Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Monday, 13 November 2017
Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God
Video also uploaded here
Paul and the Synoptics had never regarded Jesus as God; the very idea would have horrified Paul who, before his conversion, had been an exceptionally punctilious Pharisee. They all used the term ‘Son of God’ in the conventional Jewish sense: Jesus had been an ordinary human being commissioned by God with a special task. Even in his exalted state, there was, for Paul, always a clear distinction between Jesus kyrios Christos and God, his Father. The author of the Fourth Gospel , however, depicted Jesus as a cosmic being, God’s eternal ‘Word’ (logos) who had existed with God before the beginning of time. This high Christology seems to have separated these congregations from other Jewish Christian communities. [Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood, Religion and the History of Violence, The Bodley Head, 2014 p129]
Tuesday, 26 September 2017
Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians
Geza Vermes speaks of Jesus as a ‘lover and worshipper of his Father in heaven’ , whose transformation into an object of worship ‘would have filled this Galilean Hasid with stupefaction, anger and deepest grief’ (Vermes 1983:13) [Cambridge Companion to Jesus Edited by Markus Bockmuehl – Cambridge University Press – 2001]
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Sunday, 25 June 2017
Pastor Steven Anderson: Deacon fired from Faithful Word Baptist Church for rejecting the Trinity
Tyler Baker. TD JAKES. Oneness.
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Sunday, 7 May 2017
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Video also uploaded here
The same obviously can be said of Jesus and his disciples: they had no knowledge of the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine was a construct that came about through later philosophy – it came about after Nicaea.
My questions to Sam have to be, why has he not rejected the Trinity belief? If he has, is he willing to go on public record? I understand he was racially abused for simply teaching the Bible’s age of consent but if Sam is consistent and has rejected the Trinity doctrine along with Limited atonement then he should be brave enough to make this known.
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
I am not sure whether there is something in Dr James White’s claim of Sam Shamoun repudiation of Limited Atonement theology was out of spite following Sam’s acrimonious break-up with James. We can’t be sure although Sam has previous form. Sam has publicly stated a Muslim, many years ago, who embarrassed Sam and attacked Christianity was a springboard for his anti-Islam polemics, which have now occupied decades of his life, so there is something in Sam’s character where his theology is moved by emotion – specifically negative emotions.
In British churches there is, as Dr Joseph Shaw speaks of, an emasculation of men in churches and I would hazard this makes many prone be excessively emotional. In the churches/church groups that I visit I do feel some men in those churches do seem to more feminised/emasculated than average British men.
Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?
Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.
On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]
And John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?
Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?
And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?
Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.
Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:
If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen]
Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?
Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.
On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]
And John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?
Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?
And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?
Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.
Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:
If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen]
The same obviously can be said of Jesus and his disciples: they had no knowledge of the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine was a construct that came about through later philosophy – it came about after Nicaea.
My questions to Sam have to be, why has he not rejected the Trinity belief? If he has, is he willing to go on public record? I understand he was racially abused for simply teaching the Bible’s age of consent but if Sam is consistent and has rejected the Trinity doctrine along with Limited atonement then he should be brave enough to make this known.
Why Islam
Friday, 5 May 2017
Sam Shamoun: James White Has A Shallow Understanding of the Old Testament
Has Sam Shamoun ever thought the idea of the Trinity is not mentioned in the Old Testament hence why folks like James White do not try to use the Old Testament to argue for the Trinity doctrine?
Perhaps they know they will get mocked by people who have some knowledge in this field if they do argue like Sam Shamoun.
Bart Ehrman Mocks an argument which Nabeel Qureshi uses for the Trinity idea
Also uploaded here
Shocking: Nabeel Qureshi's Arguments for the Trinity Exposed by Dale Tuggy Clips
Also uploaded here
James White would lose credibility if he tries to argue for the Trinity idea from the Old Testament. No serious-minded and informed listener would find those arguments convincing.
Andy Bannister rebuked
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability
Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban
A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges
Monday, 6 March 2017
Jonanthan McLatchie Should Convert to Islam
Jonathan McLatchie should pronounce Shahada. Jonathan was asking for proof that calling Jesus Yahweh is heresy according the Trinitarian orthodox church. Jonathan has said he will convert to Islam if proof of this can be found.
What I can do is tell you Trinitarian Christians, according to their theology, technically cannot say Jesus is Yahweh
Jesus cannot technically be called Yahweh in a Trinitarian church tradition as Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity who took on human flesh (Jesus = Son + Human Flesh). That's not Yahweh in their tradition. Thus according to his church tradition, he cannot call Jesus Yahweh. It would be considered incorrect theological terminology - thus heretical.
Jonathan said "God [Yahweh] worked through Jesus". According to Trinitarian theology, it's correct for Trinitarians to distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh as Jesus is not Yahweh because Jesus is considered to be the Son + Human Flesh. Before the birth of Jesus 2000 years ago, Jesus did not exist according to their theology but Yahweh did exist as three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yahweh is not Jesus according to their theology.
Video ft. Jonathan McLatchie, Paul Williams and Bart Erhman
This video is also uploaded here and here
A response from Mark Bennett
Yahya said: "my point is Jesus = son + human nature". I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here. Jesus is not the name of a 'person + human nature' but the name given to a person when he began to inhabit that nature or when he obtained and took upon human form. Jesus was the name given to the person/self possessing a human nature.
For example upon death when our bodies become corpses and begin to rot and decay, when we simply exist as as pure spirit, we will not cease to have our personal identity (including our names), rather even without our physical body we will still be identified as we were on earth, simply as us (e.g. Yahya and Mark). Jesus is the name given (upon birth) to a PERSON (the Son) having a human nature, not to a nature itself. As technically speaking we are not materialists, when we look at a corpse, we don't believe the corpse of a beloved one (e.g. lets call him say: "Jacob") that body (corpse) is Jacob, rather we the believe that is the body of (belonging/belonged to) Jacob, but Jacob is now absent from the body. Hence the divine person (the Son of the Father) who upon birth is given the name Jesus is eternal. Jesus is eternal, his physical body is not.
