Rather, it fits better with Trinitarianism. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16506951973949246472017-05-02T22:03:32.317-04:002017-05-02T22:03:32.317-04:00"if the NT authors were Unitarians it seems t..."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"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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. Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38598351862891781192017-05-02T21:55:49.557-04:002017-05-02T21:55:49.557-04:00No NT term was then understood to mean the tripers...<i>No NT term was then understood to mean the tripersonal God. This is just a fact about the terminology of that era.</i><br /><br />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 <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/09/all-three-persons-of-trinity-mentioned.html" rel="nofollow">SOOO many triadic passages in the OT and [especially] NT is also evidence for some form of Trinitarianism</a>. <br /><br />Some of my blogposts that might help Unitarians see the plausibility of Trinitarianism include:<br /><br /><a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/old-testament-passages-implying.html" rel="nofollow">http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/old-testament-passages-implying.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html" rel="nofollow">http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/09/all-three-persons-of-trinity-mentioned.html" rel="nofollow">http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/09/all-three-persons-of-trinity-mentioned.html</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12084868355003446252017-05-02T21:50:54.647-04:002017-05-02T21:50:54.647-04:00Unfortunately, no "meat" re: the NT usag...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. :-) Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47630405792573398162017-05-02T21:23:22.287-04:002017-05-02T21:23:22.287-04:00As I've said before, if the NT authors were Un...<br />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 <a href="http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/" rel="nofollow">Divine Council that Michael Heiser has reminded the Christian Church</a> 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.<br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br /> 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<br /><br />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<br /><br />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]).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13440529086443724672017-05-02T21:23:07.440-04:002017-05-02T21:23:07.440-04:00No NT term was then understood to mean the tripers...<i>No NT term was then understood to mean the tripersonal God. This is just a fact about the terminology of that era.</i><br /><br />But as <a href="http://answeringislam.net/authors/rogers/ot_trinity.html" rel="nofollow">Anthony Rogers has pointed out</a>, "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."<br /><br />Moreover, God is spoken of in the OT in various plural ways. As <a href="http://answeringislam.net/authors/rogers/genesis_1_26_trinitarian.html" rel="nofollow">Anthony Rogers says in one of his articles</a>:<br /><br /><i>When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives for God.</i><br /><br />Meaning, <i>plural</i> nouns, <i>plural</i> pronouns, <i>plural</i> verbs, <i>plural</i> adverbs, and <i>plural</i> adjectives for God.<br />Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:<br /><br />1. Plural Verbs<br /><br />o Genesis 20:13<br />English Translation: God caused me to wander<br />Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם<br />Literally: They caused me to wander<br /><br />o Genesis 35:7<br />English Translation: God appeared<br />Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם<br />Literally: They appeared<br /><br />o 2Samuel 7:23<br />English Translation: God went<br />Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם<br />Literally: They went<br /><br />o Psalms 58:12<br />English Translation: God that judges<br />Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם<br />Literally: Gods that judge<br /><br />2. Plural Adjectives<br /><br />o Deuteronomy 5:26<br />English Translation: living God<br />Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום<br />Literally: Living Gods8<br /><br />o Joshua 24:19<br />English Translation: holy God<br />Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם<br />Literally: Holy Gods<br /><br />3. Plural Nouns<br /><br />o Ecclesiastes 12:1<br />English Translation: thy Creator<br />Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ<br />Literally: Creators<br /><br />o Isaiah 54:5<br />English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband<br />Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ<br />Literally: Makers, Husbands9<br /><br />o Malachi 1:6<br />English Translation: Master<br />Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם<br />Literally: Masters10<br /><br />o Daniel 7:18<br />English Translation: Most High<br />Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן<br />Literally: Most High Ones<br /><br />footnotes:<br />8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”<br />9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”<br />10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form. <br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com