tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6087141492108883899..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: God over all, forever blessedRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32333802109721900752015-11-09T14:05:18.820-05:002015-11-09T14:05:18.820-05:00So Satan is the "god of this world," and...<i>So Satan is the "god of this world," and they held that angels were put over countries.</i><br /><br />Agreed. But Satan works through his demonic cohorts in military or gang-like hierarchical fashion. I don't find Scripture to teach he's globally omnipresent. On the contrary, when asked "From where have you come?," Satan replied, "From going <b>to and fro on the earth</b>, and from <b>walking up and down on it</b>" (Job 1:7).<br /><br /><i>So Jesus, exalted to a higher position than any angel, must also have such powers. Presumably the upgrade in position came with the needed abilities. We may be curious quite how this works, but I guess they were not.</i><br /><br />I agree that God can give extraordinary powers to creatures. My citation of Jesus' ability to do the things He does isn't meant to directly prove He's God. I cite them as indirect evidence since everywhere else in the OT and NT such powers are reserved for Almighty God Himself. They are used as a means of identifying and describing God. Often directly or indirectly saying ONLY God can do those things. In which case, when the NT applies such powers, characteristics, attributes to Jesus, it's only natural for the original recipients of the books (who presumably were steeped in OT theology) to infer Jesus' full divinity. If Jesus isn't being taught to be God, then that would just confuse those recipients by present a contradiction between OT & NT theology and explicit statements.<br /><br />FINISANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69353379382725373432015-11-09T14:03:34.628-05:002015-11-09T14:03:34.628-05:00That you accepting this reading of "homoousio...<i>That you accepting this reading of "homoousios" is why, I think, you go along with the confused evangelical tradition of identifying Jesus with his God (i.e. asserting them to be numerically identical). </i><br /><br />I identify Jesus with God because of both NT and OT reasons. If it weren't for the OT evidences for a plurality in Yahweh, I wouldn't hold to (the meaning) of monoousios. I've collected the OT evidences in my blogpost: <br /><br /><a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/old-testament-passages-implying.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God</b></a> [cf. also my blogposts <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/proving-that-there-is-plurality-in.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> and <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/quotes-from-of-plurality-in-godhead-by.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. Though, now I suspect the "watchers" in Daniel are members of the Divine Council along with the "us" [in "Let US make man in OUR image"] in the opening chapters of Genesis.<br /><br /><i>No, these writers assumed that somehow some angels can influence a wide area.</i><br /><br />Agreed. However, influencing others by broadcasting subliminal thoughts, temptations, fears etc. is one thing. Reading thoughts, hearing silent prayers, answering such prayers simultaneously, <b>upholding the universe by the Word of His power</b> (as Christ does in Heb. 1:3) is something else. Moreover, "in [Christ] all things hold together" (Col. 1:17) and "through [Christ] we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6). The exploits of demons in the book of Daniel, Job, Colossians, Ephesians and the Gospels pale in comparison.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10035843908739383122015-11-09T14:03:13.793-05:002015-11-09T14:03:13.793-05:00The "form of God" needn't be having ...<i>The "form of God" needn't be having the divine essence, but can be read as a paraphrase of "made in God's image and likeness."</i><br /><br />You seem to be saying that the phrases "form of God" and "form of a servant" are both postpartum. However, it's only <i>after</i> Paul uses the phrase "form of a servant" that he says, "<b>being born</b> in the likeness of men." Paul seems to be making a contrast of the two phrases with "being born" the transition point.<br /><br /><i>Whereas Adam tried to grab at equality with God, Jesus declined to. Remember the ethical thrust of the whole thing (see the start of the chapter); Jesus is being held up as our example based on his actions during his human life. </i><br /><br />In context Paul is talking about humility <b>before equals</b>, not humility <b>before a superior</b>. He's talking to Christians in general and how they should treat <b>each other</b>. Christ not grabbing/grasping for God's position which He doesn't inherently possess isn't an act of humility. It's an act of obedience and submission. Only if Jesus actually was equal with God would it be an act of humility. Paul wrote in verse 3, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility <b><b>count</b> others more significant than yourselves</b>." He didn't say, <b>acknowledge</b> others more significant than yourself. To make Paul's analogy work, either 1. Jesus and God are equals, just as fellow Christians are equals; OR 2.God is superior to Jesus, just as some Christians are superior to other Christians.<br /><br /><i>No doctrine is *essential* in the sense of you must believe it to be saved unless it is preached to unbelievers in Acts....</i><br /><br />I don't believe that one must believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. However, I think as Christians grow in their understanding of the Gospel and Scripture that the truly regenerate among professing believers will naturally tend to accept the Trinity.