Some interesting Q & A from philosopher-apologist William Lane Craig.
First, a question inspired by internet crapola, Bill Maher’s Religulous, etc:
Jesus’ story cribbed from earlier Egyptian sources?
Son, let me take you out behind the shed.
Next?
Any good analogies for understanding the Trinity?Read More »Answers from the Answer Man
How can they respond to an argument which shows that they collapse the Father/Son distinction?
At his resurrection and ascension, was Jesus promoted from humanity to divinity? Well, what are humanity and divinity?
A review of the most interesting trinities podcast episodes from 2021.
This should be interesting. Mr. Qureshi (a PhD student in theology) is the author of the fascinating book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (kindle). He’s a convert from Ahmadiyya Islam to evangelical Christianity. He is bold, smart, and clear. Dr. Ally is an erudite and well-spoken Islamic apologist and an experienced debater. In the press release for this live-streamed, April 8, 2015 debate, Mr. Qureshi says that My goal… Read More »Qureshi vs. Ally – Trinity vs. Tawhid
A humorous puppet-show about a serious subject: properly understanding what the New Testament teaches about Jesus and God.
On September 9, 2013, Reformed Christian apologist Anthony Rogers debated Islamic apologist Shadid Lewis. The debate question was: Are trinitarians polytheists? (Entire video here.) I think this debate is worth thinking through carefully. In this podcast series, I’m breaking up the debate into three listenable chunks. I’ve also slightly shortened the audio by removing some dead air, etc., but I have not deleted a single word by the… Read More »podcast 17 – Lewis vs. Rogers 1 – opening statements
Closing statements: Finnegan: 1:48:43- 1:52:12 Only one Yahweh. Jesus does things God says he can’t do, e.g. die. Jesus affirms Shema. In John 10, Jesus uses a concept of “representational deity” – i.e. calling a being who isn’t God “God” because of some likeness to God in some respect(s). Trinity is confusing, post-biblical. But it is a solution to a non-existent problem, namely, of their… Read More »Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 5
I recently stumbled upon a great post by Michael Patton that just about perfectly expresses how I’ve felt about Christian apologists since growing past teenagerhood.
In part:
This is the problem that I have with some apologists (those who defend the faith). Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in apologetics and also love many apologists. But very rarely do I find a reasonable apologist. Most are very hardened because they are committed first to defending their particular position, not so much to learning.
Read the whole thing. He also has done a similar post recently.
I would add: apologists too often fall into mere rhetorical violence: hyperbole, attacking a straw man, verbal aggression, smug, acid condescension, simply repeating oneself more loudly, insults, poisoning the well, and so on. And this is leaving aside poorly constructed arguments. Sadly, debates between philosophers (one or both of whom may be atheists) are nearly always “cleaner” (more reasonably and respectfully conducted) than your average debate between a Christian apologist and anyone else.
I’m always reminded of what James says:Read More »Patton’s problem with Apologists
Bosserman questions Finnegan: 1:36:20 B: Did OT saints understand that the physical Temple would be replaced by Jesus? F: No. B: So does the NT contradict the OT on this? F: Incomplete vs. contradictory claims. B: What about Deut 12? F: Like you, I think it doesn’t predict an unending physical temple. B: Why can’t God then only later reveal himself to be not only one… Read More »Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 4
Time for mutual interrogations! This is the best part of this debate.
Finnegan questions Bosserman: 1:24:35 – 1:36:19
Princeton philosopher Thomas Kelly in a paper on the epistemology of disagreement (i.e. what the reasonable response when we find the people just as smart and informed etc. as us disagree on some important matter):
In principle, we ought to be able to give due weight to the available reasons that support a given view, even in the absence of actual defenders of the view who take those reasons as compelling. But in practice, the case for a view is apt to get short shrift in the absence of any actual defenders. The existence of actual defenders can serve to overcome our blindspots by forcefully reminding us just how formidable the case is for the thesis that they defend… But the case for a given view itself is no stronger in virtue of the fact that that view has actual defenders…
Thomas Kelly, ” The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” p. 31 (in pre-print).
At first this reminded me of a proverb I’ve often thought of when reading some catholic theologian who has evidently never put the slightest effort into understanding the overall case for unitarianism:
“The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.” Proverbs 18:17 (NLT)
But this is actually a different point than Kelly’s. A better courtroom analogy for Kelly’s point is:Read More »Arguing against no one
Could each divine “Person” of the Trinity be either an attribute of God or God together with an attribute?
If Jesus is referred to using the word “theos” (God) in the New Testament, does this imply that he is fully divine?
Evaluating three proposed reasons why God would be motivated to incarnate.
As we all know, the ideal medium for theological debate is a music video posted on youtube. In the past, we’ve seen the mighty Winterband strking a blow for Oneness Pentecostalism. Trinitarians rapped back with some impressive rhymes. Now, unitarians enter the fray. If I had to pick a theology based solely on the musical quality of these entries (which of course is a great… Read More »Trinity vs. Oneness vs. unitarianism Youtube shootout
I answer some questions and ask some, in response to this well done book review.
Is this a powerful, state-of-the-art biblical argument for the Trinity?
