Jun 042012
Below are links to my new screencast lecture, God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament. It is based on a talk I gave in May 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. An actual video of that talk has been posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. I wasn’t reading from a script, so the versions are a bit different.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Print 
PDF
I have finally taken the time to listen to this. Thank you, Dale, for these clear (and free!!!) lectures on logic. I made notes.
Gordon Fee was the only author you quoted that I am familiar with. Some of his writing is wonderful. But as you pointed out in your quotation from
“Theophilus Lindsey”,
Actually, I think it’s something we ALL – and not just professionals – should be constantly on guard against.
I’m curious to hear what you make of the hymn quoted in Philippians 2:6-8?
Hi SMW
The (alleged )’hymn’ quoted is easy to understand.
Paul was drawing parallels with Genesis.
The first Adam – was made in the image of Almighty God – but his sin was to try to equate himself with God.
Genesis 3v25 states “Ye shall be like Gods” (if you eat the fruit) and have eternal life.
The SECOND ADAM made no such mistakes.- far from trying to snatch equality with God and disobeying Gods command the verses speak of Christ humbling himself and becoming obedient -even to the point of crucifixion.
Christ ‘emptied’ himself of his human ego
For this GOD has elevated him to Lord and Messiah.
Interestingly Paul uses the term “form of God’ – not God.
This is where the ‘gymnastics ‘begin – if one cares to do so.
Best Wishes
John
[...] the screencast version, which I did when I got back from the conference. Be Sociable, Share! [...]
Greg – it would be worth your while to listen to this “crash course” in logic. I just finished listening to it again, and thoroughly enjoyed it – again.
I didn’t try to memorize all the equations, but the LOGIC is undeniable. And that is a real help in understanding what the NT says about God and his Son.
Total time, for all three parts, is 45 minutes. And if you don’t want to listen to it all at once, you can listen to it in individual sessions, fifteen-minutes at a time.
Marg
Do you believe the Logos was a Being, an eternal individual, Who became flesh?
One sentence in Part 3 caught my attention, and I went back to hear it again. Dale quotes1 Corinthians 8:6, stressing the contrast between the prepositions: “There is one God FROM whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ THROUGH whom are all things and through whom we exist.” The contrast is clear.
Then Dale asks, “Does this have to do with the original creation or with the original creation and the new creation that Paul talks about?”
For the purposes of his lecture, it doesn’t really matter; but the two options are intriguing. Which is in view? The original creation [only], or the original creation AND the new creation?
It seems to me that the context points toward the latter. If the original creation ALONE were in view, that would leave the future for the idols to claim some credit for.
But Paul is contending that an idol is nothing at all. ALL THINGS – past, present AND future – are from the one God, through the one Lord. Idols have “no real existence”.
That certainly harmonizes with the view held by early writers who believed in the kind of “trinity” that Dale defines at the end of the session:
one true God, the Father;
the Son of God; and
the Spirit of God.
Marg,
I have watched these videos before. Very interesting, and instructive. It’s clear to me that the One True God is the Father of the Messiah, Yeshua of Nazareth. Yeshua is not himself the One True God. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29), but the Messiah is a man (Acts 17:31). I think the difficulty in defining the “Godhead” (for lack of a better word) has something to do with the fact that there is something rather than nothing — a universe filled with stuff that is not God. I think the Word of God is the interface between the transcendent and that which we perceive. There has to be some connection or point of contact between the “other” that is God in his essential being, and his creation, and I think that is to be found in the Word. The Word is God’s outreach to us, his attempt to come near to us. And the Word was made flesh — and this was the ultimate uniting of the uncreated and the created. But I believe that Yeshua was a genuine human being, not some kind of Greco-Roman God-Man who was born half-god and half-man. I think the New Testament makes it clear that it is of the utmost importance that Yeshua is a human being like all other human beings (Hebrews 2:17). He had to be like us to identify with us, and if was also the Lord God he could not identify with us. God is one, and the Messiah is someone other than that one God.
Hi Greg,
You make many valid points.!!