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77327064896303723842015-11-09T14:02:28.927-05:002015-11-09T14:02:28.927-05:00The many " I have come" statements of Je...The many <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/06/pre-existence-of-jesus-in-synoptic.html" rel="nofollow">"<b> I have come</b>" statements of Jesus in the Synoptics suggests a personal preexistence</a>. The fact that 1. so many passages in the NT (from the Synopics, John, Pauline corpus, Hebrews) suggest a personal preexistence and 2. that no NT passage tells us that Jesus was NOT personally preexistent should lead us to favor a personal preexistence (it's the natural reading of those passages). In what other instance in the the Bible is there a preexistence that's not personal? And especially since a strong case could be made that one of the angels of the Yahweh was a very special Angel (messenger) who is probably Christ Himself. This Angel is treated like Yahweh (if not as <i>actually</i> Yahweh) in the OT in a similar fashion as Christ is in the NT. See for example this excerpt of <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-angel-of-lord-by-ew-hengstenberg.html" rel="nofollow">E.W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament on the topic of the Angel of Yahweh</a><br /><br /><i>The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure where those places in the OT that state that Wisdom was created other than Prov. 8. Prov. 8 BTW, was one of the major obstacles in my becoming a Trinitarian over 20 years ago. It's not clear that the <b>im</b>personal "Jesus" is being referred to in Prov. 8. And even if it has Christological significance, wisdom is personified in a way that would suggest an actual <i>personal</i> preexistence as Prov. 30:4. Also, the NT comes on the heels of the intertestamental apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that many times implies the eternality of personified Wisdom, and so counts against a <i>created</i> Wisdom. Scholars dispute whether Micah 5:2 implies an eternal past preexistence of Christ (personal or impersonal). Nevertheless, at the very least the words are consistent with an eternal past. Also, earlier you seemed to agree that John presents the impersonal Logos as <i>eternally</i> with (pros) God. At least that's how many Greek scholars interpret the word "en" in "en arche <b>en</b> o logos." As one scholar put it, "...as far back as you wish to push 'in the beginning,' the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come <i>into</i> existence at the 'beginning,' but is already <i>in</i> existence when the 'beginning' takes place."<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48103783052907158302015-11-09T13:49:52.055-05:002015-11-09T13:49:52.055-05:00In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos i...<i>In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person.</i><br /><br />True, John never EXPLICITLY states the Logos is Jesus. Though, I think 1:17 does imply it in light of John 17:5 and the other verses I cited (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]). These verses don't explicitly state that Jesus was <i>personally</i> preexistent, but I think it's a fair (even strong) inference since there are so many such passages, and because the context often wouldn't make sense if Jesus' wasn't claiming personal preexistence. As you know, my theology is very abductive. Also, scholars in Greek have said that the word "pros" in John 1:1 implies a personal and intimate relationship that's "face to face" (so to speak). While John 1:18 doesn't specifically refer to a preincarnate relationship, it might include it. Christ being in the "bosom" of the Father also implies intimacy and relationship. Jesus' statement in John 8:56-58 that "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" better makes sense of Abraham actually did see/interact with the preexistent personal Christ (probably in reference to the incident in Gen. 18). Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to say before Abraham was I am (or however you'd translate it)" in response to the Jews' question "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" If "Jesus" was only the plan of God conceived in God's mind when Abraham rejoiced to see his day, then there would have been no sense in a before and after. Abraham's very knowledge of a coming messiah would itself be his seeing it. Yet, Jesus distinguishes Abraham's past expectation and his latter experience.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44811232780457981212015-11-09T13:47:48.751-05:002015-11-09T13:47:48.751-05:00Just a few last points:
Thanks for taking time to...<i>Just a few last points:</i><br /><br />Thanks for taking time to interact with me and my arguments. Dialoguing with you has always been intellectually stimulating. These next posts will also be my last. <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-aaronic-blessing-is-highly.html" rel="nofollow"><b>I wish God's blessing be upon you too</b></a>. <br /><br /><i>The "two minds" approach to the incarnation is relatively new, is not what was meant by the catholic tradition...</i><br /><br />My allegiance is to Scripture and truth, not to Catholic tradition. I go along with Catholic, Protestant (et al.) tradition only to the degree that it's Scriptural.<br /><br /><i>If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father....</i><br /><br />My appeal to the two minds view was not specifically to deal with how Jesus could have a God over Him since I don't even think it's necessary to appeal to the incarnation in order to field that objection. Rather, I appealed to the two minds view to anticipate the possible objection that if all three persons of the Trinity are God, then the human Jesus would have to have each person of the Trinity over Him and be obedient to each of the three INCLUDING HIMSELF! <br /><br /><i>If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father, the problem is the God-subject relation is an I-Thou one, a person to person one.</i><br /><br />I'm open to William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland's neo-Apollinarian Christology. They make an interesting case that the traditional view is itself Nestorian in that it posits the person the Son having a human soul. If I understand them correctly, it's the human soul itself what makes a human a person. By replacing the human soul with the mind of the Logos that safeguards against Nestorianism. <br /><br /><i>Thus the bizarre claim that the incarnate Jesus is "man" but not "a man."