Announcing a Trinity Debate
August 13th, 2010 by Sean
Who is God? Is there any other question more important than this? Is God a singular individual or a multi-personal being? Has the Church been duped into settling for a philosophically sophisticated substitute in the place of the simple God of Judaism? Should Jesus be worshiped and if so how? Is the Holy Spirit a distinct person or is it/he just a way of talking about God’s presence in the world. These questions and many more demand satisfying and cogent biblical answers. To that kingdomready.org is hosting a written debate between Danny Andre’ Dixon and Marc Taylor. Each entry will be 1500 words or less posted each Tuesday and Saturday between August 17th and October 2nd. Everyone is welcome to participate in this debate by leaving comments on each post. We cannot guarantee that Mr. Tayor or Mr. Dixon will read your comments, but they very well may, depending on how many comments are made and how busy they are preparing for their next post. Please be sure to follow our Communication Policy when making comments.
Resolved: The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone God Almighty
Affirm: Danny Andre’ Dixon
Deny: Marc Taylor
1a) Tue, Aug. 17: Dixon: First Constructive Statement
1b) Sat, Aug. 21: Taylor: Rebuttal2a) Tue, Aug. 24: Taylor: First Constructive Statement
2b) Sat, Aug. 28: Dixon: Rebuttal3a) Tue, Aug. 31: Dixon: Second Constructive Statement
3b) Sat, Sept. 4: Taylor: Rebuttal
4a) Tue, Sept. 7: Taylor: Second Constructive Statement
4b) Sat, Sept. 11: Dixon: Rebuttal5a) Tue, Sept. 14: Dixon: Five Questions for Marc
5b) Sat, Sept. 18: Taylor: Answers to Questions
6a) Tue, Sept. 21: Taylor: Five Questions for Danny
6b) Sat, Sept. 25: Dixon: Answers to Questions7a) Tue, Sept. 28: Dixon: Concluding Statement
7b) Sat, Oct. 2: Taylor: Concluding Statement
 Marc Taylor graduated from Sacred Heart University with a B. A. in Political Science and from Southwest Bible College and Seminary earning an M. A. in Christian Education. He has taught English as a Second Language in Japan, South Korea and in the Philippines where he currently resides. Marc is a member of the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry where he has debated Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Marc participated in another written debate with strict monotheistic Danny Dixon on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (from June-October 2006). Click here to read a transcript of the debate in its entirety.
|
 Danny Andre’ Dixon is a Graduate of Abilene Christian University (B.A. Biblical Studies, M.A. Bible and Related Studies) and of Grand Canyon University (M.Ed. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). He has served churches as a youth minister in Las Vegas, Nevada; a campus minister in Blacksburg, VA to students at Virginia Tech, in St. Louis, MO to students at The University of Missouri at St. Louis (a college ministry of a city-wide church planting effort), and in Los Angeles to students at UCLA, USC, and Santa Monica College. He is author of four books: Discipling Ministries: An Inside Look (1987), Essential Christian Baptism (1990), Standing to Change/Changing to Stand (1993), and Baptism: Which One Did You Receive (1996). Danny has participated in two previous panel debates on topics related to the oneness of God: Trinity Truth or Tragedy with members of the Evangelical Debate Society (2005 and 2006). Danny has participated in three summer evangelistic mission efforts in off-hours of a 9 a.m.-12:00 noon Teaching English as a Second Language effort in Novgorod, Russia (2007, 2008) and in Astana, Kazakhstan (2009). Danny is presently a high school teacher of 12th English Literature at Fort Stockton, from which base he also directs a teen discipleship ministry DFOG, Disciples For One God–Clarifying Teen Discipleship, a ministry of HungerTruth Christian Educational Ministries. He has been moderator of the Yahoo Discussion Group Disciples For One God since 2003.
|
To access the most recent debate post click here. Please help us publicize this debate by posting this link on other blogs and message boards.
This is a much better format than the “Great Trinity Debate” between Rob Bowman and Dave Burke. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Setting up a format that promotes fairness and that also engages the readership is always a challenge. The 1500 word limit is really a challenge to the debaters to get to the point in laying out each respective case.
I am a schoolteacher right now with a full teaching schedule from roughly 8 a.m. To 4 p.m. I will also be assisting the tennis team at our high school (although I am not the head coach). In addition, I coach the debate team for the school. Adding to all of that my daily lesson plans and grading assignments makes participation in this debate all the more challenging.
I am not sure if we are allowed by Sean to respond to comments that readers make. If we as the formal debaters ARE allowed to do so, exercising the prerogative to do so would make this a truly unique event.
–D.A.D.
You and Marc are certainly free to engage with any comments that are made on this blog.
Shalom Danny, looking forward to your exchange!
Joseph, do I know you from C.A.R.M. As long ago as 2006?
Sean,
I find the picture interesting. It reminds me of a diagram I once drew on paper which came about by thinking about how some trinitarians seem to think about what they call the Trinity. It was drawn by considering what it is that many of them have said and also putting in it what we learn from scripture.
The views seem to be in conflict for when one read on the outside
it was contrary to what one reads while following the paths on the inside of the triangle.
I don’t read Latin or Greek, or whatever it is in the picture.
Would someone please interpret the words in the picture?
I think I know what the words are saying but don’t know which word corresponds to which word in English.
Isn’t it like saying a Ford is not a Chevy, a Chevy is not a Plymouth,
a Plymouth is not a Ford, when we read the paths on the outside, and then on the inside we read something like, a Ford is a car, a Chevy is a car, a Plymouth is a car.
Now we know that there is no such thing on this planet as one car.
I suppose we could say that Jesus is distinct from the Father, but there is a sense in which Jesus is God and that sense is because he is as God is, sharing the same character and nature of the one true God. Jesus may be called a God, because among the gods, (those who have received the word of God -Psalm 82, Jesus is the greatest and deserving of a capital “G”, which is not in contradiction to the fact that there is only one God.
But without the help of a good interpretation, the picture is confusing. It could be interpreted rightly and the interpretation be wrong because the picture is wrong, or I suppose we could interpret it in some kind of way that is slightly different than the actual picture and I suppose the result of the interpretation could be correct.
So I don’t know if the picture is a good represention of the truth or not. I trust I can say that without a good interpretation it is at least without value, and if it has no good interpretation it is useless.
If we could interpret it with just and right words we could put them in, though we might need a larger picture and have to write smaller. Yet, if we did, it might be useful for the work of the kingdom of heaven, to help poor pilgrims along their way.
The picture reminds me of a car I saw recently at a custom car show.
The car was called a “789″. It was a custom build on a Corvette chassis. The body parts were made of carbon fiber. The front was a replica of a ’57 Chev Bel Air, the middle of a ’58 Chev (like the white one on American Graffiti) and the rear part was of a ’59 Chev, the kind with the laid down fins.
The people that make them have made quite a few of them and may be making more. Lots of people at the show liked it. I liked it too. But that doesn’t mean everybody has to like it.
It wasn’t required at the show that everybody like it in order to attend the show. We didn’t stand together and recite any kind of
creed about it. It was just there. It was there because some artist
and car enthusiast built it. I suppose it’s what he imagined when he put it together.
But there was no book that I know of that required him to do it.
There was not book that told him how to do it before he imagined it. I wonder if anyone ordered him to do it. Maybe he did it to please somebody. Maybe somebody wanted a car like that so they came to him.
I wonder if that picture is what God wanted. I wonder if he said, “This is a perfect picture of me.” I wonder if he told someone do do it and see what comes of it.
I don’t think it’s for everybody. Not everyone has to agree with the picture in my opinion. Some might like it and others may not.
That’s my opinion.
Danny,
No, we met when I confronted you a couple years ago about if I could add Hebrew subtitles to the ‘Human Jesus Documentary.’
Get a hold of me… josephvardit@yahoo.com
Ray,
I think you understand the picture correctly. It’s a graphical depiction of classical Trinitarianism. It also shows that classical Trinitarianism is NOT modalism.
So, according to the diagram and the dogma, the Father (Pater) is not (non est) the Son (Filius), is not the Holy Spirit (Spiritus Sanctus, abbreviated Spus Sat) and the Holy Spirit is not the Son. But all of them, according to the diagram is God (Deus).
This is obviously not Biblical Theism. The diagram does not, for instance differentiate between God as nature or God as the Being. Trinitarians also equivocate when they say that all three are “God.” This qualitativeness of full Godhood is never used in Scripture, hence its hybrid foreignness to Scripture.
Jaco
Just added bios and pictures for both Danny and Marc (see post above)
Also, let’s publicize this debate…please drop this link around on the internet.
It seems that I don’t necessarily agree with classical Trinitarianism represented by the picture that says “The Father is not The Son. and The Father is not The Holy Spirit, for isn’t the Father as the Son, and The Holy Spirit as The Father.