The human nature belonging to Jesus is created. Finally I'm not sure if Yahya understood Jonathan's challenge. As you said: "Jonathan was asking for proof that calling Jesus Yahweh is heresy ACCORDING (to ~ MB) THE TRINITARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH". ("Orthodox Trinitarian Churches"). However Yahya what you provide is not proof that the statement and/or belief "Jesus is Yahweh" is heresy according to *any* Orthodox Trinitarian Church, rather you provide an ARGUMENT: "What I can do is tell you Trinitarian Christians, according to THEIR THEOLOGY, TECHNICALLY CANNOT SAY Jesus is Yahweh" and: "Jesus CANNOT TECHNICALLY be called Yahweh in a Trinitarian church tradition". After making (what you think) are logical inferences you then conclude: "That's not Yahweh in their tradition. Thus according to his church tradition, he cannot call Jesus Yahweh. It would be considered incorrect theological terminology - thus heretical."
But where has this tradition drawn the same conclusion as you have? This is your unique and personal deduction given the propositions in Christian theology. But in articles of the faith and the denunciation of heresies, such beliefs have not only never been made explicit throughout church history, but the opposite has been repeatedly and positively affirmed (from the beginning to later), even in the earliest creeds or orthodox beliefs e.g. Phil 2:6-11. Hence your personal 'inference' is not presented or established by the Church itself and contradicted by the Church itself. This is the challenge McLatchie is making in the first place, that you can't produce such a statement from that Orthodox tradition, anymore than I can present a creedal statement from the Sunni tradition testifying "Mohammed is not a prophet", despite me believing that certain contradictory notions in the Sunni tradition could lead one to infer such a conclusion.
My response to Mark
Thanks for your time Mark. It’s only right I dedicate some time to your comment.
Oh yeah, I completely agree Jon’s challenge was that of an orthodox church council stating the belief “Jesus is Yahweh” to be heretical. That’s quite vague as we can’t establish what is meant by “orthodox church”.
For instance, are we talking about post the first council at Nicaea? Or Constantinople in 381? Or the 8th century church after the 7 Ecumenical councils? But what of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and their respective churches? I don’t believe the Ante-Nicenes believed in the Trinity idea so for people like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp and Ignatius the belief of Jesus being the 2nd Person of a Trinity doctrine would have been deemed to be *heretical*. So that is one route I could have gone down in response to Jon.
I could also have gone down the route of using the councils that ruled in favour of Arius and/or what was later to be pejoratively called “Arianism” during the period between 1st Nicaea and Constantinople. Another possible route one could go down.
The third route would be to focus on those in the New Testament and/or those who wrote parts of the Scripture we now know as the NT. The statement “Jesus is Yahweh” would be heretical in their eyes. For instance Peter saying Jesus was a man attested by God. Or the belief Jesus was not pre-existent in Matthew and Luke. There’s plenty more – a discussion for a later perhaps.
In hindsight I should have used an accumulative argument in the video and post – I hope to add this and your comment to the blog post (God willing).
But hey alas, I’m defending my deductive argument. So let’s just focus on this. You made some interesting points. Mark, you wrote: “For example upon death when our bodies become corpses and begin to rot and decay, when we simply exist as as pure spirit, we will not cease to have our personal identity (including our names), rather even without our physical body we will still be identified as we were on earth, simply as us (e.g. Yahya and Mark). Jesus is the name given (upon birth) to a PERSON (the Son) having a human nature, not to a nature itself. As technically speaking we are not materialists, when we look at a corpse, we don't believe the corpse of a beloved one (e.g. lets call him say: "Jacob") that body (corpse) is Jacob, rather we the believe that is the body of (belonging/belonged to) Jacob, but Jacob is now absent from the body Hence the divine person (the Son of the Father) who upon birth is given the name Jesus is eternal. Jesus is eternal, his physical body is not.”
Two thoughts after reading your comment above:
1. Thinking about this it seems like you’re veering to something like Apollinarianism. The “orthodox” belief is that Jesus had a human spirit/mind. Whilst Apollinarianism denies that by arguing Jesus didn’t have a human mind/spirit but this was replaced by the divine. Let’s focus on the idea of an “orthodox” understanding here, you can’t argue (from that theology) that the Son was the person of Jesus as our soul/mind/spirit is the person of us – Jesus has a human soul/mind/spirit according to “orthodox” theology.
2. You seem to have drawn a dichotomy between Jesus and the Son. Is this dichotomy *only* due to naming or is there some other reason for this distinction? My question here is, in your view what is the difference between the Son and Jesus? There’s a change in name due to the idea of pre-incarnation and post incarnation but there is another change in the Trinitarian mindset due to the belief there was an addition of a human body - an earthly and resurrection body. The follow up question here is what does the Trinitarian think about this belief that “God” changed whilst also believing God transcends time? [Mark, that’s just a side question – you don’t have to deal with that question in this discussion for now if you feel it will take us away from the topic]
Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
What I can do is tell you Trinitarian Christians, according to their theology, technically cannot say Jesus is Yahweh
Jesus cannot technically be called Yahweh in a Trinitarian church tradition as Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity who took on human flesh (Jesus = Son + Human Flesh). That's not Yahweh in their tradition. Thus according to his church tradition, he cannot call Jesus Yahweh. It would be considered incorrect theological terminology - thus heretical.
Jonathan said "God [Yahweh] worked through Jesus". According to Trinitarian theology, it's correct for Trinitarians to distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh as Jesus is not Yahweh because Jesus is considered to be the Son + Human Flesh. Before the birth of Jesus 2000 years ago, Jesus did not exist according to their theology but Yahweh did exist as three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yahweh is not Jesus according to their theology.
Video ft. Jonathan McLatchie, Paul Williams and Bart Erhman
This video is also uploaded here and here
A response from Mark Bennett
Yahya said: "my point is Jesus = son + human nature". I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here. Jesus is not the name of a 'person + human nature' but the name given to a person when he began to inhabit that nature or when he obtained and took upon human form. Jesus was the name given to the person/self possessing a human nature.