</i><br /><br />I have no problem calling Jesus "a man." Just not "a <i>MERE</i> man."<br /><br /><i>BTW, your exegesis of John 17:1-3 simply ignores that an identity claim is being made, not a mere description.</i><br /><br />But what of the apparent identity claim of 1 John 5:20? Though, admittedly, it's not clear that Jesus is there called the "true God." But a good (not great) case could be made he is.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3011472242767906552015-11-09T10:11:55.298-05:002015-11-09T10:11:55.298-05:00"My limited understanding of Nicene Monarchis..."My limited understanding of Nicene Monarchism leads me to conclude that they believe that the triad's substances are the same type/species, but that there are actually different substances, and hence beings. Which to me smells like tritheism. That's why I lean away from it even though I find the position intriguing and slightly appealing. Nicene Monarchists, as I understand it, think this might actually be the original position of Nicaea I (325 AD), but that Constantinople I (381 AD) changed the interpretation of homoousios to mean what would be better termed monoousios. "<br /><br />Yes, I've independently come to the same conclusion. "true God from true God" presupposed two who can be called "true God", so (given their assumptions) two with the universal essence of deity - and so co-eternal, excluding the "Arians," which was their aim. But yes, that's two gods - and not the same god. In 381, after a lot of fighting, the view seems to have prevailed that the shared essence is a singular property, this implies that the sharers are one and the same, but they problem is that such singular properties seem to be unshareable by definition; in other words, this seems to imply the identity of the three. That you accepting this reading of "homoousios" is why, I think, you go along with the confused evangelical tradition of identifying Jesus with his God (i.e. asserting them to be numerically identical). An exegetical disaster to be sure; which is, I suggest, why you find the other view tempting. As exegesis, Dr. Larry Hurtado really ripped into this confusion in my second interview with him. (I think he's roughly in what you call the Nicene Monarchist camp.)<br /><br />Finally, about your omnipresence hint-hunting:<br />"And you can leave it at that? Your conscience can rest there? Given Unitarianism, I would have expected the NT authors to given some explanation as to how someone other than Yahweh can display such attributes and powers."<br /><br />No, these writers assumed that somehow some angels can influence a wide area. So Satan is the "god of this world," and they held that angels were put over countries. So Jesus, exalted to a higher position than any angel, must also have such powers. Presumably the upgrade in position came with the needed abilities. We may be curious quite how this works, but I guess they were not. Some unitarians, and also Tom Morris have made the good point that we just don't know what the upper limit on human powers is, i.e. what sort of power and knowledge is consistent with being a human being. We can't just reason from typical examples. <br /><br />I leave you with one last exhortation: explicit, repeated, emphasized statements > perceived allusions and hints. Thanks for the conversation & God bless,<br />DaleDalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44103200043877771662015-11-09T10:11:37.847-05:002015-11-09T10:11:37.847-05:00About my Acts challenge: "where in all of the...About my Acts challenge: "where in all of the speeches in Acts is Jesus portrayed as the logos of John? Or the one who was "in the form of God" in Philippians? Where is any explication of some kind of incarnation? "<br /><br />Annoyed, these should be clues to you that catholic tradition has misread both of those texts. Many have given non-arbitrary, scripturally grounded and convincing readings of both which don't imply that Jesus pre-existed as the Logos. In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person. The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created. It was "with" him then. (Prov 8) Phil 2, when you see that Paul is contrasting Jesus with Adam, doesn't presuppose Jesus's pre-existence (nor does it rule it out). The "form of God" needn't be having the divine essence, but can be read as a paraphrase of "made in God's image and likeness." Whereas Adam tried to grab at equality with God, Jesus declined to. Remember the ethical thrust of the whole thing (see the start of the chapter); Jesus is being held up as our example based on his actions during his human life. <br /><br />I stand by my claims for Acts. No doctrine is *essential* in the sense of you must believe it to be saved unless it is preached to unbelievers in Acts - unless you're willing to say that Luke is incompetent. (I'm not.) I'm not saying that they there preached all that is important and true, or all that a mature believer must believe. But I would like you to see that the "Athanasian" creed is dead wrong in saying that anyone is damned who doesn't believe the catholic speculations about Trinity and the two natures of Jesus.