If Christ were someone other than a human being, all of the suffering would mean nothing.!!
A ‘super-human’ being could ‘tune-out’ and remain impervious to human suffering!
One sees this sort of thing in childrens movies all the time!
Blessings
John
Marg
Was the Logos a Being, an eternal individual, Who became flesh?
Greg – I agree with what your conclusions about the one true God and his Son.
Certainly, the Messiah had to be a true man. Hebrews 2 makes that perfectly plain. He “shared” in our “flesh and blood,” so that he could identify with us, die for our sins, free us from the bondage of death, and restore us to fellowship with God.
But I kind of like the idea of the Word as an “interface” – ambiguous though that may be. It is an interesting idea, and it makes quite a bit of sense. I might not word it in quite the same way, but I can follow your reasoning, and I like it.
Don’t stop reasoning. And don’t stop TESTING.
Marg
I’m hurt.
Dale
(i)I’m not very computer-literate … is there any way I can copy your three part presentation (above) onto a DVD ?
(ii) I think you are being very generous when you say that there are some verses in the scriptures in which Christ is referred to as ‘God”.
Everything I have looked at in this regard. falls apart.!
Much of the confusion (as you say) results from the definition of ‘Lord” also-
(a) In 1 Tim 3v16 “God” was a later (Byzantine) insert
(b) 2 Peter 1 v1&2 – v1 is at variance with 1v8,1v14 1v16 – and Christs explicit statements
(c) 1 John 3v16 . the word “God’ is not in the Greek
(d) Acts 7v59 the word “God ‘ is not in the Greek. Take a look at Zondervan Greek Interlinear.
note that the English words “on, God” do not have any Greek words above them – just a blank!
Some people will go to any lengths to carry on this nonsense!
Blessings
John
Dale – I have just listened again to your “Crash course in logic,” and I thank you again. It allows me to use the language of logic in testing a comment that was made on the post “Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill”.
The comment was:
That statement implies both a premise and a conclusion.
Premise: The images of word, life and light are all used in connection with the pre-incarnate Word.
Conclusion: The pre-incarnate Word cannot be a person.
Given that the premise is true (John 1:4), does it follow that the conclusion is also true?
Not without adding a condition – a second premise. It is true if and only if those same images are never used of a person.
That leads to a counter argument.
Premise 1: Jesus (as/in whom the Word became flesh) is called “the Word” in Rev. 19:13. He called himself “the light …” (John 8:12), and “… the life” (John 11:25).
Premise 2: Jesus is a person.
Conclusion: There exists at least one person who is described with the images of Word, life, and light.
Therefore, the premise cited in the first argument does not justify the conclusion that the preincarnate Word cannot be a person. That argument is not valid.
Marg
Images are not persons. Jesus is what ALL those “images” became.
Is it really so hard?
@ Marg (January 3, 2013 at 9:46 am)
You have transformed into a heavy syllogistic argument what, in my original (parenthetical) sentence, was a comment on the use of the images used to the refer to the pre-incarnated logos (and also, as you rightly remark, to Jesus, in his life and even post-resurrection). The point, once again, is that those images do not imply that the word/life/light was personal before the Incarnation in/as Jesus.
I have NEVER affirmed that “the pre-incarnate Word cannot be a person”. What I have repeatedly affirmed is that there is NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE for that. What I have repeatedly affirmed is that there is unquestionable scriptural evidence for the word/life/light becoming a person in/as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:14).
And may I remind you, for the umpteenth time, that it was you who affirmed that “It may be that John is personifying the Word in the first five verses of his gospel” (“Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill (Dale)”, Marg, #4 of December 20, 2012 at 9:21 am).
MdS
Sorry I misunderstood you, MdS. Your words …
… imply that the pre-incarnated Word could NOT have been a person. I’m glad that isn’t what you meant. We can fix the misunderstanding by deleting the words “enough to dispense once for all, etc.”.
If you ever said that there is no SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE of the Word’s personality, that changes things entirely. You may (or may not) be right.
And now I will repeat, with emphasis: “It may be that John is personifying the Word.”