For example upon death when our bodies become corpses and begin to rot and decay, when we simply exist as as pure spirit, we will not cease to have our personal identity (including our names), rather even without our physical body we will still be identified as we were on earth, simply as us (e.g. Yahya and Mark). Jesus is the name given (upon birth) to a PERSON (the Son) having a human nature, not to a nature itself. As technically speaking we are not materialists, when we look at a corpse, we don't believe the corpse of a beloved one (e.g. lets call him say: "Jacob") that body (corpse) is Jacob, rather we the believe that is the body of (belonging/belonged to) Jacob, but Jacob is now absent from the body. Hence the divine person (the Son of the Father) who upon birth is given the name Jesus is eternal. Jesus is eternal, his physical body is not.
The human nature belonging to Jesus is created. Finally I'm not sure if Yahya understood Jonathan's challenge. As you said: "Jonathan was asking for proof that calling Jesus Yahweh is heresy ACCORDING (to ~ MB) THE TRINITARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH". ("Orthodox Trinitarian Churches"). However Yahya what you provide is not proof that the statement and/or belief "Jesus is Yahweh" is heresy according to *any* Orthodox Trinitarian Church, rather you provide an ARGUMENT: "What I can do is tell you Trinitarian Christians, according to THEIR THEOLOGY, TECHNICALLY CANNOT SAY Jesus is Yahweh" and: "Jesus CANNOT TECHNICALLY be called Yahweh in a Trinitarian church tradition". After making (what you think) are logical inferences you then conclude: "That's not Yahweh in their tradition. Thus according to his church tradition, he cannot call Jesus Yahweh. It would be considered incorrect theological terminology - thus heretical."
But where has this tradition drawn the same conclusion as you have? This is your unique and personal deduction given the propositions in Christian theology. But in articles of the faith and the denunciation of heresies, such beliefs have not only never been made explicit throughout church history, but the opposite has been repeatedly and positively affirmed (from the beginning to later), even in the earliest creeds or orthodox beliefs e.g. Phil 2:6-11. Hence your personal 'inference' is not presented or established by the Church itself and contradicted by the Church itself. This is the challenge McLatchie is making in the first place, that you can't produce such a statement from that Orthodox tradition, anymore than I can present a creedal statement from the Sunni tradition testifying "Mohammed is not a prophet", despite me believing that certain contradictory notions in the Sunni tradition could lead one to infer such a conclusion.
My response to Mark
Thanks for your time Mark. It’s only right I dedicate some time to your comment.
Oh yeah, I completely agree Jon’s challenge was that of an orthodox church council stating the belief “Jesus is Yahweh” to be heretical. That’s quite vague as we can’t establish what is meant by “orthodox church”.
For instance, are we talking about post the first council at Nicaea? Or Constantinople in 381? Or the 8th century church after the 7 Ecumenical councils? But what of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and their respective churches? I don’t believe the Ante-Nicenes believed in the Trinity idea so for people like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp and Ignatius the belief of Jesus being the 2nd Person of a Trinity doctrine would have been deemed to be *heretical*. So that is one route I could have gone down in response to Jon.
I could also have gone down the route of using the councils that ruled in favour of Arius and/or what was later to be pejoratively called “Arianism” during the period between 1st Nicaea and Constantinople. Another possible route one could go down.
The third route would be to focus on those in the New Testament and/or those who wrote parts of the Scripture we now know as the NT. The statement “Jesus is Yahweh” would be heretical in their eyes. For instance Peter saying Jesus was a man attested by God. Or the belief Jesus was not pre-existent in Matthew and Luke. There’s plenty more – a discussion for a later perhaps.
In hindsight I should have used an accumulative argument in the video and post – I hope to add this and your comment to the blog post (God willing).
But hey alas, I’m defending my deductive argument. So let’s just focus on this. You made some interesting points. Mark, you wrote: “For example upon death when our bodies become corpses and begin to rot and decay, when we simply exist as as pure spirit, we will not cease to have our personal identity (including our names), rather even without our physical body we will still be identified as we were on earth, simply as us (e.g. Yahya and Mark). Jesus is the name given (upon birth) to a PERSON (the Son) having a human nature, not to a nature itself. As technically speaking we are not materialists, when we look at a corpse, we don't believe the corpse of a beloved one (e.g. lets call him say: "Jacob") that body (corpse) is Jacob, rather we the believe that is the body of (belonging/belonged to) Jacob, but Jacob is now absent from the body Hence the divine person (the Son of the Father) who upon birth is given the name Jesus is eternal. Jesus is eternal, his physical body is not.”
Two thoughts after reading your comment above:
1. Thinking about this it seems like you’re veering to something like Apollinarianism. The “orthodox” belief is that Jesus had a human spirit/mind. Whilst Apollinarianism denies that by arguing Jesus didn’t have a human mind/spirit but this was replaced by the divine. Let’s focus on the idea of an “orthodox” understanding here, you can’t argue (from that theology) that the Son was the person of Jesus as our soul/mind/spirit is the person of us – Jesus has a human soul/mind/spirit according to “orthodox” theology.
2. You seem to have drawn a dichotomy between Jesus and the Son. Is this dichotomy *only* due to naming or is there some other reason for this distinction? My question here is, in your view what is the difference between the Son and Jesus? There’s a change in name due to the idea of pre-incarnation and post incarnation but there is another change in the Trinitarian mindset due to the belief there was an addition of a human body - an earthly and resurrection body. The follow up question here is what does the Trinitarian think about this belief that “God” changed whilst also believing God transcends time? [Mark, that’s just a side question – you don’t have to deal with that question in this discussion for now if you feel it will take us away from the topic]
Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Slovakians converting to Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Friday, 24 February 2017
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Secularised Christians who say they believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity claim Jesus does not use violence and force but upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it's quite obvious the secularised/Westernised /Trinitarian Christian is not presenting views that are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.
Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:
12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [Deut 13]
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]
Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?
Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:
12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one's own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods:
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered women and children to be killed:
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]
Jesus ordered the killing of Midianite men, women and boys through Moses according to Trinitarian thought:
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]
Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?
That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning--there were all the dead bodies! [2 Kings 19:35]
I think that's enough to demonstrate the Westernised Trinitarian really isn't preaching actual Trinitarian beliefs. But what of the New Testament, does Jesus use force according to those texts?
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Revelation 19]
Trinitarian Pastor Steven Anderson explains what is meant by treading on the winepress. He goes back to chapter 14:
19So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and loaded the grapes into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 milesd long and as high as a horse’s bridle.
The pastor teaches Jesus is responsible for a judgement that brings forth a river of blood that stretches for about 200 miles and is as deep as a horse's bridle. The pastor's fellow Trinitarian in Phoenix, James White, openly admits Trinitarians believe freedom of religion will be ended when Jesus returns.
Is Jesus Violent According to the Trinitarian View of the Bible?
Is Jesus Violent According to the Trinitarian View of the Bible?
Friday, 10 February 2017
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
 |
| Andy is the new director of Solas CPC UPDATE: Richard Lucas did send me a message stating he is no longer a contributor to Solas CPC. The moderator used an old bio from the internet. |
Richard Lucas, a former contributor for Solas Centre for Public Christianity, was promoting a heretical idea of the Trinity in a debate with Muslim apologist Dr Shabir Ally. Richard believes God used to be one Person and then divided into three centres of consciousness to become Tri-Personal. This is not “orthodox” Trinitarian thought.
All the relevant clips of Solas' Richard Lucas' comments on the Trinity have been compiled in this video
This video has also been uploaded here
I appreciate that Richard Lucas was honest and sincere enough to openly admit Tawheed ( the Islamic concept of God) is coherent and logical. Richard does practically demonstrate the Trinitarian concept of God is incoherent and illogical at the same time. Two quick thoughts (which I may add to in a future review of the debate):
1. Richard Lucas claims God divided into 3 and became a Trinity. This theory contradicts the belief that God is immutable (unchanging). Richard Lucas’ theory of God dividing constitutes a belief that God changed His nature. Some problems for his position:
- For change to take place then that suggests chronological order. Seen as God is eternal the idea of God changing is problematic.
- God is the Perfect Being thus does not need to change. To suggest God changed His nature could be conceived as suggesting at one time He was not the Perfect Being.
- Believing God changed into a Trinity arguably contradicts Bible verses like Malachi 3:6 if one views those verses to teach God doesn’t change His nature
I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
2. Solas Centre for Public Christianity has another theological problem which Richard was honest enough to acknowledge. Richard Lucas’ bravery in publicly stating this should be commended. Richard Lucas openly admitted the Bible does not limit the number of Persons in the Godhead head, he then went on to say(according to his Biblical Christian view) God could add more Persons to the Godhead by dividing again.
It goes without saying that this is an effective admission that Trinitarian cannot even have confidence in believing the Trinity to be a truth about God (even from a Christian/Biblical perspective!).
Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology by Ali Ataie
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology by Ali Ataie
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
This will come as a shock to most people to learn that New Testament scholarship is broadly in agreement that the gospels of Matthew and Luke do not portray Jesus as preexistent and have no awareness of the notion of the Incarnation of God. In the light of Christian teaching about the origins of Jesus this is surprising as both gospels have extended birth narratives where such ideas would naturally be mentioned. Here is an extract from a recent academic discussion from Yale University in the USA
Page 209 from the Conclusion of King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins – both professors of biblical criticism and interpretation at Yale University.
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
DH Can you speak to the problem of anachronism and its effect on understanding Paul?
PF I’m a historian, and the most grave “original sin” for a historian is anachronism. What that means is that you lift something out of its historical context and put it in a different historical context, and so misinterpret it. If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way.
People reading Paul assume that he’s hostile to Judaism because he’s the “inventor” of Christianity. In fact, he’s still imagining himself as a Jew and he’s presenting Christianity in continuity with Judaism. The fact that Paul is such a huge figure for Christianity makes it almost impossible for us not to interpret him anachronistically when we look at him, because it’s so important that his message speak immediately to modern Christianity. If we allow ourselves to see how much his message actually cohered with first-century Judaism, then we have to relinquish an immediate connection between him and us, between this ancient Jewish messianic movement and the modern church. [Source]
Oldest British Convert to Islam, Br Mohamed Keith-Kinglsey Cunliffe?
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Tuesday, 29 November 2016
She Says She Heard Jesus Telling Her The Trinity Is Incorrect
This person claims they heard Jesus tell them the Trinity doctrine is NOT correct. Here's a comment I received from a YouTube user:
This is exactly what I heard the other night. Jesus told me that "Humans got the trinity all wrong." He gave me the understanding that the Trinity doctrine that there are three ENTITIES in one God is incorrect. There is God, His Word, His Spirit. God sent Jesus to us as the WORD made flesh. Jesus told us he would not leave us orphans and God's Spirit was sent to us. Ultimately, not three entities, just our Father giving us his WORD as the lamb of God and much more, and his Spirit to comfort and guide us. So simple yet religion and it's scholars cannot figure it out. It takes God to make something clear to us..
Interesting, for Trinitarian Christians - Dreams
There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Saturday, 30 July 2016
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Let's forget about ERS and EFS for now. Time for a few comments on Professor Wayne Grudem's "Partial Revelation (of the Trinity belief) in the Old Testament" claim. Grudem's Comment are denoted by WD.
WD: The word trinity is never found in the Bible, though the idea represented by the word is taught in many places.
I'd be interested in seeing these "many places" where the Trinity idea is taught. Remember the 3-self Trinity idea is a 3in1 idea, that's to say an idea of God being tri-personal and all the "Persons" being consubstantial and co-equal.
Which places does Wayne Grudem have in mind? There are no places in the Bible which teach this Trinity concept. None. Zip. Zilch. Sure folk may scratch around and amalgamate a number of Biblical references and read a Trinity theory into those selected texts (i.e eisegesis) but that's not what Grudem appears to be claiming here. He's claiming places in the Bible teach this belief!