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36770171947299462122015-11-09T10:10:48.591-05:002015-11-09T10:10:48.591-05:00Annoyed, I'm afraid that the strength of your ...Annoyed, I'm afraid that the strength of your arguments is inversely proportional to their volume! Just a few last points:<br /><br />The "two minds" approach to the incarnation is relatively new, is not what was meant by the catholic tradition, and doesn't help with the problem of Jesus having a God over him. If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father, the problem is the God-subject relation is an I-Thou one, a person to person one. So you've now fallen into Nestorianism by having two persons/selves in Jesus - the divine mind/self and the human one. And this just doesn't fit the picture we see in the gospels. <br /><br />Relatedly, I see that like many you're treating "the human nature" as a human self, but that is not what the mainstream tradition says (because the Logos is already a self, and they don't want two). Thus the bizarre claim that the incarnate Jesus is "man" but not "a man." In other words, he can be called "man" because of the mysterious union of the Logos with "a complete human nature" but NOT a man, i.e. a human self. <br /><br />Anyway, you're quite right to be worried about this. If you're not going to count this (straight up assertions that the Father is the god of Jesus) as evidence of unitarian theology, on which the Father alone is the one true God, then you're not going to count anything. BTW, your exegesis of John 17:1-3 simply ignores that an identity claim is being made, not a mere description. Details here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHPKzIGrJkQ but you'll have to watch the earlier parts if you haven't studied any logic. There is a reason why Augustine repeatedly speculated that the "Arians" had changed this verse!<br />Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9593948370521074362015-11-08T12:41:18.980-05:002015-11-08T12:41:18.980-05:00Dale's interpretive approach to Acts could lea...Dale's interpretive approach to Acts could lead to a theology whereby Jesus is merely a human who somehow, (at the very least) was an exalted human; or (at the most) a human who attained a Jewish version of apotheosis-lite (a <a href="https://youtu.be/__pOOOpJ58U" rel="nofollow">diet divinity</a>). <br /><br />In either case, they are both still too Low of a Christology as compared to the rest of the New Testament. And that's even in comparison to NT epistles written much earlier than the gospel of Luke or Acts. Early epistles like Philippians and 1 Corinthians already have a High Christology. <br /><br />There are three possibilities:<br /><br />1. the Christology of the early Church declined in between the time of the writing of Philippians and the writing of Acts.<br /><br />2. Luke misrepresented the early church's teaching<br /><br />or<br /><br />3. my position that, <i>the Acts speeches 1. are merely the gists of their actual speeches, 2. that they were basic because evangelistic (geared toward the ignorant or newbies), and that 3. there is a distinction between milk doctrines and meat doctrines.</i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33378135725135154132015-11-08T12:21:43.126-05:002015-11-08T12:21:43.126-05:00Dale wrote:
Well, read through Acts - there is he...Dale wrote:<br /><br /><i>Well, read through Acts - there is heated, even violent conflict throughout, and yet the gospel there, over and over, neither says nor implies that Jesus is Yahweh. To the contrary, he's Yahweh's messiah who died, and has now been raised and exalted by Yahweh. The theme of the deity of Christ is just not there. Actual, detailed info about early Christian - Jewish disputes must trump your intuitions - sorry!</i><br /><br />AND<br /><br /><i>Here's my challenge to you. Read through all the speeches in Acts where a character presents the gospel. List out all the explicit claims about Jesus and God, etc. Then, step back and observe what Luke thinks the gospel is. See if you can find there that Jesus is God, that he's "fully divine", that he's a member of the Trinity, etc. </i><br /><br />AND<br /><br /><i>I again urge you to take my Acts challenge. It won't due to assert that when preaching publicly, they only gave the basics. On *your* view, the "full deity of Christ* is a basic, and is essential. On my view, it is not. The apostles loudly proclaimed all the essentials. They did not, Gnostic or Mormon or Scientology style, save all the juicy bits for private or in-house teaching only. Again, see whose side Luke is on. He wrote Acts to be read in churches, and was well familiar with the apostles' instruction.</i><br /><br />Dale's statements seem to either prove too little or prove too much. Dale said the speeches recorded in Acts present a fairly complete explication of the Gospel. Or as he put it, "<i>The apostles loudly proclaimed all the essentials.</i>" Yet, where in all of the speeches in Acts is Jesus portrayed as the logos of John? Or the one who was "in the form of God" in Philippians? Where is any explication of some kind of incarnation? Where is the doctrine that all the fullness of deity (or however a Unitarian would translate it) dwells in Christ in bodily form as found in Col. 1:19 & 2:9? Where in Acts is Jesus said or implied to be "...the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..." (Heb. 1:3)? Or said to be the Lord who "laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning" (Heb. 1:10 quoting Ps. 102:25)?<br /><br />My point is that the identity of Jesus isn't fully explicated in the Acts speeches just like I argued. I argued that the Acts speeches 1. are merely the gists of their actual speeches, 2. that they were basic because evangelistic (geared toward the ignorant or newbies), and that 3. there is a distinction between <b>milk</b> doctrines and <b>meat</b> doctrines. I also denied a gnostic secret knowledge among Christians.<br /><br />If the Acts speeches are basically complete explications of the Gospel, then the book of Acts contradicts the rest of the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke (of which Acts is volume 2)!!! That's why I think Dale's statements either prove too little or too much.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43036346222476403652015-11-08T09:27:48.063-05:002015-11-08T09:27:48.063-05:00Oliver Crisp mentions the two minds view of the in...Oliver Crisp mentions the two minds view of the incarnation in passing in this 10 minute interview <a href="http://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-the-christian-incarnation#video-2072" rel="nofollow"><b>HERE</b></a><br /><br />Thomas Morris addresses the two minds view in his book <i>The Logic of God Incarnate</i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27213948139424805932015-11-07T21:20:11.448-05:002015-11-07T21:20:11.448-05:00OOPS. I cued the video incorrectly.I think the rig...<b>OOPS. I cued the video incorrectly.</b>I think the right time is 1 hour, nine minutes and 21 second.