It certainly MAY be. That is a safe statement, and it’s nice of you to keep repeating it.
In the meantime, I am glad we also agree that
That saves us the trouble of trying to make 1 Corinthians 8:6 mean anything less than what it says.
@ Marg (January 3, 2013 at 2:26 pm)
Not really. In spite of all your shenanigans, it is amply evident that you have “no doubt” as to the opposite conclusion. If you do not mind (and even if you do …), I reserve the right of showing my bias in favor of the impersonal conclusion. Without being dogmatic about it …
I did, left, right and center.
Good. I will not miss any opportunity, then …
Once again, while I agree that “the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus”, I OBVIOUSLY do NOT agree that the pre-incarnated logos is exactly “the same subject” as Jesus. An impersonal entity is NOT identical to a person. Once again, the keyword (verb) is “became” (egeneto)
Once again, Paul (who “unlike the Evangelist John, did not have –anyway didn’t resort to– the notion of Logos”) referred to the pre-incarnated Logos in Creation (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16) with the name of Jesus Christ, that is proleptically (=“in anticipation of the circumstances [the Incarnation] that would make [the reference to Jesus Christ] applicable”).
Nothing less, but also nothing more …
MdS
Good. We agree that these passages can be read just as they are written, and they make sense.
This post is about the logic of the New Testament; so here is the logic:
Premise 1 – The Word became flesh in/as the man, Jesus the Messiah.
Premise 2 – The Word was the instrument through which all of creation came into being.
Conclusion – The role of the Word in creation is part of the history of Jesus the Messiah.
Therefore we should EXPECT the creative role of the Word to be applied to Jesus Christ – not just in John 1:10, but also in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:4 and Hebrews 1:11-12.
The same two premises validate the saying of Jesus, recorded in all three of the Synoptic gospels:
Such a claim from a mere man – no matter how outstanding – would be nothing but a joke. But coming from the Word of God in flesh, it carries weight.
Hi Marg
Not necessarily. If the words uttered belong or originate with Someone whose will and words are infallible, then anyone/anything uttering these words needn’t be recategorised based solely on their uttering these words.
Jaco
Jaco
You mean like when the prophets of the OT spoke?
Thanks to both of you. You have a point.
But did a prophet ever make such a claim? Can you give an example?
Also, the Lord’s words in Matthew 5:17-47 seem to go beyond anything that any prophet ever said, or COULD say. He begins by saying he came not to destroy, but to FULFILL the law and the prophets.
And then he says, several times, “You have read … but I say to you …”
Is there a prophet who spoke like that?
What I am presently hearing in the clause “heaven and earth will pass away” is this:
The creation that the pre-incarnate Word was instrumental in bringing into existence will pass away, but “my words will never pass away.”
Another passage that seems to go beyond anything that prophets ever said is in Matthew 11:28 –
Notice the first person pronouns. Did any prophet (or any angel, for that matter) ever make HIMSELF the focus of a promise like this?
Marg
Prophets [Jer 32] and angels [Ex 3] often speak as YHWH God.
And Jesus himself says that his cousin the Baptizer was “more than a prophet” [Mat 11.9].
Yet all of these were TYPES of the one to come, one who would be exalted high above all the others.
@ Marg (January 4, 2013 at 11:04 pm)
[a] ONLY with the clarifications that I have provided. In particular that the way Paul refers to the role of Jesus Christ in cosmic creation is ONLY proleptical (=“an anticipation of the circumstances [the Incarnation] that would make [the reference to Jesus Christ] applicable”).
[b] I prefer to stick to your previous one:
“… the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus, in/as whom the Word became flesh”.
To speak of “history of Jesus” implies a continuity of personhood that is simply not there.
[c] Without going into details about Hebrews, the same a.m. limitations to 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16 apply. As for John 1:10, for the umpteenth time, I read it as EXCLUSIVELY referred to the pre-incarnated logos which, indeed, ” was in the world “, through which, indeed, “the world was created” and the presence of which the world, indeed, did not recognize.
[d] I agree.