Perhaps his chief place is the Great Commission in Matthew 28. However, that does not teach the idea of the Trinity as outlined above.
Read it for yourself and see if it conforms with Wayne Grudem's definition of the Trinity belief:
WD: The word trinity means “tri-unity” or “three-in-oneness.” It is used to summarize the teaching of Scripture that God is three persons yet one God.
Old Testament and old Trinitarian claims
WD: Sometimes people think the doctrine of the Trinity is found only in the New Testament, not in the Old. If God has eternally existed as three persons, it would be surprising to find no indications of that in the Old Testament.
Grudem has external motivations to argue for the Trinity in the Old Testament - for him it would not make sense for there not to be some allusion to it at the very least for purposes of consistency. One of the problems arising for his position is that of confusion; if he believes a hint was given as to the 3-self Trinity belief wouldn't that not also mean he believes God confused people as there was no explicit teaching of the Trinity. Think about it, if hints of plurality within God were provided then that would have left people scratching their heads. Scratching their heads about fundamental ontology of God.
And why would a hint be given, why not just the full explicit teaching from the beginning - after all it is about the fundamental ontology of God? Surely a clear view of God would be expected to be given straight away rather than "hints" which would leave people confused for around 1500 years. Moses p is thought to have lived ~1500 years prior to Jesus p. Further problems arise for the Trinitarian position, Jesus did not teach the Trinity either, it was postulated by later Church Fathers from the fourth century onwards so Grudem would have folk believe God gave hints of the Trinity in the OT and thus left people confused for around 2000 years about a fundamental view of Himself.
The Bible itself would argue against confusion of that kind by stating God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33)
WD: Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly found in the Old Testament, several passages suggest or even imply that God exists as more than one person.
It's not explicitly taught in the NT either but let's have a look at one of the texts he appeals to as an implication of the Trinity belief.
WD: For instance, according to Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” What do the plural verb (“let us”) and the plural pronoun (“our”) mean?
Plurality doesn't necessarily denote three so to argue for plurality does not mean an argument for the Trinity belief. Plurality can be any number greater than 1. As we know the plurality of 3 did not become agreed upon by the Church until at least 381 CE. For those wondering why not 325 CE? “The Nicene Council only concluded that the Father and Son are ontologically one: it did not include the Holy Spirit in the co-substantial relationship supposedly obtaining between the Father and Son” [Edgar G Foster]
WD: Some have suggested they are plurals of majesty, a form of speech a king would use in saying, for example, “We are pleased to grant your request.” However, in Old Testament Hebrew there are no other examples of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a “plural of majesty,” so this suggestion has no evidence to support it.
Now, this is not a major point of contention but from Jason Dulle, it appears there may be some candidates for the use of the royal plural elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Dulle gives possible examples from Ezra and Daniel:
The second theory is that the plural pronouns are used as a “majestic plural.” This type of language was typically used by royalty, but not exclusively. Biblical examples include Daniel’s statement to Nebuchadnezzar, “We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king” (Daniel 2:36). Daniel, however, was the only one who gave the king the interpretation of his dream. King Artaxerxes wrote in a letter, “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me” (Ezra 4:18). The letter was sent to Artaxerxes alone (Ezra 4:11), yet he said it was sent to “us,” and was read before “me.” Clearly the letter was only sent to, and read to Artaxerxes. When Artaxerxes penned another letter to Ezra he used the first person singular pronoun “I” in one place and the first person plural pronoun “we” in another (Ezra 7:13, 24).
WD: Another suggestion is that God is here speaking to angels. But angels did not participate in the creation of man, nor was man created in the image and likeness of angels, so this suggestion is not convincing.
Firstly, would that be consistent from a 3-self Trinitarian perspective? Why are humans not tri-personal if we were created in the image of a tri-personal God? The 3-self Trinitarian has another dilemma.
Secondly, Dr Michael Heiser and others don't see a problem with viewing Gen 1:26 as an exhortational declaration:
God announced to his council his idea to create mankind (“hey, guys, let’s do this!” – a sort of exhortational declaration), then HE (and he alone, by virtue of the GRAMMAR) created humankind in HIS own image (not theirs).
Yet, the NIV Study Bible also confirms in its commentary on Genesis 1:26:
Us… Our… Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court [See Rabbi Tovia Singer on the Trinity]
Edgar G Foster discusses this in his summary of Alan J. Hauser’s views on Gen 1:26, which militates against the Prof. Wayne Grudem's conjecture and throw into question his abilities in Hebrew:
Hauser expands on this argument. He does not think that the use of the Elohim in Genesis 1:26 proves that Genesis teaches God’s triunity. One reason that Hauser concludes this has to do with the Hebrew word Elohim. Granted, Elohim is morphologically plural as are “us” and “our.” But these words, while they might seem to indicate plurality, definitely do not suggest triunity. It must also be kept in mind that in Hebrew it is common for the plural noun to cause the verb to be plural (Cf. Genesis 20:13, 35:7). E.A Speiser therefore renders Genesis 1:26 as follows: “The God said, ‘I will make man in my image, after my likeness.'”
WD: The best explanation is that already in the first chapter of Genesis we have an indication of a plurality of persons in God himself. We are not told how many persons, and we have nothing approaching a complete doctrine of the Trinity, but it is implied that more than one person is involved.
And what of the thousands of singular pronouns used in the Bible such as in Isaiah 44:24, Gen 1:5 and Gen 9:6 ? In fact the very next verse Genesis 1:27 uses a singular pronoun as to whom mankind were made in the image of
27 So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.
Does Prof. Wayne Grudem have an answer for this? If he is consistent he'd see the singular pronouns being a problem for his Trinity hypothesis. In fact if this one reference, used as a far-fetched reference to plurality, is being pushed by Grudem as a hint to the Trinity belief then it really is case closed if he uses an objective mindset on all the singular pronouns used of God in the Bible - he has to believe those to be pointers to God's singularity in Personhood and Being if consistent.