<br /><br /><a href="https://youtu.be/ZWaPA52sa2Q?t=1h9m21s" rel="nofollow"><b>HERE IS THE DIRECT LINK</b></a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11639072274991196472015-11-07T21:12:43.807-05:002015-11-07T21:12:43.807-05:00The video link above is already cued up to 1 hour ...The video link above is already cued up to 1 hour and 33 minutes. Craig appeals to (what I would assume is) the Dual Minds view 1 minute and 10 seconds after the cued up video. Here's a <a href="https://youtu.be/ZWaPA52sa2Q?t=1h33m9s" rel="nofollow"><b>DIRECT LINK</b></a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52757161103663804402015-11-07T21:02:46.094-05:002015-11-07T21:02:46.094-05:00Dale seems to reject an appeal to the incarnation ...Dale seems to reject an appeal to the incarnation to explain how Jesus can have a God not based on it being false, but because of it being incoherent. But I don't see how it is. Setting aside the truth and falsity of Trinitarianism for a moment, if we accepted Trinitarianism hypothetically for the sake of argument, can it make sense that Jesus is God and still have a God over him? I think so. How? Well, think about it. If there are three persons who eternally share the one being of God and one of the persons took on a human nature (without ceasing to be God), and if it is the duty of humans to obey and worship God, then that second person ( as a human and in order to consistently be human, which Christ would want to do per Phil. 2) would naturally have God over Him. The Father would be over Him. While the Holy Spirit is not said to be "over" Christ, Christ nevertheless was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1) and led by the Spirit (Luke 2:27) and operated by the direction (Luke 4:1; Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12) , authority and power (Luke 4:14) of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:28; Acts 10:38; Luke 4:18). Trinitarians interprets Paul's teaching to keep in step with the Holy Spirit as a form of obedience to the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:25 cf. Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6; 20:28). Jesus seemed to do the same thing. In which case, it would be a form of obedience to the Holy Spirit. Some might object and say that this would entail that Jesus would have to be submitted to Himself too since He's a divine person as well (along with the Father and Holy Spirit). But that's not difficult to understand even in terms of a mere human. Humans quote Shakespeare's statement all the time, "This above all: to thine own self be true" (Hamlet Act 1, Scene 3). In Christ's case, some Trinitarian theologians postulate a dual mind view of Christ that can account for Christ's non-omniscience as to His human nature. I think this dual mind's view can also be appealed to to explain how Christ's human mind could be subservient to and obey His divine mind. William Lane Craig seems to hold to this view (or at least he's mentioned it a few times in his lectures). He seems to have appealed to it in his debate against some Muslim apologist. Probably the one vs. Yusuf Ismail.<br /><br />Identifying Jesus: Is He Man or Both Man and God? William Lane Craig vs. Yusuf Ismail <br /><a href="https://youtu.be/ZWaPA52sa2Q?t=1h33m9s" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/ZWaPA52sa2Q?t=1h33m9s</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56405409122509263632015-11-07T20:03:23.883-05:002015-11-07T20:03:23.883-05:00With the assumption of ET, I think it's possib...With the assumption of ET, I think it's possible to account for how Jesus can be fully God and still nevertheless be truly God's offspring in a way better than Unitarians. Unitarians like to emphasize Christ as God's Son. But in actuality, they don't really believe that. Often, (but not always) they hold to an Arian-like or Semi-Arian like understanding of Christ's nature. If they are asked what kind of nature does Christ has in comparison to God the Father? Here are some possibilities. One can say Christ's "divine" nature is totally different (or *other*) than the Fathers, like the Arians did (heteroousios). That's why they believed Christ was created virtually from and out of nothing. There's no substantial or essential connection between the two. Or one can say Christ's nature is very *similar* or *like* that of the Father's, but not the exact same type, like the Semi-Arians (homoiousios). Or one can say that Christ's nature is the same type of substance as the Father's, as the Nicene orthodoxy teaches (homoousios). If Unitarians want to seriously and consistently assert that Jesus is God's true Son, then they have to admit that Jesus' nature is homoousios. But, AFAIK, Unitarians cannot consistently hold to homoousios. In which case, they can't consistently claim Jesus is God's true, proper and Son/offspring with the exact same nature as His Father. Even though, in semitic cultures it was understood that kind begets kind, like begets like. The Jews understood this based on Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25 where each species produces offspring "according to their kind." Since, God the Father's nature is eternal, and Jesus has the same nature as God, therefore Jesus' nature is eternal. How can this be? I explain one way in my blogpost titled, <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-true-and-proper-son-of-god.html" rel="nofollow"><b>"Jesus the True and Proper SON of God"</b></a> There's no room in this blogpost to explain how.<br /><br />BTW, I think Nicene Monarchists are right in saying that homoousios is nowadays interpreted by some Trinitarians as "of ONE substance" rather than the original meaning of "of SAME substance" and that a better term that those forms of Trinitarian<b>isms</b> might use is "<b>mono</b>ousios." My limited understanding of Nicene Monarchism leads me to conclude that they believe that the triad's substances are the same type/species, but that there are actually different substances, and hence beings. Which to me smells like tritheism. That's why I lean away from it even though I find the position intriguing and slightly appealing. Nicene Monarchists, as I understand it, think this might actually be the original position of Nicaea I (325 AD), but that Constantinople I (381 AD) changed the interpretation of homoousios to mean what would be better termed monoousios. I favor this latter Trinitarian interpretation (which most Evangelicals hold). So, I vote for Evangelicals starting to use the term monoousios because it better expresses what we believe and better affirms the Unity of God and the full deity of the Son and Holy Spirit.