Ray
Do you believe that at some point in time God the Father created his Son (the Messiah) Yeshua/Jesus in his own image in order to completely and fully reflect his (the Creator’s) character and nature???
Created? Well, I wouldn’t word it that way (i.e. “the Father created his Son”). I’d say that at some point in time the Father gave the Son life, and the Son was in the Father’s image or form reflecting the Father’s character and nature.
John 5:26
John 6:57
Danny
I’m not really sure what you mean. You said, “I’d say that at some point in time the Father gave the Son life.”
If the Father gave Yeshua/Jesus life then it would seem that before this he wasn’t alive yet. In other words there was a point in time when Yeshua/Jesus (although foretold of) did not exist. When someone is brought into existence are they not at that point created???
I don’t mean to be argumentative, but that’s just the way I see it…
I think you understand me perfectly. I am saying that at some point in pre-human time the one we know as “The Word of God,” Yeshua/Jesus did not have life or existence. Then God “fathered him” in a way that made him mongenes “unique” or “one of a kind” among the sons of God.
Danny
Sorry but I don`t understand you perfectly. What your saying doesn`t seem to make much sense to me. Let me see if I got this right. You are claiming that Yeshua/Jesus pre-existed as the “Word of God”, but at this point didn’t have life or existence. How can someone pre-exist and yet at the same time not have existence???
The way I see it the “Word of God” or “Wisdom of God” pre-existed from the beginning and was made manifest in Yeshua/Jesus. 1st. Peter 1:20-21 Peter says, “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.“
The definition I found of manifest – verb (used with object) – to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly. From my point of view by saying Jesus `was made manifest in the last times` is the same thing as saying God created Jesus in the last times. I am not a scholar or an expert, but like I said this is just the way I see it…
Danny
I just read your 2nd. Unitarian Constructive (3a). I now have a much clearer understanding of what it is you are trying to say.
It would appear you are an Arian in your beliefs, in that you believe Yeshua/Jesus pre-existed before his birth in Bethlehem and lived for a time (unspecified) with the Father (Creator). You also seem to believe that at one time Yeshua/Jesus was a deity (a God) although somehow less of a deity (or God) than his Father, God Almighty (the Creator), and that he gave up his deity to become flesh (human).
I am a Socinian in regards to my beliefs and I believe that Yeshua/Jesus did not exist (other than being foretold/or planned) before his birth in Bethlehem. I mainly get this from the OT prophesies regarding the coming Messiah. Since the subject of this particular blog is about whether God the Father is a singular individual or a multi-personal being, it probably would not be appropriate to discuss this issue here on this string.
By the way, I am a Biblical Unitarian, and I agree with you that God is a singular individual and that his son Yeshua/Jesus is a unique being separate from the father. The Trinity doctrine (which in my opinion is not really a doctrine at all, but is actually just a human opinion) never did make very very much sense to me.
If you want to continue our discussion on whether Yeshua/Jesus pre-existed or not, perhaps we can switch over to another string that is more appropriate for this kind of discussion. Like you said we Unitarians do have differences between ourselves in regards to various details regarding the Son, Yeshua/Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord and Savior.
I think the article entitled “Five Options in Christology” dated June 21st. 2010 would probably be a good string to continue this conversation (if you wanted to that is). May the peace of God be with you and with all of us…
DT:
While I believe what I belive, I can honestly say that I’ve never read anything by Arius. So I’m not an Arian. I get my views from a rather simple reading of Scriptures. I can see how you can get your views from a slightly more complicated or interpretative view of some of the same scriptures.
I’m a little busy now with various things. Let’s correspond by email and see how things go. BereanDAD2010@yahoo.com
Thanks!
Danny Dixon
Danny
You are not the only one that has never read anything written by Arius. All of Arius’ writings were destroyed near the end of the 4th. century. Just like all the writings of the Jewish Christians were destroyed around this same time frame. I can appreciate that you just believe what you believe. I am the same way. It just so happens my beliefs seem to fit perfectly with what the Socinians believe. Unfortunately I do have some beliefs in addition to that which most Socinians do not agree with.
I would prefer to discuss this openly on a blog where other people with more knowledge than myself can intervene and correct either of us or give advice to either of us. I have a lot of respect for the people on this blog. In my opinion they are very knowledgeable and are not judgmental. We actually have a few regular bloggers here who appear to have Arian beliefs like yourself.
Ray and Margaret are the only two I know of for sure, but there might be a few more out there that I am not aware of.
BTW – You are doing a great job on the debate…
So when did God give the Son to have life within himself?
It seems to me that it could have been long after he was alive.
When you say that the son is not “god” but “divine” based on one interpretation of John 1:1, are you saying he is a “DIVINE MAN”? Did the angels who presented themselves in human form to mankind from time to time–did they cease to be angels and become human because they took on the form of flesh when they visited earth? I mean this seems to be what I am understanding you to say of Jesus/Yeshua that when he was in heaven he was the word, but when he came to earth in the form of human flesh he was just a man–a divine one–but just a man. When he returned to heaven and took the throne at the right hand of god, he is a man is what I think I am understanding. So, once those angels who visited Hannah, etc in the form of flesh returned to the heavens, are they now men? The scriptures say that we entertain angels unaware, and I don’t think they were talking simply about a person delivering a message because we would KNOW when it was a PERSON delivering a message, do those angels who come in the form of flesh re-enter the heavenly with the status of “just a man” (with the possibility of divine status). I am trying to wrap my brain around the understand of man but divine. I mean Adam was created “in the image of god”; is he divine?
Lorna:
Your question from above is answered in speech 2b at comments 13 (your restatement) and 14 (my reply).
If it takes me a little bit to respond, I am moving, so I will probably be enroute. Next week I will have to return for a bit in preparation for a court case. I’m am obviously no scholar, but I like this way of doing things. Every one is respected and you don’t have 25 post from one person and then that person telling someone to just shutup when the another person responds once or twice to their 25:) I appreciate this type of setup even if we don’t all agree. I like the idea that everything is posted so that if I am misunderstood or misunderstand somenoe I can interact instead of making accusations. That’s just my way of introduction even though we don’t all agree. So, if I don’t get back quickly, I may be getting my ducks in a row–not ignoring you, or maybe I don’t know the answer and time to look around:)
Lorna
I like to think that God is most interested in the way that we treat the people we disagree with rather than the way we treat the people we agree with. After all everyone can be nice to the people that agree with them. I also like this format. Good luck moving.
BTW if you put a space before your happy face:) it comes out better …..
Anthony Buzzard’s trinity debate vs. White/Brown is now online at:
http://www.jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_thisWeek
Part 1 will be televised all week on the TBN channel and affiliates. Check your local guide.
Xavier,
I have just listened to the introduction of the debate. I hope to also listen to the later episodes thereof.
Hopefully the following instalments of the debate will not have interruptions from the other panel. I see here already a trend of special pleading and equivocation:
Special pleading: Dr White draws the distinction between dying and ceasing to exist. Typical of trinitarians wishing to redefine language as we know it. However they want to describe and differentiate between ways of dying (how utterly preposterous), the Bible speaks of dying, period. Regardless of the mechanics, God cannot undergo the event the Bible describes as dying. Dying implies ceasing to exist. When Yeshua declares that into God’s hands he surrenders his spirit, he uses the euphemism for daying, as can also be seen in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. Dying involves the surrendering of one’s spirit. It happens to all humans. That is also what happened to Yeshua – something that the Bible says CANNOT happen to God, regardless of one’s linguistic acrobatics.
Equivocation: When repeating White’s invention that God is three Who’s in one What (he’ll regret ever saying it…), Brown interrupts with the observation that there is no neuter gender in Hebrew. In other words, something we view as having gender is in fact impersonal. Take note, is impersonal. Syllogistically it goes like this:
First premise: Some personal references are not truly personal
Second premise: All references to God are personal references
Conclusion: All references to God are not truly personal.
Fallacy: Undistributed Middle Term. (If a phenomenon occurs in some instances we cannot conclude that it occurs in all instances in a specific case)
The major problem with this bold statement is that all referrences to God in the OT and NT are to be ignored. All the depictions of God being a Someone, are to be rejected as a mere personification of a divine something (blood-curdling blasphemy in my opinion). All revelation to be ignored so the post-biblical non-Christian invention of the trinity can triumph…how God-exalting…Then Brown takes on Anthony on the “personality” of the Word. In effect, Brown is asking, how Anthony can insist on the personality of Elohim/Theos, while rejecting the personality of the logos. The equivocation exists in that Elohim/Theos per se implies personality. By revelation and the cognitive world of the ancient Jews, Elohim/Theos was a Someone. Logos by definition implies non-personality, even though grammatical gender is given it. Brown doesn’t compare apples to apples. He uses the truth of one matter (impersonality of the logos) and applies it to a totally different matter (personality of God).