Luis Dizon's "Only Conclusion" on Genesis 1:26 Discussed
There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Wednesday, 29 June 2016
Luis Dizon's "Only Conclusion" on Genesis 1:26 Discussed
Luis Dizon contends Genesis 1:26 can only be concluded as a reference to plurality of persons in the being of God (with a strong intimation this plurality is the 3-self Trinity belief). Here's his conclusion with the assistance of Gleason Archer:
It is also important to note that the Trinity does not occur exclusively in the New Testament, but can be traced back to the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament, which came centuries before Christianity). Several times in these scriptures, God speaks in the plural. A prominent example of this is close to the beginning of the Bible, where God says, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...” (Gen 1:26, cf. 3:22, 11:7). It also appears in the book of the Jewish prophet Isaiah. Here, God asks, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us” (Isa 6:8)? The common Muslim argument when faced with these verses is that God is using the plural of majesty, which is a custom in which a royal figure speaks in the plural. Muslims argue that since Allah frequently speaks this way in the Qur’an,141 then the same must be the case in the Old Testament. However, this explanation is anachronistic, because the plural of majesty is not used anywhere in the Old Testament. In fact, the concept did not even exist until after the Old Testament was completed. As biblical scholar Gleason Archer notes:
This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this “us” and “our.” It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: “and God [‘elohim]created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them” (NASB). God—the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together—without ceasing to be one God.142
On the basis of this information, the only conclusion we can come to is that the passages where God speaks in the first person plural demonstrate a plurality of persons within the being of God.
Problems raised for Luis Dizon and Gleason Archer
1. There are other Christians with differing interpretations and thus do not share Luis Dizon's view that an idea of plurality of personhood is the "only conclusion" nor Gleason Archer's appeal to the Trinity belief (which ironically is anachronistic in itself!)
2. Plurality doesn't necessarily mean 3. As we know the plurality of 3 did not become recognised until at least 381 CE. For those wondering why not 325 CE? "The Nicene Council only concluded that the Father and Son are ontologically one: it did not include the Holy Spirit in the co-substantial relationship supposedly obtaining between the Father and Son" [Edgar G Foster]
3. The suggestion there's no other examples of a Majestic Plural in the Hebrew scriptures may well be inaccurate - see the discussion on this below. In any case, why would an absence of a "royal we" used by a king in the Hebrew scriptures demarcate the absence of such a usage in Hebrew all together? It wouldn't. An absence of evidence is not absence of evidence. Luis Dizon is committing a logical fallacy; argument from ignorance.
4. Confusion for 14 centuries. This point of confusion is a philosophical headache for Trinitarian apologists. 1 Cor 14:33 states "for God is not the author of confusion" yet Luis' conclusion would imply there was confusion for 14 centuries (evangelical Christians believe Genesis was written 1400 years ago). In fact the duration of confusion would be greater still as the Trinity was developed from the 4th century onwards so the implication in the Trinitarian Christian worldview is that God left people in confusion about Him and Genesis 1:26 for 18 centuries!
Thus all those faithful believers and Prophets, including Moses who is traditionally considered to be the author of Genesis amongst evangelical, were all left in confusion concerning this supposed plurality being taught in Genesis 1:26!
CAN YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
Let's drive this problem home further still. In Exodus 33:11, it is taught Moses had the Lord speak to him face to face as one speaks to his friend. Despite this, the Trinitarian narrative contends Moses did not know about true the nature of God; that's to say he had a deficient understanding of God because he was unaware of the Trinity belief.
Isaiah 41:8 describes "Abraham as God's friend "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend," yet Luis' theory would have us believe Abraham, too, had a deficient understanding of God as the Trinity, according to the evangelical narrative was not revealed during Abraham's time.
It is also important to note that the Trinity does not occur exclusively in the New Testament, but can be traced back to the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament, which came centuries before Christianity). Several times in these scriptures, God speaks in the plural. A prominent example of this is close to the beginning of the Bible, where God says, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...” (Gen 1:26, cf. 3:22, 11:7). It also appears in the book of the Jewish prophet Isaiah. Here, God asks, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us” (Isa 6:8)? The common Muslim argument when faced with these verses is that God is using the plural of majesty, which is a custom in which a royal figure speaks in the plural. Muslims argue that since Allah frequently speaks this way in the Qur’an,141 then the same must be the case in the Old Testament. However, this explanation is anachronistic, because the plural of majesty is not used anywhere in the Old Testament. In fact, the concept did not even exist until after the Old Testament was completed. As biblical scholar Gleason Archer notes:
This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this “us” and “our.” It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: “and God [‘elohim]created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them” (NASB). God—the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together—without ceasing to be one God.142
On the basis of this information, the only conclusion we can come to is that the passages where God speaks in the first person plural demonstrate a plurality of persons within the being of God.
Problems raised for Luis Dizon and Gleason Archer
1. There are other Christians with differing interpretations and thus do not share Luis Dizon's view that an idea of plurality of personhood is the "only conclusion" nor Gleason Archer's appeal to the Trinity belief (which ironically is anachronistic in itself!)
2. Plurality doesn't necessarily mean 3. As we know the plurality of 3 did not become recognised until at least 381 CE. For those wondering why not 325 CE? "The Nicene Council only concluded that the Father and Son are ontologically one: it did not include the Holy Spirit in the co-substantial relationship supposedly obtaining between the Father and Son" [Edgar G Foster]
3. The suggestion there's no other examples of a Majestic Plural in the Hebrew scriptures may well be inaccurate - see the discussion on this below. In any case, why would an absence of a "royal we" used by a king in the Hebrew scriptures demarcate the absence of such a usage in Hebrew all together? It wouldn't. An absence of evidence is not absence of evidence. Luis Dizon is committing a logical fallacy; argument from ignorance.
4. Confusion for 14 centuries. This point of confusion is a philosophical headache for Trinitarian apologists. 1 Cor 14:33 states "for God is not the author of confusion" yet Luis' conclusion would imply there was confusion for 14 centuries (evangelical Christians believe Genesis was written 1400 years ago). In fact the duration of confusion would be greater still as the Trinity was developed from the 4th century onwards so the implication in the Trinitarian Christian worldview is that God left people in confusion about Him and Genesis 1:26 for 18 centuries!