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70214346847538094132015-11-07T20:00:13.329-05:002015-11-07T20:00:13.329-05:00These next few posts will probably be my last comm...These next few posts will probably be my last comments on this blogpost.<br /><br />I have a few more things to say regarding the Father being God over Christ. Dale was quick to reject an appeal to the incarnation to explain how Jesus could have a God. But it's interesting that (AFAIK) in every place where Jesus is said to have a God over Him it's post incarnation. Even the prophecy in Ps. 45:6-7<br /><br />6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; 7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. <b>Therefore God, your God</b>, has anointed you with the oil of gladness <b>beyond your companions</b>;- Ps. 45:6-7<br /><br />This is a messianic psalm about the future Davidic King. In which case it's about the human Messiah. The companions are probably a reference to the Davidic King's entourage. BTW, though this is a prophecy of David's human descendant, verse 6 might hint at the the essential divinity/deity of this person by calling <i>this</i> "God's" throne one that's forever and ever. [N.B. most scholars I know reject the translation "God is thy throne," nevertheless even if that's the correct translation it doesn't negatively affect Trinitarianism since it would be like pulling a grain rice from a large heap of rice. The sorites paradox doesn't apply yet.] Notice too that the Messiah's throne is everlasting/eternal ("forever and ever") even though Unitarians like to emphasize the fact that the messiah's reign will end when He hands over the Kingdom to His Father. Again, the point is that in this passage Jesus has a God AFTER His incarnation. I accept an appeal to the incarnation to explain how Jesus can be God and still have a God over Him. But for the sake of argument, I'll make my Trinitarian defense more difficult by setting aside that appeal. Let's say that doesn't work, how can Trinitarianism still be defended? This bring me to my next point.<br /><br />I want to make explicit what I implied in a previous comment. In human kingdoms it is possible for a king to have a son (the prince) who is also the king (i.e. in a coregency; examples of which exist in the OT). His reign, rule and authority is equal to that of his father's so long as he properly represents and carries out his father's will. <b>The fact that the son is just as much a king as his father doesn't deny the fact that the father is still nevertheless king over his son. Yet, both are equally royalty. Similarly, Jesus can be fully God and still have God the Father over Him as His God.</b><br /><br />A Unitarian response might be that I'm proving too much because the analogy breaks down since fathers exist before their sons. And Jesus is called "SON of God" more often than God. When applied to Christ, that would imply Christ began to exist at some point in time, yet Trinitarians reject that idea. There is where Trinitarians will have disagreements among themselves. Some affirm a doctrine of eternal generation (ET), while others don't. I understand and sympathize with those who reject ET. They're trying to safeguard Christ's full deity, aseity and status as autotheos, unoriginate and ingenerate. I'm open to that position, but I lean toward some doctrine of ET.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76366432975106750312015-11-07T15:33:16.641-05:002015-11-07T15:33:16.641-05:00BTW, I've heard that scholars suspect that the...BTW, I've heard that scholars suspect that the author of John reserved the word "son" (υιος) for Christ, while he used the word for "child/children" in reference to believers. Probably because he wanted to emphasize the difference between Christ's divine Sonship and the childrenhood of adopted believers. [The KJV translates John 1:12-13, and 1 John 3:1-2 with the word "sons" though the underlying word is not [AFAIK] a form of υιος but τέκνα.]<br /><br />The only exception in the Johannine corpus that I'm aware of is Rev. 21:7. But it's not clear that the Father is speaking rather than the Son, and we know that Jesus wasn't hesitant to call some people "son" or τεκνον (Matt. 9:2). So, admittedly, the scholarly suspicion doesn't fully match the textual evidence.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66502191104773863832015-11-07T15:28:55.462-05:002015-11-07T15:28:55.462-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75133108003572252292015-11-07T13:52:49.352-05:002015-11-07T13:52:49.352-05:00Both Arnold Fruchtenbaum (see lecture three in thi...Both Arnold Fruchtenbaum (see <a href="http://misclane.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-life-of-messiah-21-audio-lectures.html" rel="nofollow">lecture three in this series</a>) and David H. Stern (writer of the <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/footnotes.html#2" rel="nofollow">Jewish New Testament Commentary</a>) believe in using <a href="http://misclane.blogspot.com/2014/06/does-new-testament-quote-old-testament.html" rel="nofollow">PaRDeS</a> to interpret the New Testament.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71308107582678380062015-11-07T13:38:50.526-05:002015-11-07T13:38:50.526-05:00Did this title "Son of God" mean that he...<i>Did this title "Son of God" mean that he was God? No - see 27:43.</i><br /><br />I've addressed that in my blogpost titled, <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-true-and-proper-son-of-god.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Jesus the True and Proper SON of God</b></a>.