Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

11 Comments

  1. John
    October 29, 2014 @ 11:11 am

    Mario
    Your comment regarding the descriptive nature of Emmanuel could well be correct!
    In my country the name ‘Tinashe’ means “God is with us’ and that makes a great deal more of sense than
    suggested alternatives
    Blessings
    John

  2. Mario
    October 29, 2014 @ 8:04 am

    @ John

    “No-one seems to comment on the fact that Christ was NEVER called Emmanuel in the scriptures!”

    “Immanuel” appears only 3 times in the scriptures, 2 in Isaiah (7:14 and 8:8) and once in Mattew 1:23, which is a direct quotation of Isaiah 7:14. As I have already commented, “[t]here is no evidence (in Isaiah or elsewhere) that ‘the “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7 is a baby in Isaiah’s time'”. To be accurate, there is no evidence that the “Immanuel” is either the child of king Ahaz, Hezekiah, or the mysterious child of Isaiah and the prophetess, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Anyway, the fact that there is NOBODY called Immanuel in the scriptures may well suggest that it is descriptive of a role (“God [is] with us”) rather than a proper name.

  3. John
    October 29, 2014 @ 12:42 am

    No-one seems to comment on thefact that Christ was NEVER called Emmanuel in the scriptures.!

    Here in Africa we have many examples of names which contain the word ‘God’ without being God by identity.

    Blessings
    John

  4. Mario
    October 28, 2014 @ 5:38 pm

    Nice and refreshing to see that you mock at your own “syllogisms”.

    Looking at the first one more closely, anyway, it is not only the case that “the conclusion does not follow from the premises”, but also that the first premise is dubious, to say the least. There is no evidence (in Isaiah or elsewhere) that “the ‘Immanuel’ in Isaiah 7 is a baby in Isaiah’s time”.

    BTW, that “Matthew 1 says that Jesus is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7” does NOT mean that Matthew applies Isaiah’s prophecy, apodictically, to Jesus (which would be, otherwise, only a transparent way to smooth over Mary’s “embarrassing” pregnancy), but rather that Matthew sees the Virgin Conception/Birth – for which he has an independent witness – as “prophetically certified” by Isaiah.

  5. Dale
    September 22, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

    Thanks, Aaron. I’m going to follow up on this – may take awhile, but I will.

  6. Aaron
    September 22, 2014 @ 7:31 pm

    I would recommend Dr. Michael Heiser. He has not written a book on the subject that I am aware of but has given many lectures on it and also included it in his dissertation. Much of his study and expertise is devoted to ancient Israelite religion and what he calls “Jewish Binitarianism.” I think it would be very interesting to have you question him and ask for more detail in regard to his beliefs and research if he agreed to an interview. I’ll leave his website below. You can comment or contact him from there. He usually responds when I post on his articles. Hopefully he would agree if you wanted to discuss the identity and role of the Angel of the LORD. Thanks for entertaining this idea!

    http://www.drmsh.com

  7. Dale
    September 22, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

    Hi Aaron,

    No, I haven’t written about that yet, and probably don’t have much to say about it. Can you suggest someone I should interview on that, perhaps someone who’s written an important book on the subject?

  8. John
    September 21, 2014 @ 1:26 am

    Dale
    Thanks for that!!
    You made your point very well
    The basics of Philosophy should be taught in schools to prevent people accepting sloppy reasoning.!

    On a different tack – I have only recently become aware that ‘The Shekinah’ , can be equated with the Holy Spirit..
    So much for the Holy Spirit being a ‘person’. – it is God’s abiding presence!

    Every Blessing
    John

  9. Aaron
    September 20, 2014 @ 12:13 am

    Hi Dale,

    Have you written (or would you write) about the identity of “the Angel of the LORD” in the OT and the subsequent arguments used by Trinitarians which say that this is the second member of the Trinity? I would love to hear your take on this topic. Take care.

  10. Dale
    September 19, 2014 @ 10:10 am

    Also, about “God with is” or, it could be translated, “God is with us.” The very case of this baby from Isaiah’s time shows that a person may be properly given that name, even though he is someone other than God, and not God himself. So, we can’t argue, if we respect the Bible, that since Jesus is called “Immanuel,” then he is God.

  11. Dale
    September 19, 2014 @ 9:59 am

    Note to the sarcasm-tone-deaf: I am not asserting either argument in the post. (Nor do I believe in reincarnation, nor do I believe that David is God, as in the previous post.) Rather, my point is only that in each case, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That is, one may consistently affirm both premises while denying the conclusion.

    The interpretive point of this is that the reasoning is poor when apologists and theologians argue that Jesus is God himself in the manner of the second argument – many such arguments are commonly given. Even if the conclusion of those arguments is true (that is, Jesus really is God himself), the point stands that the premises do not support it.