The trinis used John 1:14 in stating that God tabernacles among us. So, who dwelled in the tabernacle? If Jesus is God, who dwelled in him? Wrong questions…it was the divine word of God who dwelled in the tabernacle, Jesus. The transcended God, Yahweh, interacted and made himself present by means of his logos, wisdom or divine agents. This utterly disproves the incarnation theology, in that the word, not the God, underwent ensarkosis or enfleshment.
Divine agents were sometimes worshipped, other times not. Jesus was given proskyneo on earth, as was various other agents of God. In Jesus’ post-exalted state he is included in doxologies, in requests for help and in hymns about him. In comparison to the only true God, the various aspects of worship mentioned above in which Jesus was included dwindle greatly. Honoring Jesus meant honoring Someone else, namely his Father. As this dynamics did not make Jesus identical to his Father, neither should they make him identical to God.
The typical problem I have with debates like these is that the trinis are masters of disguise. They obviously play by a different rule book than we do. Maybe it is just the training in formal logic I received, but trinis commit one astonishing fallacy after the other. Should we be shaken by their schemes? No way! The more we listen to them, the more we see how ragged their doctrinal fabric truly is. We should all be all the more studious, reading as much as we can on the topic from distinguished non-dogmatic sources in the field.
Any thoughts?
Jaco
Xavier,
I just watched the video link in your message. I have never heard of the ‘Jewish Voice’ before. It’s great to see that there are so many Messianic Jews around. I noticed Dr. White said that at Yeshua’s/Jesus’ death that the full wrath of God came down on him, so that he could die (pay the price) for our sins.
If Yeshua/Jesus was actually God (in the 2nd. person), then I don’t understand how anyone could believe that the full wrath of God could possibly have come down on God. Is God sadistic??? This just seems nonsensical to me. I know this video was just a highlight of the debate, but from what I saw the Trinitarian side appeared to be the more convincing of the two.
Of course the Jewish Voice people got to pick which part of the debatge to highlight, and since they readily admitted (right after the clip from the debate) that they believe in a triune God, it’s not to hard to see why they picked this particular clip to highlight in their television broadcast. For one thing, during this clip, about 75% of the talking was done by the two Trinitarians.
Of course I’m just a humble layman, but that’s how I see it anywaze…
Jaco,
You asked, “Any thoughts?”
I’m just wondering what the word ‘proskyneo’ means above???
I’m also wondering where I can listen to the entire introduction to the debate???
Guys,
Thomas,
Proskyneo literally means to “kiss before” someone or something, used to describe the gesture of paying homage or obeisance to a superior. Proskyneo was given to God, to kings, angels, superiors, Daniel, Jesus, even to the saints in Revelation 3:9. It was also given to God with another human in the same glorious environment (1 Chron. 29:20). The status of the superior predetermined what kind of honor was given in the act of proskyneo – not the other way around, as the trinis fallaciously claim.
I think one will only be able to listen to the entire debate on the DVD(I’m not sure). You might want to find out for certain from Xavier.
I was not impressed by the format thusfar, although I have my reservations as to whether the Jonathan gentleman was a full-fledged trini.
Jaco
Jaco
Sometime ago I wrote an article with this point of fact. Let me know what you think… http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/09/immortal-longing-by-carlos-xavier.html
And notice that when Anthony reiterates that God is not an “it” but a “He” Brown agrees! So why bring out that point regarding the Hebrew/Greek in the first place?
Something they ignore time and time again. The biblical fact that God’s qualities [Logos, Wisdom etc.] are not literal, preexistent “persons” alongside the one God in some “time before time”. Clear Gnostic connotations of this interpretation have been lost. As J.A.T. Robinson notes in his excellent work The Human Face of God, mythological/ontological categories that were made up:
Robinson later states that “the sole question is how to express this identity of the divine with the human. Is it effected by God’s joining a (second) human nature to his own, or is it by his using, acting through, a man?” I think the biblical evidence points to the latter.
DT
I just came back from attending a One God Conference in Germany where we met [for the first time] a group of unitarian Messianics. And to tell you the truth they were some of the rudest, aggressive bunch of “Christians” I have yet to encounter. I think Messianic Jews, especially of the trinitarian kind, are traitors to their own cause. If JPaul called the Judaizers of his day “dogs, evildoers, mutilators of the flesh” [cf. Phil 3] I shudder to think what he would make of these people.
As of yet we have not been able to get the full 2hrs+ show. Hopefully soon. Just watched part 2 and it is as obnoxiously bad as the first! :/
Xavier,
Why were the Unitarian Messianists so rude? What was the occasion where you saw their rudeness? Did you see Wolfgang who also post here from time to time?
Jaco
Xavier,
Where did you find the second part?
Hey guys/gals
Just uploaded an exclusive clip from the recent Jewish Voice debate…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJqxg2prGtE
What say ‘yous’?
Just to clear up, Jewish Voice Ministries International is a Jewish Messianic group who holds to the doctrine of the Trinity. As expressed in their website:
http://www.jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=find_WhatWeBelieve
Also, check out this exposition by spokesperson, Jonathan Bernis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNuiIt1QNY&feature=player_embedded
Jaco, and all
yes, Xavier and I did meet at the conference. As far as I know, J Dan Gill will post some video/audio at his website “21st Century Reformation” (http://www.21stcr.org/)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier (msg. #30),
You said, “I just came back from attending a One God conference in Germany where we met (for the first time) a group of unitarian Messianics. And to tell you the truth they were some of the rudest, aggressive bunch of ‘Christians’ I have yet to encounter.”
I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn them. It could be a cultural thing. I watched this show once about young (non-Messianic) Jews in a religious school. The students were paired off into groups of two in order to study the Torah. They would take each scripture and aggressively argue with one another about the meaning. They were so aggressive they were almost yelling at one another.
Every so often the teacher (who appeared to be a Rabbi) would come walking around and say few words to settle the dispute and then move on to another pair of arguing students. As soon as the Rabbi left they would move on to another scripture and begin aggressively arguing (almost yelling) all over again. The Rabbi actually seemed to encourage this extremely aggressive behavior among his students.
Of course, since they weren’t Messianic Jews, they probably didn’t know anything about what both Yeshua/Jesus and Peter had said about being humble and reverent when defending your beliefs. It appeared to me that this Rabbi believed that this aggressive behavior was the preferred method of defending one’s beliefs to other people. I’m not sure if this is typical of all Jewish religious schools, but it would certainly seem to explain the behavior that you had said you observed at the conference.
If these Messianic Jews had this aggressive behavior ingrained in them at a young age (as the proper way to defend one’s beliefs), then it would probably be very difficult to teach them that there is actually a better (more Christian) way to defend one’s beliefs. Of course I wasn’t there and can only go by my limited knowledge and experience on the subject.
I find David (who is a Messianic Jew who posts here regularly) to be very humble, polite and reverent. However, I’m not really sure if he is a fair representation of the majority of Jews or not. Like I said my experience with people of the Jewish faith is very limited…
DT
So all Jews [Messianic or not] are like that?! :/
I think there is OT, as well as NT, precedence for a person of God being humble, patient and loving towards others DT [i.e. "the meek shall inherit the earth", Abigails' behaviour towards David, Joseph towards his brothers, etc.].
Xavier,
You are probably right. Like I said, “My experience with people of the Jewish faith is very limited.” It’s just when I heard you describe these unitarian Messianics that you had met at the One God conference, it reminded me of the behavior of these young students of the Torah, that I had seen in this show that I watched. From my point of view these students seemed very rude and aggressive as well.
I still don’t understand why the Rabbi seemed to encourage such rude behavior…
hi
a short comment about “the rudeness of messianic Jews”.
From what I could gather, it seems that Xavier made reference to an incident at the conference in Germany (which happened while I was not present and about which I later informed myself by asking various participants), where a small group of 3 individuals “misused” a time of testimonial and sharing to propagate their apparently rather strict and unusual doctrine and practice of their messianic Jewish group. One of three was a rabbi who did not even get to speak because his 2 collegues used up the time they had, and thus he got upset and made some rude remarks, etc …
There were other messianic Jews at the conference, who were more in number than those mentioned 3, who behaved quite orderly and decently, who were very considerate and cooperative with me as the responsible person for organizational matters … for example in regards points involving their beliefs about sabbath keeping and dietary considerations (the conference was from Fri – Sun and thus did involve a sabbath day).
To put perhaps a little perspective on things, I would like to mention that in the past I have regularly experienced members of “Christian groups” who at times behaved just as rude if not worse … interrupting a teacher in the middle of a teaching or sermon, yelling and screaming and throwing a fit because of something they did not agree with and about which they felt they needed to “take a stand” in pointing out the preacher’s error publically.
I also have experienced teachers who were quite forceful and outright in making fun of other groups in their sermon, ridiculing other groups’ beliefs, etc …. Now, I would consider such to be rude, and since it is coming from a teacher, I would think that such should be considered worse than what comes from people in an audience.