<br /><br /><i>Not likely! But the hint-hunters never tire. </i><br /><br />In Matthew 13:10 it says, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."<br /><br />Then he ends his string of parables with the following:<br /><br />And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old."- Matt. 13:52<br /><br />So, "hint hunting" is not only Jewish, it's historical, it's Biblical and even Dominical (i.e. from the Lord Jesus).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79205675037868677422015-11-07T13:38:18.553-05:002015-11-07T13:38:18.553-05:00Actually, we don't get the "omni" pa...<i>Actually, we don't get the "omni" part at all, do we?</i><br /><br />That's why I wrote "God-like" rather than say only God can have apparent omnipresence. Sure, theoretically God could endow a creature with the power of near and apparent (but not absolute) omnipresence. But my point was that that kind of language in the OT was reserved for God alone. Hence, Jesus' appropriating a similar (if not also exact) attribute strongly hints at a claim to deity.<br /><br />23 "Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away?24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.- Jer. 23:23-24<br /><br />7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!- Ps. 139:7-8<br /><br />"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!- 1 Kings 8:27<br /><br /><i>And...? Perhaps you assume, I speculate, that only God himself (or a fully divine being) can be invisibly "with" a scattered church? Just another assumption, it seems, with nothing that can be said for it, beyond its utility in arguing for catholic views.</i><br /><br />And you can leave it at that? Your conscience can rest there? Given Unitarianism, I would have expected the NT authors to given some explanation as to how someone other than Yahweh can display such attributes and powers. To even hear the prayers of all believers simultaneously and answer them. But we have no explanation coming from them. On the contrary, wherever we turn we see them applying OT passages of Yahweh to Jesus (e.g. Eph. 4:8 and Ps. 68:18).<br /><br /><i>Because as God's anointed, the presence and power of God are in him, and in a greater way. The Temple, he knows, will soon pass away. But he will rule forever.</i><br /><br />Where is THAT explanation in the NT? Besides, the NT also identifies Jesus as the New Temple of the New Covenant. The Word became flesh and "taburnacled/dwelt" among us (John 1:14). My interpretation fits better overall (cf. Rev. 21:3; Matt. 1:23). <br /><br /><i>This misunderstands the whole ancient practice of putting god-names into people names. It was not meant to imply that the person was that deity. Also, note the other way of rendering "Immanuel": God *is* with us. The name isn't a description meaning "God, who is with us". It's rather a way of honoring, by naming a child after, the God who was then still with Israel. This is why no one inferred the deity of that baby in the time of Isaiah who was the first fulfillment of the prophecy. </i><br /><br />Agreed. I think I anticipated and addressed most of that response in my <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/matthew-123-and-ho-theos.html" rel="nofollow">blogpost on the topic</a>. Though, I'm going to need to expand on it. I think Matthew saw Jesus' incarnation is a greater, fuller and ultimate fufillment of the prophecy. Though, he didn't explicitly state that Jesus is Almighty God because it would have offended away his intended Jewish audience. The intention of Matthew was probably that after repeated reading his Gospel people would come to Trinitarian-like conclusions. I think that's true of Mark as well since there are so many apparent <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/footnotes.html#2" rel="nofollow"><b>r'mazim</b></a> (i.e. hint, from the Jewish interpretive method of PaRDeS which many Hebrew Christian scholars claim Matthew wrote in [e.g. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, one of the fathers of the modern Messianic Jewish movement]).<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29996696281106425852015-11-07T13:37:44.825-05:002015-11-07T13:37:44.825-05:00I am tell [sic, "telling"?] you that in ...<i>I am tell </i>[<i>sic</i>, "telling"?]<i> you that in every case, you have no warrant, scriptural or otherwise, for the first.</i><br /><br />6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "<b>I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god</b>. 7 <b>Who is like me?</b> Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.- Isa. 44:6-7<br /><br />Yahweh says HE is "the First and the Last" and besides Him there is no god like Him. He even says, "WHO IS LIKE ME?" Well, Jesus is like God, why didn't Isaiah make room for Jesus or mention Him? God inspired Isaiah to exclude anything less than absolute deity to be "like God" in that sense of being First and Last. Yet, Jesus repeatedly claims that title.<br /><br />1 Kings 8:39 states that Yahweh alone "knows every human heart." Of course Yahweh can reveal to other beings or possibly enable other beings to read hearts. But the inherent ability to do so is a Divine prerogative. Yet Jesus claims the same in Rev. 2:23. Above I argued for why Jesus appears to claim to be the Yahweh of Jer. 17:10 cf. Ps. 62:12.<br /><br />In Isaiah 44:24 Yahweh states He created the heavens and earth ALONE. Yet, we know the NT teaches Jesus participated in creation. Either that's a direct contradiction, or Jesus is Yahweh in some sense. Either in a Modalistic or Trinitarian sense.<br /><br />Yahweh says in Isa. 45:23 "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance." Yet, that's applied to Jesus in Phil. 2. Obviously, as the human messiah Jesus represents Yahweh. However, in virtually all the places where Jesus is identified with Yahweh, is there no qualification by a NT author saying, "Oh, and by the way, you know I'm only saying this with the assumption that Jesus only represents Yahweh, but isn't actually Yahweh Himself, right?" On the contrary, the identification seems to be explicit. For example, OT concept of "the Day of the LORD/Yahweh" is freely applied to Jesus in the phrase "the Day of the Lord/kurios." As you know, I've cited many <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html" rel="nofollow"><b>MORE SIMILAR HERE</b></a>. <br /><br />I could go on, but I'll leave it there.