MdS
MdS
Does the Arian view teach “a continuity of personhood” or..?
And how do they explain the death of this preexistent Son [cp. Rom 1.4; 5.10; 1Thess 1.10]?
Marg,
Is using Jesus’ exact words verbatim necessary? Or would immutibility be enough, since that is precisely what Jesus’ words imply? In that case, we do have a host of various expressions attesting to the immutibility of God’s words, regardless of the ones uttering them – whether Jesus or any other prophet:
Certainty in uttered words does not imply that the utterer should be anything else but just that: a spokesperson for God.
@ Xavier
[a] Jeremiah did NOT “speak as YHWH God”, BUT on behalf of YHWH God. The litmus test is expressions like the improperly translated “I, the Lord, affirm it”, which, in fact, in the original Hebrew, is something like “Oracle of the Lord”. [Jer 32:5]
[b] The expression improperly translated in English “The angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire from within a bush” [Ex 3:2] does not refer to an angel in the sense of “spiritual creature of the Lord”, BUT to the manifestation of the Lord Himself. No other name is pronounced by the manifestation to refer to Himself other than YHWH (Ex 3:15).
[c] Certainly Jesus was NOT suggesting that John the Baptist was qualitatively “higher” than any prophet, so much so that, immediately after, Jesus affirms that “the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is”.
[d] This is certainly simply false of Exodus 3:2,15
[e] According to the Arian view there certainly was “a continuity of personhood” between the “son of god” created by God as the first and most perfect of His creatures and Jesus. That is why Arianism was rightly condemned as a heresy.
[f] I would have to inquire further, but, presumably, not differently from full-fledged “trinitarians”, for who it is not, the Son of God who literally dies on the Cross, but ONLY his “human nature”. (Yuck!)
MdS
MdS
Fine. The point is that a human being can be as God [Ex 3.16; 7.1] yet obviously not God Himself.
BTW you know Hebrew?
Acts 7.30.
What?
@ Xavier [January 6, 2013 at 7:38 am]
In Ex 3:16, is obvious that Moses is meant to quote YHWH Himself to ” the elders of Israel”. In Ex 7:1, YHWH establishes a parallel between his direct relationship to Moses, who, in turn is to act as prophet to Israel, and the role of Moses, and his direct relationship with his brother Aaron, who, in turn, is to act as prophet to Pharaoh.
BTW, I know enough Hebrew to manage the Bible, with the help of a lexicon.
…does not refer to an angel in the sense of “spiritual creature of the Lord”, BUT to the manifestation of the Lord Himself.
Then the Greek aggelos would be just as misleading as the “angel” of the English translations. Once again, no other name is pronounced by the manifestation of the LORD to refer to Himself other than YHWH (Ex 3:15).
That they would refer to “TYPES of the one to come, one who would be exalted high above all the others”, of course. Exodus 3:2,15 refer to the manifestation of the LORD YHWH Himself.
MdS
MdS
Same here.
Ex 3.2 “angel” [malak] means an ambassador, messenger or ANGEL.
Acts 7.30 has anggelos means messenger/ANGEL.
Where are these EVER translated as “manifestation”?
But even if you’re right, what is your point [if any]?
Jaco, I agree that Jesus’ exact words are NOT necessary to establish a parallel. And the passages you quoted [Comment #26] definitely establish the fact that when a prophet spoke words from God, those words would be fulfilled.
But that does not mean the same as “my words shall NEVER pass away.”
I notice that the fulfillment of a purpose is noted in each case:
2Ch 36:22 . … that the word of the LORD [spoken] by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished …
Isa 55:8-11 … my word … shall accomplish that which I please …
Mt 5:18 – For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
It is in the verses following this one that Jesus says, several times, “You have heard … but I say to you …”
And if you look at vv. 38-39, you will see that the words of Moses in Exodus 21:24 (words that were meant to limit excessive vengeance on the part of someone who had been wronged) had already fulfilled their purpose and were being superseded by the one who would introduce a new covenant that would change men’s hearts.