From what I have been able to gather regarding the incident at the conference (being not personally present, see above), my conclusions are that the situation could have perhaps been handled better, but that the rudeness of these people to me was not like “worse than I ever saw”, but was like “have seen this and worse before” … I view such as a challenge to exercise fruit of the spirit, such as longsuffering, patience, kindness.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
I was giving people my personal experience and opinion. Goes without saying, I am sure you will find such behavior [and worst] from other so-called Christians.
PS: Personal thanks to you [and Werner] for putting this thing together. Your work and dedication I am sure will not go unrewarded. I hope people on here do not get the idea that the whole conference was bad due to this topic.
When, oh, when are we going to have another debate??? It’s been quite a while, hasn’t it???
Jaco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jut7FNEJZKM
Over the last year and a half I have contemplated my debate with Marc Taylor, and there is something disturbing about it in hindsight.
I had debated Marc once before on the C.A.R.M. website (http://carm.org), some of it without print resources that I normally would have had with me for such a discussion (lexicons, theological dictionaries, even the latest edition of some books that were referred to in the debate, etc.).
In this most recent debate, I was frustrated much of the time in considering that for any resource I might present, there was another that Marc would come back, from a similar source, saying the opposite. There was banter about, for instance, presuppositions help by the editor of the Theological Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Dr. Colin Brown (at that time of Fuller Theological Seminary) and the fact that within articles he would make theological comments about articles that he edited. On the other hand, the one volume edition of that same 4-volume edition, excises comments made by Dr. Brown in favor of trinitarian conclusions by the work edited by Verlyn D. Verbrugge.
Additionally, I had some problems with Marc’s exegetical procedure, a point noted more directly by debate reader Jaco, particularly with respect to the early Christian usage of the Greek term LATREUO, which uses the word to refer to Adam when Marc insisted that the word could only be used of God or the gods.
While I cannot participate in such a discussion until after June of this year, I am wondering if there is a trinitarian “out there,” maybe even Marc Taylor, who might be interested in a discussion on exegetical procedure. I do not think that a theological ping-pong game of this scholar versus that scholar in the same print or online resources does the topic service. I do think that I was willing to continue the discussion because I felt that, ubiquitously, the arguments would inform any critical reader of which scholars were making the most consistent sense as the debate continued, obfuscation in the discussion notwithstanding.
I say these things in a preliminary way. It might be that someone else is much more suited to the task than I. Or maybe the thought of such a debate is worthless from the get go.
Comments?
Danny Andre’ Dixon
BereanDAD2003@yahoo.com
Danny,
Thank you for your debates – I’ve read the one with you and Marc a couple of times and watched the video of the one you did in Riverside a few years back. They, and other debates, have been very helpful as I come to understand the Bible better and decide what interpretation rings most true.
While I hope to always be Berean, I’ve landed pretty firmly for now in unitarian territory. In my limited exposure, what I find interesting is an evolution of trinitarian apologetics through 3 phases…
Phase 1: Just present the case for Jesus’ deity and the trinity. There is no serious objection to those so no need to go further.
Now that the internet has allowed greater sharing of thoughts and ideas and for lay people to mix with the seminary trained, counters to the basic trinitarian proof texts have found a foothold. So trinitarian apologists responded…
Phase 2: Acknowledge the objections but dismiss them as extremely poor exegesis.
The problem the trinitarians have is that they not only have to prove they have the truth, but that it also has to so be overwhelmingly clear that nobody in their right mind could possibly see it any other way. Otherwise, the Bible ceases to be the clear word of God (which is a problem for all denominations).
But there are some apologists who have gone beyond phase 2, but why should that be the case unless they agree it is not clear and unambiguous from scripture alone?
What I am seeing with Marc Taylor and with Robert Bowman and a few others is their argument is no longer based on proof texts, but has taken a completely separate approach by defining what God is then proving Jesus meets that definition. In other words:
Phase 3: Jesus is God and the trinity is truth, not because the Bible explicitly states it, but because of the circumstantial evidence. Jesus has the prayers, titles, omniscience, omnipotence, etc… that only God (according to a non-biblical definition) can have and therefore is God.
Curious to hear yours or anyone’s thoughts on this?
Danny,
I too have watched and read some of your debates and have truly benefitted from them. I’ve also been keeping an eye out for any upcoming unitarian/trinitarian debates. I’m hopeful the unitarian scholars will organize some in the near future (hint, hint)…
Tim,
I think your observations are spot-on. I see a lot of phase two in my research. The emergence of phase three should be encouraging for the unitarian cause, actually, because it is a sign of desperation.
Danny,
That’s a great summary of the same obsevations I made. An assessment of a person’s epistemology is necessary. We all know that the very framework of trinitarianism and their whole scheme of assumptions are non-biblical and utterly foreign to the ancient Jewish/Jewish Christian presupposition pool. Concepts such as being, nature, essence, etc. belong to heathendom and not Judaism. They ASSUME ontological identity, while only allowing for functional subordination, while the Hebraic scheme is solidly functional identity and ontological subordination.
I do not think quoting resources from opposite sides is a bad thing. It shows that the trinitarian crowd is utterly mistaken to even imagine their having a monopoly and consensus on conclusions. Many isolated indoctrinated churchgoing folk don’t know this. All they hear are the bold-faced persuasions of their leaders providing them with sensured information. What’s even better in quoting authorities refuting traditionally invented trinitarian eisegesis, is that they usually feel compelled to provide an interpretive scheme explaining why the Nicean/Chalcedonian interpretations are in error. That is often lacking in traditional resources and even more scarce in Evangelical propaganda.
But you need to also be selective in choosing your opponent. You need someone mature enough who can face an argument reciprocally. Debating someone as wooden and terminally halted in their indoctrination as some we’ve had on here is as good as arguing with a parrot who swallowed a theological dictionary. No interpretive scheme, no addressing of problematic interpretations, no response when challenged on epistemological assumptions, simply a list of references repeating what is challenged. Some can build their faith on such pseudologies. Some like a wooden, mindless spirituality (and we thought we’re out of the Dark Ages! LOL!).
I think you’ll get your opponent. I’ve been hunting for a debate here in South Africa myself, but all seem to pull out…:-( . Debating one’s epistemology and interpretive scheme is the way to go! But expecting Marc Taylor to be the one is like challenging a Pigmy for a pole-vault contest…spare us all the utter frustration…
Bless you!
Brother Jaco,
watch the ad hominem
Also, as I have reviewed the debate I think the poorest section had to be in the Question and Answer section of the discussion. In looking over some of the things I asked, I’m sure I don’t have a (present) idea of where I was wanting to go with the questions I posed. Additionally, if responses were brief, or if Marc knew not to go too deeply in a response, whatever I was going to do with a question would fall flat. I can honestly say that I did try to be thorough in responding to any of the questions he asked me.
I’m yet amazed at how little was done with John 1:1-3. I am guessing that some of the work done by people like Greg Stafford, J.D. BeDuhn, and even (unwittingly) Daniel Wallace and James White, to destroy the foundation of how to properly read those verses and identify the God or Gods therein when considering Trinitarian claims–I’m guessing that some of that work and his own knowledge or advice he received prior to or during the debate may have caused Marc to leave certain aspects of the discussion of that whole pericope alone.
13 Danny Dixon
Created? Well, I wouldn’t word it that way (i.e. “the Father created his Son”). I’d say that at some point in time the Father gave the Son life, and the Son was in the Father’s image or form reflecting the Father’s character and nature.
John 5:26
John 6:57
I’m not sure why people insist the language of “created” cannot be applied to Jesus in his relation to God? I mean, he was and is still a human being, no? I mean the birth narratives (Matt 1:1, 1:18, 1:20; Luk 1:35) that all use the word “genesis” and other constructions of this word all imply the same thing: one who is brought into existence – this word is even used for the heavens and the earth (and these we all agree are creations of God)…
http://mlbible.com/genesis/2-4.htm
In the debate, I wanted to use words and terms that I would have the least difficulty in supporting. There was too much wiggle with the word GENESIS based on the Nida-Louw domains lexicon; and I knew that “give life” as in the two passages above would serve me well enough in the debate. I don’t disagree with GENESIS meaning beginning, but in a context like those you mentioned, I can see it meaning something like “how it all began.” I would not necessarily say that that word in and of itself must be understood to include “creation” per se. KTISIS wasn’t used. God begetting Jesus” makes Jesus “beginning” something, then, like our begettal of children.
I’m sure I could do some more clarifying work on all that.
Danny
Steve:
You wrote, “I mean the birth narratives (Matt 1:1, 1:18, 1:20; Luk 1:35) that all use the word “genesis” and other constructions of this word all imply the same thing: one who is brought into existence – this word is even used for the heavens and the earth (and these we all agree are creations of God)…”
I don’t think that GENESIS implies things about Jesus so specifically as it seems to be a term that should be directly related to circumstances surrounding his birth. Part of the “Creation Narrative” of Genesis 1-3 is the bringing into existence of Adam and Eve. God makes the man out of the dust of the earth. God makes the woman out of a rib from the man. God creates the heaven and the earth out of nothing. All of it is, indeed “beginning,” but creating and making seem to me to be distinctly different.