<br /><br /><i>Your view seems to require the gospel to be lost c. 100 - 381.</i><br /><br />Not at all. Firstly, Greater theological clarification was necessary as more ontological questions were posed/raised by believers and heretics. That's why I can accept the genuine salvation of many of the ante-Nicene fathers even though their Christology and pneumatology didn't rise to the level of Nicene-Constantinopolitan theology. It would be analogous to the ethical question of whether cloning is permissible. The question didn't arise until the late 20th century because the technology wasn't possible previously. Similarly, when new theological questions are raised further distinctions need to be made as well.<br /><br />Secondly, even the Post-apostolic and ante-Nicene fathers disagreed among themselves regarding Christology and pneumatology. There wasn't absolute consensus. There was even contradiction among themselves (and even in a single father's earlier and latter works; thus contradicting himself). Greater clarification was necessary and that's why there was theological debate for those first few centuries.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68740333179114689212015-11-07T13:35:27.559-05:002015-11-07T13:35:27.559-05:00You're right to sense that your original answe...<i>You're right to sense that your original answer re Jesus having a god was not adequate.</i><br /><br />I never intended for my previous answer to be exhaustive. Also, my second response about the difference between the Fatherhood/Godhood of the Father over believers and Jesus is an old response. I remember hearing it over 20 years ago (I think on the Bible Answerman show).<br /><br /><i>But the idea of a god being god of / over himself is just nonsense.</i><br /><br />Even in some types of modalism that would made sense. But as a Trinitarian, I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would say that the person of the Father is God over the person of Jesus in some sense. Either on account of the incarnation and/or functional subordination within the immanent Trinity.<br /><br /><i>But not when it comes to the monotheistic concept of a god; this one is by definition the highest authority. </i><br /><br />I addressed that in my above comments about human kings and their sons being both king in a coregency. I don't see why the same thing cannot apply to Godhood.<br /><br /><i>Well, of course, those are titles given to God. But you're assuming, again with no reason other than it fits your theory, that they can *only* be used of God, and never also used for another.......In any case, I think the NT refutes you there, they're used for Jesus too.</i><br /><br />Your view is nearly non-falsifiable. Almost all titles and attributes are attributed to Christ, yet that does't phase Unitarians!!! Only a few titles/descriptions may not. Unitarians would cite the phrase "only true God" (John 17:3). However, a case could be made that Jesus is called "the only true God" in John 5:20. Though, it's not decisive, Unitarians should take that into consideration similar to how "kurios" is used of Christ in ways suggestive of the tetragrammaton being applied to Christ. Though, of course in many cases it's not conclusive since "kurios" can refer to lesser "lords" as well. BTW, I've gathered some scholarly quotes in defense of Jesus being called "only true God" in my <a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/concerning-1-john-520-from-trinity.html" rel="nofollow">BLOGPOST HERE</a>. Another example Unitarians might cite is the fact that Jesus is never called or identified as the "Father". Well, of course. In Trinitarianism the Son couldn't be called the Father because they are different persons. So, that doesn't count against Trinitarianism. Nevertheless, while the Son cannot be called the "Father" intra-Trinitarianly and sans creation, the Son is called "Father" in terms of creation in Isa. 9:6 ("Everlasting Father").<br /><br /><i>This is why I remarked either that you seem to have shirk-like concerns.</i><br /><br />Yes, I do have shirk like concerns. It's Biblical (both in the OT and NT). And I say that even though I believe in Heiser's Divine Council of "gods" hypothesis.<br /><br />CONT.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49755091634056455372015-11-07T11:25:11.745-05:002015-11-07T11:25:11.745-05:00"1. Matthew 12:6 has Jesus saying, "I te..."1. Matthew 12:6 has Jesus saying, "I tell you, something greater than the temple is here." How can Jesus say about Himself that He's greater than the temple when the temple is where the presence of Almighty God is "located"."<br /><br />Because as God's anointed, the presence and power of God are in him, and in a greater way. The Temple, he knows, will soon pass away. But he will rule forever.<br /><br />"3. Jesus is called Emmanuel in Matt. 1:23. Matthew himself states that the name means, "God with us.""<br /><br />It always surprises me when trinitarians bring this up. This misunderstands the whole ancient practice of putting god-names into people names. It was not meant to imply that the person was that deity. Also, note the other way of rendering "Immanuel": God *is* with us. The name isn't a description meaning "God, who is with us". It's rather a way of honoring, by naming a child after, the God who was then still with Israel. This is why no one inferred the deity of that baby in the time of Isaiah who was the first fulfillment of the prophecy. <br /><br />You want to know what Matthew's point about Jesus is? He takes all the guesswork out of it: Matthew 16:16. Then in case you missed it: Matthew 27:11, 22, 37, 40, 43, 54. Did this title "Son of God" mean that he was God? No - see 27:43.<br /><br />Does the author then, in the second to last verse in the book, drop the bomb that Jesus is actually 1/3 of God, or one of three "persons" sharing the divine ousia? Not likely! But the hint-hunters never tire. Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.com