Nothing in the passages you quoted matches the words of Jesus, recorded identically by all three synoptic writers (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).
@ Xavier [January 6, 2013 at 5:19 pm]
It is not the Hebrew word mal’ak that you have to consider, but the expression mal’ak YHWH, that “occurs 65 times and always in the singular” (see “Angel of the Lord” at Wikipedia).
This is what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says regarding Angel (II, 3 > The Angel of the Theophany):
“Who is [the] theophanic angel? To this many answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Each has its difficulties, but the last is certainly the most tempting to the mind. Yet it must be remembered that at best these are only conjectures that touch on a great mystery. It is certain that from the beginning God used angels in human form, with human voices, in order to communicate with man; and the appearances of the angel of the Lord, with his special redemptive relation to God’s people, show the working of that Divine mode of self-revelation which culminated in the coming of the Saviour, and are thus a fore-shadowing of, and a preparation for, the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go.”
Although they are “conjectures that touch on a great mystery “, I simply deny (3) and affirm (2).
ONLY in the sense of the “special redemptive relation to God’s people” which “culminated in the coming of the Saviour” can it be affirmed, AFAIAC, that the mal’ak YHWH is a ” TYPE of the one to come”.
MdS
MdS
Yes, it is an angel. :/
@ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 8:05 am]
Does it mean that (unlike me), among the three options suggested by the ISBE, you prefer (1) ["an angel with a special commission"]? If not, what? (For instance, is it just stubbornness and/or obtuseness …?)
MdS
MdS
The SBE quote you cite has an angel as the subject of all 3 definitions.
Anyways, what is your point? Or is it a matter of nit-picking everything I say now?
@ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 10:44 am]
Not quite. The ISBE (ANGEL, II, 3, “The Angel of the Theophany” – http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/A/angel.html), in the relevant section, speaks specifically of “the angel of Yahweh” (mal’ak YHWH). And suggests 3 possible explanations of the expression. Explanations (2) and (3) CERTAINLY NO NOT refer to an “angel” in the sense of “spiritual creature”.
My point, as it was you who brought up Exodus 3, is to understand which meaning do YOU attribute to the expression “angel of Yahweh” there …
MdS
Hi Marg,
I think you’re making more of the text than it deserves. I also think you’re pushing the text way beyond what it’s trying to say, missing the wood for the trees, so to speak. The endurance of someone’s words in no way re-categorises the person as being someone/something else. And each of my texts demonstrates precisely that. If an uttered word is not accomplished or fulfilled, it perishes or passes away. Not so with the Torah, nor with the Torah-made-flesh, Jesus Christ (Mt. 5:18).
According to Deut. 18, the true prophet’s words will be fulfilled (won’t fail, or won’t pass or perish). This would be the hallmark of the Prophet-like-Moses Jesus Christ. This should be more than enough explanation for Jesus’ expression. Pushing it beyond the implications of this text is already unwarranted.
As the one who spoke what his Father (the Origin of truth and prophecy) told him to speak (John chapters 5-7), Jesus’ words were precisely for that reason infallible (would never pass away or perish). He would always speak as the Father tells him to speak.
Jesus’ use of hyperbole demonstrates this superbly. He also uses the identical hyperbole in Mt. 5:18. What is impossible (the passing away of heaven and earth) is more probable than the passing away or failing of his words. His words not passing away or failing necessitates coming to fulfilment and that confirms his role, not only in line with the classification of a true prophet, but also to be the Prophet-like-Moses (Deut. 18). Jesus uttered the words of the One whose words never return to Him unaccomplished (or passed away).
Informally I’d classify your argument as a slippery slope as the leaps required to re-classify Jesus as the personal pre-existent word of God from that text alone do not follow by necessity.
Formally your argument goes like this:
Premise 1: IF Jesus is the personal pre-existent word of God, his words would be infallible. (This in itself is sound)
Premise 2: Jesus’ words are infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is the personal pre-existent word of God.
Fallacy: Affirming the consequent
This line of argumentation by no means proves the personal pre-existence of Jesus.
MdS
Really? Really?!