Thus all those faithful believers and Prophets, including Moses who is traditionally considered to be the author of Genesis amongst evangelical, were all left in confusion concerning this supposed plurality being taught in Genesis 1:26!
CAN YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
Let's drive this problem home further still. In Exodus 33:11, it is taught Moses had the Lord speak to him face to face as one speaks to his friend. Despite this, the Trinitarian narrative contends Moses did not know about true the nature of God; that's to say he had a deficient understanding of God because he was unaware of the Trinity belief.
Isaiah 41:8 describes "Abraham as God's friend "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend," yet Luis' theory would have us believe Abraham, too, had a deficient understanding of God as the Trinity, according to the evangelical narrative was not revealed during Abraham's time.
Do Luis and others who argue for the Trinity in Genesis 1:26 not see the problems that come with such assertions?
Let's concentrate on providing some divergent views on Genesis 1:26 to show Luis' view that it's the "only conclusion" one can arrive at to be baseless:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges o Genesis 1:26
Commentary from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges surveys a number of explanations put forward over the years for "let us make" in Gen 1:26. Interestingly, the Trinity explanation is considered untenable:
Until recently, the traditional Christian interpretation has seen in the 1st pers. plur. a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The requirements of a sound historical exegesis render this view untenable: for it would read into the Book of Genesis the religious teaching which is based upon the Revelation of the New Testament.
At the culmination of the list of various explanations the commentary concludes "The two last explanations appear to be the most probable". The last two being:
1. Use of the Plural of Deliberation
2. The old Jewish explanation that God is addressing the inhabitants of heaven
Dr Michael Heiser on Genesis 1:26 and the name Elohim
Michael Heiser gives his explanation, which differs and agrees with the more common:
(27) So God created (the verb is SINGULAR) man in his own (a third masculine SINGULAR suffix in Hebrew) image, in the image of God - we know this is singular as well from context - the preceding suffix tells us he created (the verb is SINGULAR) him; male and female he created (the verb is SINGULAR) them.
Conclusion – from the TEXT: God announced to his council his idea to create mankind (“hey, guys, let's do this!” – a sort of exhortational declaration), then HE (and he alone, by virtue of the GRAMMAR) created humankind in HIS own image (not theirs).
He also explains the history of the name Elohim which does away with the idea that Elohim refers to a plurality in personhood:
Michael Heiser gives his explanation, which differs and agrees with the more common:
(27) So God created (the verb is SINGULAR) man in his own (a third masculine SINGULAR suffix in Hebrew) image, in the image of God - we know this is singular as well from context - the preceding suffix tells us he created (the verb is SINGULAR) him; male and female he created (the verb is SINGULAR) them.
Conclusion – from the TEXT: God announced to his council his idea to create mankind (“hey, guys, let's do this!” – a sort of exhortational declaration), then HE (and he alone, by virtue of the GRAMMAR) created humankind in HIS own image (not theirs).
He also explains the history of the name Elohim which does away with the idea that Elohim refers to a plurality in personhood:
It is of course true that "elohim" is MORPHOLOGICALLY plural (morphology refers to the construction or "shape" of a word). The - im ending of elohim makes the noun plural. As Psalm 82 (see above) tells us, elohim CAN be plural in the Hebrew Bible. The same psalm, though, also has elohim as a contextually clear SINGULAR (the morphologically plural word came to be used as a proper name for a singular deity).
NIV Study Bible and Liberty University on Genesis 1:26
Rabbi Tovia Singer offers a list of authorities for evangelicals who do not espouse such conclusions about the Trinity being in Genesis 1:26. His list includes Liberty University's commentary on the Bible, NIV Study Bible amongst others. You can check this for yourself. Here's a snippet which shows another Christian authority siding with one the traditional Jewish views on Genesis 1:26 rather than what Luis Dizon and Gleason Archer contend:
Rabbi Tovia Singer offers a list of authorities for evangelicals who do not espouse such conclusions about the Trinity being in Genesis 1:26. His list includes Liberty University's commentary on the Bible, NIV Study Bible amongst others. You can check this for yourself. Here's a snippet which shows another Christian authority siding with one the traditional Jewish views on Genesis 1:26 rather than what Luis Dizon and Gleason Archer contend:
Yet, the NIV Study Bible also confirms in its commentary on Genesis 1:26,
Us… Our… Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court
Edgar G Foster on Genesis 1:26
Edgar G Foster discusses this in his summary of Alan J. Hauser's views on Gen 1:26, which militates against the Luis Dizon's "only conclusion"
Hauser expands on this argument. He does not think that the use of the Elohim in Genesis 1:26 proves that Genesis teaches God's triunity. One reason that Hauser concludes this has to do with the Hebrew word Elohim. Granted, Elohim is morphologically plural as are "us" and "our." But these words, while they might seem to indicate plurality, definitely do not suggest triunity. It must also be kept in mind that in Hebrew it is common for the plural noun to cause the verb to be plural (Cf. Genesis 20:13, 35:7). E.A Speiser therefore renders Genesis 1:26 as follows: "The God said, 'I will make man in my image, after my likeness.'"
In the same piece, Foster also cites Charles Ryrie. Ryrie talks about the use of plural pronouns with relation to God; he offers a striking observation in that there is no limitation to indicate a plurality is only three (i.e. the Trinity). Problem. In addition, from Tovia Singer's survey we see Ryrie considers Genesis 1:26 to be the Plural of Majesty, thus he too disagrees with Luis Dizon's "only conclusion" hypothesis.