As you know, I believe The Word of God had pre-human existence, and that that sentient entity BECAME Jesus (John 1:14).
Steve,
That’s not to say that the preexistence of The Word of God was eternal. I still believe that God gave life to him. Jesus doesn’t get specific about when that occurred in John 5:26; 6:57. And a good case can still be made from Colossians 1:15 that Christ was God’s first creation that was the cause of the rest of creation. That language was available to the synoptic writers, and, indeed, they had that sort of language (“firstborn of all creation”PROTOTOKOS PASEES KTISEOS) in the writings of Paul a decade or so before they wrote down anything.
I AM aware of the discussion surrounding the lexical and grammatical arguments surrounding Colossians 1:15 (E.g. “firstborn OVER all creation”; “firstborn” as a term of rank as compared with being one of temporal precedence). I just think the debate, after all is said and done with all the texts weighs more naturally for preexistence than a more Socinian POV.
Danny
Hi Danny,
I’m curious to know what you mean by “sentient entity”. Do you consider the Word of God to be an angel prior to entering Mary’s womb?
By sentient entity, I mean someone who was able to have a conscious relationship “with” God (John 1:1). Prior to becoming flesh, he is not spoken of as being an angel, but one to whom God gave life. Not a lot of details are contained there. Butis one through whom God created the universe (Colossians 1:15ff; Hebrews 1:2). Perhaps Proverbs 8 is a poetic description of him as architect, conceding that Wisdom in Hebrew is a personified feminine entity, and therefore the comparison is not exactly parallel, even though wisdom is spoken of as God’s architect in creation.
During my research on John 1, I encountered a very interesting commentary that might prove beneficial to others. I’m going to paste it in with the original formatting, although I’m not sure if it will carry over:
The full article can be found at: http://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/reading-john-1-with-clarity/
Sarah,
You have me apeithia not.
I was taught and still believe that GOD is the author of our Judo/christian scriptures.
Galatians 1:
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the *revelation* of Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:
16 All scripture is given by *inspiration* of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were *moved by* the Holy Ghost.
The advantage one has, when holy spirit is manifested, is the comforter will reveal the spiritual. Seems that many are confused by the scriptures simplicity. And your “link” brings more about the authors ability to express with poetry. Beautiful article that I will read again and check out the responses.
1 Corinthians 2:
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Wolfgang gave some simple to understand reasons for John:1…..
Thanks
Sarah,
Wanted to show you one thing that Wolfgang posted about John 1:1′
Johannes 1: (Luther 1545) 1 Im Anfang war *das Wort*, und *das Wort* war bei Gott, und Gott war *das Wort*.
German has three “thes”
masculine “der” hund=the dog
feminism “die” katze=the cat
neuter “das” haus=the house
*das wort* is neuter/neither male nor female
war=was
This was mentioned by Wolfgang.
Danny,
You said,
I don’t think that GENESIS implies things about Jesus so specifically as it seems to be a term that should be directly related to circumstances surrounding his birth. Part of the “Creation Narrative” of Genesis 1-3 is the bringing into existence of Adam and Eve. God makes the man out of the dust of the earth. God makes the woman out of a rib from the man. God creates the heaven and the earth out of nothing. All of it is, indeed “beginning,” but creating and making seem to me to be distinctly different.
The *creation narrative* of Genesis chapter is a historical summary of God creating/making all things. I don’t think you can entirely force a distinction between the words *create/make* – just study the 1st chapter of Genesis – these words are used interchangeably.
If we accept that Genesis chapter 1 is a record of God creating/making all things – then by definition they are all “creations” of God, hence why in Genesis 2:4 it says,
This is the account (gr. biblos geneseos) of the heavens and the earth when they were created (gr. egeneto), in the day that the LORD God made (gr. epoisen) earth and heaven (Gen 2:4 NAS)
Notice how the Genesis records speak of Adam and Eve,
This is the book of the generations (gr. biblos geneseos) of Adam. In the day when God created (gr. epoisen) man, He made him in the likeness of God. (Gen 5:1 NAS)
When God made the heavens, the earth and mankind, He, by definition, brought them into existence. To be brought into existence then implies a beginning and by that definition alone, must mean you were created/made.
The same language is forcefully used for Jesus.
The book of the genealogy (gr. biblos geneseos) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Mat 1:1 NAS)
Now the birth (gr. genesis) of Jesus Christ was as follows. (Mat 1:18 NAS)
For some reason, Christians try to compromise the birth narratives of Messiah – what is wrong to say that Jesus is a created being? Certainly we don’t want to say he is a mere creature, but rather God’s unique son, His pen-ultimate agent, His chosen servant foreordained by the foundation of this world? But nevertheless, if we have to discuss metaphysics – then yes, he is part of the creation of God, otherwise he must be eternal – and certainly we don’t believe that.
I am a little worried about your view on logos christology from the prologue of John – I don’t believe John had pre-existence in mind there.
Hello Steve,
Welcome to K.R.!!! I agree with you that Y’shua was not preexistent, but was part of God’s plan and was brought into existence at his birth. I hope you enjoy your visit here with us. There are a lot of good articles on this site…
Doubting Thomas,
You said it:
Y’shua was not preexistent, but was part of God’s plan and was brought into existence at his birth.
That settled it.
Timothy
Sarah,
Thanks for that link. I was unaware of ‘chiastic’ poetry but it is potentially very revealing. A quote from wikipedia states that from mid-Exodus to end of Leviticus is a chiastic structure, with the core being Leviticus 11-20. In a similar vein, John 12 would actually be the core of his opening – ‘becoming children of God’. While I have to digest this further, I’m wondering if this chiastic approach is not utilized also in Hebrews 1 – which was discussed quite a bit here recently.
timothy,
Glad you found the article interesting. And I agree, the point that “the word” is gender neutral is important to consider when evaluating John 1.
Tim (aka Antioch),
You’re welcome. I knew about chastic poetry, but it didn’t occur to me to look for it in the New Testament. I have a theory that the much-debated portion of Philippians 2 is chiastic as well, and plan to investigate that possibility further. I never thought about it in relation to Hebrews 1. That”s an intruiging idea…
I think we should be careful about assigning gender to grammatical terms. Jesus says, for example, “The Son of Man came to seek and to save THAT WHICH WAS LOST” (Luke 19:10). “That which,” a neuter concept in English is, as we know, really “THEY WHO WERE LOST,” but not in Greek – they are neuter. It’s like “The pretty girl” in German. With the preceding thoughts in mind, the phrase is translated “Das schöne Mädchen” – which is neuter in German. Girls are feminine (Well, at least many of them are here in Texas)!
Of course so long as we’re talking about the CLASS of lost ones and depersonalize it, it works. But is that really what we want to do?
A useful comment: “In Greek literature, the neuter is used at times with reference to persons if it is not the indivduals, but a general quality that is to be emphasized” Blass-Debrunner-Funk,[i] A Greek-English Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature[/i], p. 76.
Timothy, your and DT’s comment, while eloquent represents an option of thought, but it really settles nada.
Steve,
Jesus is the one making things in Genesis 1. He was God’s agent through whom God brought everything into existence.
“There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Corinthians 8:6);
“Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1:15-16).
“But in these last days God has spoken to us b a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2).
I’ll only be as dogmatic about this as anyone else is dogmatic about another opinion.
Jesus is the Word of God, a person God gave life to (John 5:26; 6:57). I see no compelling reason to believe that didn’t occur prior to the creation of this universe.
Danny
I think about a quote from Anthony Buzzard’s The Doctrine of the
Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, p. 104-105. I quote it here. Brackets included are his:
“To emphasize the exalted position of the resurrected Messiah, his authority over all rivals and his supreme position in God’s plan, Paul wrote to the people at Colossae:
‘And he is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by [literally, "in"] him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or nrulers or authorities–all things have been created by [literally, "through"] him and for him. And he is before all things and in him all things hold together (Col. 1:16)’” (pp. 104-105).
He then proceeds to quote James Dunn regarding Colossians 1:15-20, agreeing with him that “Paul was not seeking to win men to belief in a preexistent being” (p. 105). Any conception of seeing the previous passage as anything other than a means of God working alone and not EN (as in the since of “in, with, or by means of” – all three are viable interpretations) and DIA (“through,” “by means of”) is to read into the passage “the much later decisions of church councils.” One does not have to think about church councils to see Christ as being an individual. It would be prohibitive here (well maybe not) to list here all the intertestimental literature about “Wisdom” and Logos being related. Also one does not have to automatically drop as being impossible that idea of revelation progressively revealing how God’s creation and working and plans for humankind involved a person identified as the Word, the Word of God (John 1:1; Rev. 19:13).