Xavier
Really. Really.
@ Jaco [January 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm]
Hear hear!
MdS
I’m still trying to figure out what the Arian view is when it pertains to the personhood of, be it, a pre-existent “Word”, “angel”, “god” or whatEVER person.
Did this “person” cease to exist and take on another ‘persona’ or did it retain both persons or what? : /
*HEADACHE*
@ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm]
Without being dogmatic, I believe that for Arianism, the “pre-existent person” “assumed a human nature” (“donned flesh”).
As for the question of the “two persons” (later question of the “two natures”, even later of the “two wills”), historical Arianism was effectively dead, by then.
MdS
MdS
So in historical Arianism there is no developed theology of “persons” that later came with trinitarianism?
Whereby in Arianism this preexistent “person” simply puts on a “human nature”, ala a costume or something? If so, how would this view deal with the way NT writers describe the Son as having an “origin/coming into existence” at his birth [like most humans, Mat 1.1, 18-20; Luke 1.35] and not in some “preexistence past”? Or the non-omiscient Son? Or the simple fact that this immortal[?] Son died?
@ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm]
Correct.
Again without being dogmatic, here are my answers.
[1] Essentially, yes.
[2] By distinguishing between the “origin of the Son” as “first and most perfect creature”, and the “origin of the human life” as “incarnation” (Greek ensarkosis) of this “pre-existing Son”.
[3] The “pre-existing Son”, according to Arians, is subordinated (and inferior) to THE God.
[4] Presumably only the “human side” (the “flesh”) died.
MdS
MdS
[2] Luke 1.35 is fatal for this interpretation then, since it denotes the “coming into existence” of the Son of God.
[4] Again, fatal when you consider explicit references to the Son as the object of death [Rom 5.10] and resurrection from the DEAD [1Thess 1.9].
Xavier
I fully agree, BUT not only Arians. Before them, Subordinationists (at least since Justin Martyr and even before) and, later, full-fledged “trinitarians” managed to became immune to these “fatal” objections … :/
MdS
Jaco, I had not thought of the possibility you raise here: “… If an uttered word is not accomplished or fulfilled, it perishes or passes away.”
That MAY be the meaning of “shall not pass away.” I is certainly a possibility.
However, I would like to correct your version of my argument. I have NEVER used the word “personal” in connection with the pre-incarnate Word. That is something that has not yet been ascertained, and perhaps cannot be ascertained. That remains to be seen.
My argument is better stated like this:
Premise 1: Jesus is the Word, made flesh.
Premise 2: The Word (through which all creation came into existence) is infallible.
Conclusion: Therefore ALL of Jesus’s words are infallible.
All his words are infallible BECAUSE he is the Word incarnate. That is true of no other man.
Granting the possibility that “pass away” simply means “unfulfilled,” the claim that his words shall NEVER pass away is nevertheless unlike anything that any prophet ever said.
Also, the statements that follow that claim are unique. He could say of words that are found in the Torah, “You have heard … but I say to you.” Did ever another man say such a thing about something written in the Torah?
Thank you for carrying on this discussion, Jaco. I appreciate a courteous exchange of views.
But I want to make my own position clear. The words of Jesus in the synoptic gospels HARMONIZE with the fact that he is the Word incarnate.
I have never said, nor CAN I say on the basis of the evidence so far, that the pre-incarnate Word was a person.
On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence so far, no one can justify the conclusion that the pre-incarnate Word COULD NOT have been a person.
If this passage has been adequately dealt with, I’d like to go on to Matthew 11:28.
True.
But this is also a true and proper abuse of the “argument from silence”. The ONLY reason why there is this idea that God’s “pre-incarnate Word [WOULD] have been a person” is that it started creeping into Christianity very early, in fact, as early as this:
“I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, of the truth of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things. ” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 223)
From then on, things got from bad to worse …
MdS
MdS
Immune? I’d say ignorant to the point of delusional.
Marge
Could make the same argument for the other personified qualities of God like Prdence,Wisdom, Glory, Law etc, etc.
Endless circular debate this one.