Plural of Majesty
Gleason Archer, as Luis Dizon mentions, believes there's no other use of plural of majesty in the OT. Now, this is not a major point of contention but from Jason Dulle it appears there may be some candidates for the use of the royal plural elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Dulle gives possible examples from Ezra and Daniel
The second theory is that the plural pronouns are used as a "majestic plural." This type of language was typically used by royalty, but not exclusively. Biblical examples include Daniel's statement to Nebuchadnezzar, "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king" (Daniel 2:36). Daniel, however, was the only one who gave the king the interpretation of his dream. King Artaxerxes wrote in a letter, "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18). The letter was sent to Artaxerxes alone (Ezra 4:11), yet he said it was sent to "us," and was read before "me." Clearly the letter was only sent to, and read to Artaxerxes. When Artaxerxes penned another letter to Ezra he used the first person singular pronoun "I" in one place and the first person plural pronoun "we" in another (Ezra 7:13, 24).
I'd be interested in knowing people's thoughts on these verses. I would like to reiterate, this is not the main thrust of my article, please do not allow this side piece to detract from the points above.
Conclusion
It is my hope this piece helps to give young Christian apologists and those who follow Trinitarian Christian apologetics some pause for thought.
Dale Tuggy considers the arguments for the Trinity in the Old Testament to be "crummy arguments". He's taken aback by evangelicals, who should know better, arguing for this position. In this video I interspersed clips of Tuggy with an evangelist - RZIM'S Nabeel Qureshi - discussing various standard Trinitarian contentions based on the Old Testament.
I'd appeal to Luis and others who may have been exposed to Trinitarian Christian contentions based on the OT like the one discussed in this piece to avail themselves of this video.
If the video doesn't play please see here
An Invitation for Tony Gurule of Ratio Christi To Investigate Doubts About Trinitarian Christian Theology
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
I'd appeal to Luis and others who may have been exposed to Trinitarian Christian contentions based on the OT like the one discussed in this piece to avail themselves of this video.
If the video doesn't play please see here
An Invitation for Tony Gurule of Ratio Christi To Investigate Doubts About Trinitarian Christian Theology
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Iranians Fake Conversions to Christianity for Asylum in Germany (Gottfried Martens)
False Conversions of Iranian Asylum Seekers in the UK
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Iranians Fake Conversions to Christianity for Asylum in Germany (Gottfried Martens)
False Conversions of Iranian Asylum Seekers in the UK
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
The Nicene Council only concluded that the Father and Son are ontologically one: it did not include the Holy Spirit in the co-substantial relationship supposedly obtaining between the Father and Son. There was simply an implication that the Holy Spirit was in some way associated with the Godhead.
Yes there was an affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit, but the Nicene Creed did not put forth a triune statement about God. It would take another fifty-six years and more "heretical" developments, before the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was clarified.
Although activities were predicated of the Holy Spirit that can only be predicated of God, the Trinity was still not explicitly called God. Further addenda or adjustments would be made before the church would explicitly state that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son.
One early witness who testifies to these early developments regarding the Trinity doctrine is Gregory of Nazianzus. In the work _Epistles 58_ Gregory Nazianzus explained the absence of the Holy Spirit from the ancient discussions about the Godhead, by stating that "the Old Testament proclaimed the Father manifestly, and the Son more hiddenly. The New [Testament] manifested the Son and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself is resident among us, and provides a clearer explanation of himself." As late as 380, he wrote, "to be slightly in error [about the Holy Spirit] was to be orthodox." This statement too proves that the orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit was not "clear" until 381. As a matter of fact, this statement further demonstrates that the church neither subscribed to nor affirmed the teaching of the Trinity until 381 C.E. It is clear that the "details" of the Trinity still had to be worked out (The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. I, p.
213. Cf. also Gregory Nazianzus--Orations 31.5).
Yes there was an affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit, but the Nicene Creed did not put forth a triune statement about God. It would take another fifty-six years and more "heretical" developments, before the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was clarified.
Although activities were predicated of the Holy Spirit that can only be predicated of God, the Trinity was still not explicitly called God. Further addenda or adjustments would be made before the church would explicitly state that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son.
One early witness who testifies to these early developments regarding the Trinity doctrine is Gregory of Nazianzus. In the work _Epistles 58_ Gregory Nazianzus explained the absence of the Holy Spirit from the ancient discussions about the Godhead, by stating that "the Old Testament proclaimed the Father manifestly, and the Son more hiddenly. The New [Testament] manifested the Son and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself is resident among us, and provides a clearer explanation of himself." As late as 380, he wrote, "to be slightly in error [about the Holy Spirit] was to be orthodox." This statement too proves that the orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit was not "clear" until 381. As a matter of fact, this statement further demonstrates that the church neither subscribed to nor affirmed the teaching of the Trinity until 381 C.E. It is clear that the "details" of the Trinity still had to be worked out (The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. I, p.
213. Cf. also Gregory Nazianzus--Orations 31.5).
From a brief look at these developments, it seems warranted to conclude that the NT does not present a clear expression of the Triune Godhead. Therefore, we could reasonably conclude that neither the primitive church nor the ante-Nicene fathers taught the Trinity. Gregory Nazianzus even proclaimed that Scripture did not, "very clearly or very often call him [the Holy Spirit] God in so many words, as it does the Father and later on the Son" (Gregory Nazianzus, Orations 31.12).
Gregory's testimony is so important because he lived at the time when the Trinity assimilated its way into Christian didache. Concerning this prominent Christian "father," Jaroslav Pelikan says: "In remarkable summary of the controversy within the orthodox camp, composed in the same year, he [Gregory Nazianzus] declared: "Of the wise men among ourselves, some have conceived of him
[the Holy spirit] as an activity, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call him . . . And therefore they neither worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position." He did add, however, that "of those who consider him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also."
Gregory's testimony is so important because he lived at the time when the Trinity assimilated its way into Christian didache. Concerning this prominent Christian "father," Jaroslav Pelikan says: "In remarkable summary of the controversy within the orthodox camp, composed in the same year, he [Gregory Nazianzus] declared: "Of the wise men among ourselves, some have conceived of him
[the Holy spirit] as an activity, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call him . . . And therefore they neither worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position." He did add, however, that "of those who consider him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also."
From: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/is-trinity-explicit-bible-teaching-some.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)