I will grant that there is no concept clearly revealed to say that there is a Deity of two or three persons. But to say that with the Deity is another entity brought into existence as a means through which the deity decided to accomplish some things, like creation EN AUTW (“by means of him” is a perfectly good translation that is also LITERAL. Anthony would leave us to believe that only the translation “in” is literal for the Greek word EN. That’s just not so. The 1979 Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon sites the “causal or instrumental” use of the Greek word EN (p. 260).
Hi Danny,
For my part, I don’t agree with the pre-existence view but am willing to change my stance if the evidence warrants. I appreciate your comments because they give me food for thought. I see the point of the pre-existence proponents that Paul’s language seems to suggest it. But then again, even Peter indicates that Paul wrote things hard to understand, things which are easily twisted into something they weren’t intended to mean. So I am looking for a holistic convergence of ALL Biblical evidence to point to pre-existence.
John 1 is the linchpin of the pre-existence argument, but in my research I have found that even trinitarian scholars disagree amongst themselves on the nature of the word prior to becoming flesh, as well as the word’s relationship to the Father. In my view the idea of a concious pre-existent spirit Jesus becoming flesh is a veiled concept in scripture at best, even if we grant that this is what John was saying. That raises a huge red flag in my mind. I also think there is room for alternate readings of John 1, particularly given its poetic nature. I find Anthony’s arguments plausible, though there could be other as-of-yet unexplored possibilites.
It’s striking to me that Jesus never once claimed to have created (or participated in creating) the heavens and the earth. It is also striking to me that the most ancient Hebrew notion of personhood is found in Genesis and simply offers no support for the conscious pre-existence of a person. If this radically changed in the person of Jesus Christ, I would expect to see some really clear language in scripture to explain this new way of thinking about personhood.
With respect to the Rev 19:13-15, isn’t this the resurrected Christ *speaking* the word of God with judicial authority? It’s referring to Isaiah 11:2-4, where the Messiah is depicted as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit in full wisdom and power, thereby speaking God’s words in righteous judgment.
Paul says that Jesus was betowed the name above all names as a result of his submission to the cross (Philippians 2:9), which tells me Jesus wasn’t in permanent possession of the name “Word of God” until he had proven himself faithful to God’s plan. In fact, I would say Jesus *submitted to* the word of God during his ministry. For example, the suffering of the Messiah was predicted in Isaiah 53, which Jesus surely read as he studied the Tenach prior to his public ministry. He would have recognized by the Holy Spirit that these words were written about him. He obeyed the word of God, a separate entity from himself, and thus was given full authority to administer it in judgment. Indeed, three separate times in Revelation, the phrase “word of God” is *distinguished* from Jesus (1:2, 1:9, 20:4).
So, I’m not convinced there is a good case for making Jesus one-for-one the word of God in an ontological sense. But I see a solid case for Jesus as the human conduit for the words of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Overall I see a number of problems with pre-existence, but a good deal of support for Anthony’s conclusions, so that is where I stand at present. However I am always open to any evidence that is brought forward.
Sarah – my sentiments exactly.
There are a few things I need to take care of with respect to my job (some grading responsibilities and being in the midst of state examinations, plus some other academic pursuits that will distract me for a few days (less than a week), and I will return to this. I may find some minutes to dip back into the discussion. Please be patient. My Principal has advised me of a new assignment for my next year 12th grade classes, MY final exams for first year law school are coming up and I’m right in the middle of preparations for about 4000 pages of texts for that as well. It sounds daunting and time consuming; but I just need to divide my time up and I’ll be back to these theological reflecions as a fair share of my focus on things spiritual.
At any rate, thanks for the kind disposition even in disagreement. Please know, Sarah, Tim, and others, that I share the same heart. I’m not sure that we’ll agree, but if we don’t there’ll be no hard feelings, indeed there’ll be deep respect, for all who a part of this continuing conversation.
Sarah asks, regarding Revelation 19:13-15:
“With respect to the Rev 19:13-15, isn’t this the resurrected Christ *speaking* the word of God with judicial authority? It’s referring to Isaiah 11:2-4, where the Messiah is depicted as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit in full wisdom and power, thereby speaking God’s words in righteous judgment. ”
No, it’s Jesus who is The Word of God coming in judgment. Here is a chiastic presentation of the teaching of the passage, Sarah:
A. He has a name written which no one owns except Himself (v. 12b).
B. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood (v. 13a).
C. His name is called the Word of God (v. 13b).
C. From His mouith comes a sharpt two-edged sword (v. 15a)
B. He treads the wine press of the fierce wrth of God (v. 15b).
A. On His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: King of Kings and Lord of Lords (v. 16).
The sharp, two-edged sword of 15a answers to 13b’s characterization of Christ as the Word of God; 15b’s information that Christ treads the wine press of wrath explains how His robe became stained with blood in 13a; and 16 tells us the name that 12b says Christ uniquely owns.
I would quarrel a little with some of the wording of the following explanation of v. 13 given by David Chilton in the The Days of Vengeance, a commentary on Revelation (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 484. But essentially I agree with it. I suppose I won’t have anyone say his or her “sentiments exactly.” It wouldn’t make it any less true:
[v. 13 . . . Christ's "robe dipped in blood" is explained by v. 15a. The blood is, clearly, that of Christ's enemies, the "grapes of wrath"; yet (as we saw on 14:20), there is a sense in which the bloody robe is stained by Christ's own sacrifice of Himself as well. For the vision is truly an allegory of the Incarnation: Here alone in Revelation, as in the Prologue to His Godpel (John 1:1, 14), St. John calls Christ "the Word," speaking of His pre-existence and divine nature, and of His becoming flesh, tabernacling among us. In the passage before us, moreover, we have not only an allegory of His Incazrnation, but of His Atonement, Resurrection, Ascension, and Enthronement as well. This is not "only" the story of the outpouring of wrath on Israel. It is the story of Jesus Christ, the King of kings. We see here the Advent of the Son of Man: The heavens are opened, and He descends to earth to do battle with His enemies; stained with blood, He wins the victory.]
As to Old Testament applications, over Sarah’s Isaiah 11:2-4, I prefer Isaiah 49:1-2 where the pre-Incarnate Christ says:
“Listen to Me, O islands,
And pay attention, you peoples from afar.
The LORD called Me from the womb;
From the inward parts of My mother He named Me.
And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword.”
Another interpretation, equal to, if not better than, that proposed in comments above.
Danny Dixon
In chiastic arrangement . . .
The “A’s” interpret each other.
The “B’s” interpret each other.
The “C’s” interpret each other.
The central part of it all is the C’s, which is to be seen as the focus of the segment: The name “Word of God” and the inferences and generalizations which can be drawn from that to warn of the meting out of God’s judgment at his (The Word of God’s) hand.
Danny Dixon
Danny,
I see ‘word’ (logos/memra/dabar) used hundreds and hundreds of times throughout the NT and OT where it cannot possibly be a person. I see it used three times (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14, Rev 19:13), all by the same author, where it does seem to be a person. It troubles me to think John is redefining what ‘word’ means. Or perhaps John, being very poetic, is making a poetic point? That Jesus, being the one who made God known as never before, is poetically equated with the ‘word’ that the Jews of that time would have only known as an ‘it’?
A parallel: there are a few ‘us’ texts in the OT (Gn 1:26, Gn 3:22, Gn 11:7, Is 6:8). Many trinitarians use those to show God is multipersonal, but that goes against the thousands and thousands of singular pronouns. Do we ignore the sheer weight of all the passages that clearly paint a certain picture in order to appease a few confusing passages that might be saying something else?
So glad you are here sharing your views. Love and Joy.
Danny,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree with a great deal of the quote by Mr. Chilton regarding Rev 19:13. I can even agree that it refers to John 1. But as I mentioned previously, and Tim also alluded to in post #72, there is much more evidence regarding the “word of God” to be considered than those two individual passages. For example, even the book of Revelation refers to the “word of God” as a separate entity from Jesus on three occasions.
I agree with you, Is 49:1-2 is another excellent OT counterpart to Rev 19:13-15. And in fact, a few verse later, Isaiah speaks prophetically of Christ this way:
Isa 49:5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength),
The word for “formed”, yatsar, is the same word used in Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
This certainly looks to me like the Messiah was prophesied to be formed in the womb by God himself. Wouldn’t the Hebrew mind have therefore understood Christ’s personhood in the same way they understood Adam’s personhood, given such passages in the OT? Especially when Paul drew frequent parallels between Christ and Adam?
Tim and Sarah:
Thanks for your note. I’m not a trinitarian, so I’m not sure why you compare me with them. Also, I don’t think John is redefining anything. The use of a word in its various contexts doesn’t detract from its meaning in another context. Jesus is not almighty God. He is the Son of God. He was with God before the creation of this world. Certainly you can take that to be poetic. AND you can take it NOT to be poetic. There is nothing contradictory that remains with respect to the biblical evidence to say that Jesus preexisted an earthly existence, that he was brought into existence by God the Father, that he created and sustains the world (Hebrews 1:1-3). The principle of Agency accounts for any difficulty of how one will consider the various texts, symbolic or literal.
Colossians 1:15ff speaks of the Christ as being God’s firstborn. “Firstborn of all creation” can be understood in the sense of status (with the understanding of being firstborn over all creation, as in the LXX of Psalm 89:27: “I will appoint him to be my firstborn son, the most exalted of the earth’s kings.” The use of PROTOTOKOS there may be symbolic in the sense that as the first one born in a Jewish family had particular rights and status, Jesus, if he was the first one that God brought into existence at some undisclosed point in time, he would, in parallel form, have an exalted status. That PROTOTKOS in and of itself is a symbolic term is possible (of course), but certainly not necessary. Colossians says he is firstborn of all creation, and if everything after him is made by him FOR him, I don’t see the difficulty. Also, I see that any problems of understanding are quite solved in this way of seeing things.
I see no reason to see John 1:1-3, 14, as being anything other than what it says straight up. The Word, as a person, was with (PROS) God. The Word, because he was produced by God had a divine nature, so he was “a god”. The Word became flesh, that is he became Jesus, and tented among us.
The prepositions are rich in Colossians 1:15-17, we have the Greek words EN, DIA, and EIS, “by,” “through”, and “for.” Clear definitions apparent in any standard Greek lexicon. Again, I ask, what is the problem in acknowledging that Jesus was a person who, as God’s agent, created the universe?
Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us that God used to communicate in the past in various ways and now communicates to us in a son. The son is “heir of all things,” and the son is the agent “through whom God created the world.” Makes sense to me, and I don’t need any gnostic influence to clearly see that.
“Weight of all the passages” is not the way to determine meaning exegetically. Context determines meaning every time. John is confusing to you because you have a predisposition about methods of interpretation and exegesis. Sorry, but I wasn’t trained to find John confusing at all. Especially when, repeatedly I see God talking through angels who are (confusingly) permitted to call themselves by his very name (Exodus 3 compared with Acts 7 or even one of the angels who visit Abraham being called Yahweh). It is an author’s intention in a particular text that determins meaning. That’s the way I speak. I know my language, I know how to pick and choose words to communicate precisely what I want them to mean in any given context. I may say, “I’m going for a run in the park. I’ll be back in 30 minutes.” I don’t ever allow the fact that a dictionary has multiple definitions of the word “run” to affect the one definition that I want to use it for in a particular context. If I am speaking of running around a track athletically, the word doesn’t mean a run in a pair of panty-hose, or a runny nose, or a run of the mill example, or a particular run of an edition of a newspaper or magazine.
I’m glad that the word “word” is used as it is used in multiple texts throughout the Old Testament. I also appreciate revelations of things not formerly revealed that let us know about things possibly hinted at in the Old Testament. I think more about a passage like Proverbs 8:30, as opposed to the passages you mentioned which have other explanations, none of which demand an understanding that when God says “us” he is talking about a plural godhead. He’s talking to his council of angels, or at least that’s one way of looking at it. Or he’s talking about himself in a majestic plural (at least Gesenius sees that as an option.
As to John’s use of language in Isaiah to be applied to the Word, he is doing just that, accomodating his language. I mean, in context itself, Isaiah 49 is not technically talking about anyone God created as an individual. The personified speaker does identify himself as Israel idealized: “He said to me,” it says in Isiah 49:3, “You are my servant, Israel, through whom I will reveal my splendor.” That the language can be used to refer to the Son is John’s prerogative. But I’m not trying to argue my point that way ultimately anyway. There is no difficulty in seeing Jesus as a preexistent (with respect to human existence) person, called God’s Son, called The Word or The Word of God, whom God commissioned to create the universe and sustain it. The General Contractor, Almighty God, gets the credit, ultimately, for what architects and master craftsmen put out.
I’m sorry you are confused with John. Please don’t feel badly for me that I am not confused.
Danny
Correction: “Thanks for your notes” in the first part of my response.
Danny Dixon
Thanks for your time and your thoughts, Danny. I do realize you’re not a trinitarian. Having been convinced of the Unitarian position about a year ago, I’m still in the process of studying and evaluating all the evidence on these various issues. So I was just pressing a bit to learn what evidence compelled you to take the position you do, and also how you might challenge the arguments for the beginning of Jesus’ existence starting at his conception.
Many thanks, once again, for all of your contributions to this site. I’ve certainly gained insight from them.
Dear Sarah:
I am familiar with the Unitarian position and and argued with Dan Mages and Lee Greer against three members of the Evangelical Debate Society in Riverside, CA in December of 2005 at the First Congregational Church of Riverside, CA. In June of 2006 I joined Robert Hach and David Murphy for a rematch with members of the EDS at Calvary Chapel Saving Grace Church in Yorba Linda, CA. My leanings at the time, in both debates, were toward a Jesus-As-Pre-existent approach, but I agreed to forego comments expressing that opinion. The first can be seen on the Internet at http://hungertruth.org (I’m trying to get it produced for posting at my blog Disciples for One God at http://4OneGod.org where, under the “Debates” Category on the right hand menu, you can click and find the latter debate under “The Trinity: Truth or Tragedy? #3,” which is only an audio debate. On the Unitarian side are Robert Hach, David Murphy and I. “The Trinity: Truth or Tragedy? #2″ is an professionally moderated audio debate between Dan Mages and one member of the EDS Brother Edward Enochs.
As you may know from reading comments in this debate against Marc Taylor, I went against him on another occasion, I believe it was 2007 and I argued the Unitarian side in print. I opted to argue a more Arian side in this debate because I believe a case can be made for it so long as one is willing, before the debate, to agree to certain interpretational presuppositions. The same is true for a strict Unitarian discussion. I think it is impossible to come to debate this topic without agreeing, personally, to accept some things as so before beginning. I think, too, that it is entirely inappropriate to lay a charge of accepting a neoplatonisticism predisposition on someone who takes an approach that Jesus pre-existed his earthly tabernacling among us. Legitimate principles of exegesis and hermeneutics will allow that position to be coherently argued. And I’ve tried to do so in this discussion. As I said earlier on this page (beginning around comment #43) I was disappointed with the debate because of what I felt were weird approaches to argumentation that went on between Marc and me – just throwing scholars back and forth between us. I couldn’t get him to discuss John 1:1-3 as thoroughly as I desired. So the reading may have been frustrating to ALL who followed the debate.
If I’m sounding a bit knuckle-headed, it’s because, for purposes of this discussion at this forum, I want to maintain a commitment to the Pre-human Existence POV. But I’ve already stated above that I believe that the strict Unitarian POV can be effectively argued as well, although it seems to be contrived and esoteric to me. Contrived and esoteric does not mean wrong. As has already been noted, particularly as regards Paul, Scripture interpretation can be difficult. And that is quite true with regard to THIS topic.
I hope I am not coming across as disrespectful to posters in my recent comments.
Sincerely,
Danny Andre’ Dixon
Hi Danny,
I don’t think you’re being disrespectful at all. We are all entitled to our own opinions on these things. You can’t expect someone to believe something that doesn’t make sense to them…
Danny,
I do not see you at all as coming across as ‘disrespectful’.
One clarification I wanted to make – I know you are not trinitarian and did not mean to imply that you were.
I’m just a lay person and have only been a Christian for about two and a half years so I am still learning a lot. But for now, I’m still not comfortable with pre-existence – I’m not convinced it cannot be, just that in my readings it is not what makes most sense. Am I wrong to say there is no pre-existent messiah in any of the OT?
Deu 18:18 says God will raise up a prophet like Moses from among the Israelites – that says to me he will be a man like the Israelites were men.
Now, I understand that not garnering a mention in the OT does not mean it isn’t true, but I see the writers of the NT using the OT to explain and justfiy their doctrines as that was all the scripture they had. And I also read in the NT that Jesus was made like us, were we also pre-existent?
Tim:
The people on the YahooGroups forum http://4onegod.net that I monitor essentially argue that the problem with Jesus not being the Word of God the PERSON is that no person ever had a background like the one Jesus did (under the pre-existence model). Consequently, he was not “like his brothers in every way.” Although I wouldn’t care to argue the point (because there isn’t enough evidence to make it worthwhile), no one knows whether humans had pre-existence or not. No one knows what sort of significance to put on a passage like John 9:1-3; one could affirm that Jesus failure to pursue this line of questioning by his disciples, he was ignoring a foolish argument about the possibility of the blind man having sinned in pre-existent time before being borth (“Who sinned, THIS MAN or his parents, that he should be BORN blind.”). If he had an existence beforehand and part of the consequences for the offense in that world was to be born a blind human, how would we know that it wasn’t true, especially since we have that little tidbit of a passage that might be the very hint of a reality God didn’t care to expound on through his inspired writers?
My response, leaving that last point alone, is that we take humans as we find them. We take Jesus, The Word of God become flesh, as we find him. He is absolutely human now. It doesn’t matter what he was previously. If it were possible, kenotically, to divest oneself of any divine nature (not Almighty God, mind you) and to be born human utterly, then what is the problem. I don’t recall a list of rules that says, “This and only this constitutes a legitimate, and the only type of legitimate, human being.” Even if one takes Jesus as he has come to be among us, why was he able to fulfill 1 Corinthians 10:13 when no other human could – pardon me: when no other human HAS?
The Prophet to come is certainly Jesus as John 7 would indicate. So here he is, miraculously brought into the world with a coming unlike anyone elses (How dare anyone say that Jesus’ coming was a simple human genesis – it wasn’t!) At any rate, again I have to say that one has to accept all manner of preconceptions about what is and isn’t normal before one can say that the pre-human existence model is not coherent.
I do appreciate your continued commitment to God.
Sincerely,
Danny Andre’ Dixon
Danny,
Thanks for the info about the debates. A few months back I watched the entire debate held at Master’s College. I thought the unitarian side did an excellent job, especially toward the last half. As far as your posts are concerned, I don’t think you are being disrespectful. Some friendly sparring goes with the territory on a blog like this. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a discussion on the issue.
You mentioned earlier that the “weight of evidence” isn’t the way to exegete a particular passage. Yet I’m drawing upon the weight of Biblical evidence regarding the “word of God” not to nullify the immediate context of John 1, but rather to support my view of that context.
I think most scholars would agree John is alluding to Genesis 1 by virtue of his opening line “In the beginning was the word”. To me, John 1 looks very much like a poetic parallel to Genesis 1, with an emphasis on God’s creation of Adam using the spoken word. Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that when God spoke the first Adam into existence, “the word became flesh” (Gen 1:26-27)? In terms of context, I would say that John is seeking from the very opening verses of his prologue to present Christ as the Last Adam, uniquely made by the very word of God (as opposed to normal biological processes).
The explicit and implicit comparisons between Christ and Adam are abundant in the NT. From an ontological perspective, I think this squares better with the various OT prophecies about Christ being a man, being a physical descendent of David, and being formed by God in the womb. Yes, it does leave a degree of ambiguity in some of Paul’s comments, I’ll grant you. But I am confident that Paul’s writings had their roots in the OT. So I would be far more easily convinced of the case for Jesus’ sentient pre-existence if I could identify it in the OT scriptures.
Ultimately, though, we are both in the same corner on the question of who Jesus is in relation to God. And that is certainly the most important thing!
Sarah,
It is scary that so often you say what I am thinking better than I do
To answer my own question, I came across an OT verse (which I wasn’t even looking for) that does seem to address pre-existence. Micah 5:2
Comments?
Tim:
Of course that is argued by some to mean that this “could simply be a reference to the Messiah’s ancestral roots (David, Abraham, etc.).” (So says, Patrick Navas in Divine Truth or Human Tradition (2011, p. 232).
Bottom line I don’t see that it matters. Scripture doesn’t say that it matters or that it is essential that we know the details of Jesus’ origins and substance. We DO need to believe that he is the Christ the son of the Living God (John 20:31).
Devilishly Advocating,
Danny Andre’ Dixon
Tim,
Found this on BiblicalUnitarian.com. I think it makes good sense:
p.s. Tim – Just wondering how the whole conversation with your pastor went down. Have you shown him your paper, and if so, how did he react?
Tim (aka Antioch),
I am also curious to hear about how the pastor and others reacted to your paper…
Sean/Ron/??? – my posts don’t seem to be showing. My last two posts have not appeared and when I tried to repost the very last one, I am getting a message that it is a duplicate. Any ideas?
Sarah/DT – having trouble with posting, so for now, just a nutshell. Yes I sent my paper. One pastor encouraged me to keep studying. One said it is ok to stay involved with church as long as I stay in the closet. Another guy (non pastor) offered to go through it with me and we started to do that but it soon became non-productive.
The one ‘God moment’ was when one of the pastors had the entire congregation stand up and recite the Nicene Creed. I think I was the only one that didn’t.
How is your paper going, Sarah?
Hi Tim,
I’m glad that you are not being ex-communicated. I know there are many non-denominational churches that allow people with various beliefs to attend, but there are some churches that will shun you if your beliefs are in any way different to the officially proclaimed doctrine…
Tim,
Really glad to hear you weren’t booted from church, but I hope it won’t become too uncomfortable for you, now that your pastors know you disagree with the trinitarian view. I wonder if they had everyone stand and recite the creed in response to your situation. I’m sure that took a lot of courage to remain seated. I think God could turn it into a huge opportunity for you to share truth with others – I imagine some will ask why you didn’t recite the creed. What denomination is your church? About how many members attend?
My paper is basically done. I am polishing and revising it now. In several places I quote trinitarian scholars who admit that the trinity isn’t taught in scripture. I took a section to discuss a bit of church history, because I really want to show the Greek philosophical roots of the doctrine, in contrast to the Hebrew mindset of scripture. I am also taking a lot of care with John 1, since it’s the go-to trinitarian passage.
Overall, I hope to set a tone that gets my message across without raising the reader’s defenses. It’s tricky, because Christian culture makes it tough for someone to look at the idea of the trinity objectively. When you’ve been told all your life (incorrectly) that it’s the foundational creed of your very salvation, I think it takes the spirit of God to open your eyes to the truth. I really admire guys like Joel Hemphill over at 21stcr.org – he is speaking to gatherings of trinitarian ministers to say he was wrong for 50 years on the subect of the trinity. I am praying hard for God to raise more people like him, who will take the message right into the heart of the mainstream church where it is so desperately needed.
It is an EV Free church, roughly 1000 people. I love this church and it breaks my heart that I have to be so careful with what I believe. That this unbiblical doctrine has become an essential – I just don’t understand what God is doing with this. How can we be divided over such a fundamental question? But, I look at the NT and weren’t so many letters written because of the wanderings of the early churches? I don’t know if it is Satan or just our own make up that causes us to factionalize.
Thanks for the lead on Hemphill – I’ve been to that site before but watched the video of his presentation. Have you heard of any unitarians ‘see the light’ and switch to trinitarian?
Who are you going to send your paper to?
Tim,
Yeah, this really started way back in NT times with gnosticism. And it morphed from there. Really, the Gentile church is just a mirror reflection of Israel’s wanderings. One of the OT prophets says that at Christ’s return the knowledge of the Lord will spread all over the earth. And Revelation adds that Satan will no longer deceive the nations during that time. So, a time is coming when we will actually see complete unity in the church.
I’m guessing you meant that the other way around. Haven’t heard of any trinitarian pastors become unitarians yet. That is now a big item on my prayer list though. If God would open the eyes of even a few highly visible trinitarian pastors, it could launch a reformation.
My parents first. I’m single, so no family of my own to discuss it with. Then at some point, probably my pastors. It’s strange and sometimes overwhelming to find myself with a different view of the Bible than most of the people in my life. Never knew what it was like to be in a minority until now.
Tim(aka Antioch),
You are being brave.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of [f]timidity, but of power and love and [g]discipline. (nasb)
[f] Or cowardice
[g] Or sound judgment
Timothy (8)
Thank you, timothy.
Sarah – nothing like being a minority to hypersensitize you. I did actually mean switching from uni to trini – there are many examples of those that were trini and switched, but I have yet to come across anyone that went the other way. Granted, it is a smaller pool to draw from, but I would be very interested to understand why that would be if indeed it is even possible. I pray too for a big name to abandon the trinity (seems NT Wright is not that far away).
I agree with your point about the wanderings of Israel, but we are supposed to have the spirit now guiding us into all truth. That troubles me that we are still so divisive.
Tim, I see your point now with the uni to trini question. I suspect that a high percentage of unitarians were former trinitarians, though, so I’m not sure it’s an even comparison. But if you could look at the pool of people who were raised as unitarians and see if anyone switched, that might be revealing. But anyway, I agree that N.T. Wright does seem like he’s on the cusp…
2. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:59 pm2 Marc Taylor wrote:
“Danny, How can it be a case of agency when an agent is a substitute? Jacob already entered into God‘s presence.
You wrote: The majority of professional biblical scholars appear to be Trinitarian in bent. There are recognized biblical scholars who seem to have a Unitarian leaning.
“Why do you think a majority of professional biblical scholars are of a Trinitarian bent? Are they all missing something that you see?
Please list some biblical scholars that have Unitarian leanings.”
James D. G. Dunn: DID THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WORSHIP JESUS?: THE NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2010) (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010).
Not sure if this was out when Mark and I debated. Based on our debate, I’m not sure if Marc would consider James D. G. Dunnto be a recognized scholar worth reading.
–Danny Dixon