Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this episode I reply to Dr. Bowman’s critique of my presentation from podcast 160, in this blog post and this one.
I concede a few points to him, but press him on some others. In particular, I press this matter of the seeming incoherence of his own Trinity theory (not of “the Trinity,” i.e. any Trinity theory – please note that I have never claimed to show that).
Here below is the argument I promise to give in this episode, in response to what (based or his responses here) I think is his own Trinity theory. I suggest that he needs to wrestle seriously with this clear and destructive little argument. Here is it, in something close to the symbols used in most university logic classes in recent times (The letters f, g, and s are singular referring terms for the Father, God, and the Son, = expresses numerical identity, – means “not,” the negation operator of formal logics, and I use & for the “and” operator, instead of the more common ^.) Just skip to the next paragraph for the same thing in English, if all these symbols give you a headache.
- f = g Premise
- s = g Premise
- g = s 2 symmetry of =
- f = s 1, 3 transitivity of =
- -(f = s) Premise
- f = s & -(f = s) 4, 5 – by the valid inference rule: P, Q therefore P & Q
Here is the same thing in English, with a bit of explanation out to the right:
- The Father just is God. Dr. Bowman commits to this
- The Son just is God. Dr. Bowman commits to this
- God just is the Son. Follows from 2 because = is symmetrical, so for any a and b, a = b and only if b = a.
- The Father just is the Son. Follows from 1 and 3 because = is transitive, like > or <. So, if the Father just is God (1) and God just is the Son (3), then the Father just is the Son. (4)
- It is not the case that the Father just is the Son. Dr. Bowman is (implicitly) committed to this by his belief that the Father and Son have differed from one another. The indiscernibility of identicals (aka the distinctness of discernibles) as explained here is a self-evident and necessary truth.
- The Father just is the Son and it is not the case that the Father just is the Son. From 4 and 5. It is always a valid step, when the argument has a premise P and another premise Q, to infer that P & Q.
Comment: 6 is a contradiction of the form P & -P (that is, P and not-P). This shows that not all of 1-5 are true. But 3 and 4 are conclusions, properly inferred from what went before. So then one of these premises must be false: 1, 2, 5.
5 is undeniable, given that the distinctness of discernibles is self-evident, and that given NT claims (or just any Trinity theory!) there are simultaneous (or eternal) differences between the Father and the Son.
This leaves us with 1 and 2.
But 1 can’t be denied by the Christian; it is repeatedly and clearly taught in the NT.
2 is all that’s left; a Christian must deny 2, for it is never taught in scripture, and its falsity is clearly implied and always assumed in it. This is my way out of the argument: I deny 2. (It is a further question whether the Son is in some sense “divine.”)
Does denying 2 mean one can’t be a trinitarian? Interestingly, no! It just means that you must leave the ranks of confused “Jesus is God” apologists, since now you know that Jesus and God should not be confused for one another!
It seems to me that if you work carefully through this argument, and somehow convince yourself that the Father and the Son are each numerically one with God, but not with each other, then you show yourself to be someone who thinks he is not subject to NT teaching and/or someone who thinks he is not subject to reason. You’re throwing out at least one of two crucial sources of truth: clear scriptural teaching, or common sense. Don’t do it!
If you are a trinitarian apologist, what is your response to the argument above?
Thanks to Dr. Bowman for this thoughtful exchange of views. Whenever he is able, I would ask him to respond to the argument above, saying which premise he denies and why.
Links for this episode:
- Works by Dale Tuggy @ PhilPapers
- Bowman, “Dale Tuggy and the Biblical Basis of the Trinity, Part 1: Are Essential Elements Missing?“
- Bowman, “Dale Tuggy and the Biblical Basis of the Trinity, Part 2: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Incoherent?“
- podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
- Bowman “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity”
- podcast 107 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. on triadic New Testament passages – part 1
- podcast 108 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. on triadic New Testament passages – part 2
- podcast 125 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman’s “What about This View?”
- The Westminster Confession
- GARBC Articles of Faith (Dr. Bowman’s denomination)
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Trinity“
- Tuggy, What is the Trinity?
- podcast 30 – The Council of Nicea
- The Orthodox Formulas 2: The Council of Constantinople (381)
- identity
- On Numerical Sameness / Identity / “Absolute” Identity
- A formulation of Leibniz’s Law / the Indiscernibility of Identicals
- Simplifying the Indiscernibility of Identicals
- podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
- the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
- podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
- This week’s thinking music is (the second half of) “Kalte Ohren” by Alex.
I think the issue of Jesus can be explained by means of the idea of Emanation. We find different people identified with Divine traits for example the Patriarchs. This usually is refered to people in the Bible that are well known. However this idea is also applied to Jesus by Rav Avraham Abulafia [as brought down by Moshe Idel in his Ph.D thesis.] So we can find a person who is “divine” but basically as an emanation of God–not God himself.
Hi Avraham,
Just curious, is it not enough for Yeshua to be a man who was later exalted to God’s right hand?
Shalom
That is a good possibility. However I only use the Emanation idea because it makes sense to me. But I do not want to put too much emphasis on it because of Kant and Leonard Nelson that there is a limit to reason. [So even if you go with Hegel that a kind of dialectical process helps to go beyond those limits–I still feel that is areas of faith, reason has limits.]
1. f = g Premise
2. s = g Premise
3. g = s [2, symmetry of =]
4. f = s [1, 3 transitivity of =]
5. -(f = s) Premise
6. f = s & -(f = s) [4, 5 – by the valid inference rule: P, Q therefore P & Q]
I’m a trinitarian, and I reject 1 and 2.
1. Df [The Father is divine.]
2. Ds [The Son is divine.]
3. -(f = s) Premise
No contradiction here.
But how would I formulate the doctrine of the Trinity? It’s been a long time since I last used logical notation, but I’ll try all the same.
1. (?x)(Dx -> (?y)(?z)(Dy & Dz & (xy) & (xz) & (yz) & ~(?w)(Dw & (wx) &(wy) & (wz))) [Df. D]
By definition of “divine,” there are three and only three divine individuals.
2. (?x)(Dx -> Mx ? Ix ? Lx) [Df. D]
Any individual which is divine is either a mind or an idea or an act of love. (The “or” here is exclusive.)
3. (?y)((Dy & Iy) -> (?x)(Dx & Mx & Fxy)) [Df. D]
Any individual which is a divine idea is generated by a divine mind.
4. (?y)((Dz & Lz) -> (?x)(?y)(Dx & Mx & Dy & Iy & Sxyz)) [Df. D]
Any individual which is a divine act of love is generated by a divine mind through a divine idea.
5. (?x)(Dx -> Tx & Ox & Px) [Df. D]
Any individual which is divine is (i) timeless (or eternal), (ii) omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent and (iii) a person.
Hence there are three divine persons.
6. (?y)(Iy -> ~My & (?x)(Nxy & (xy))) [Df. I]
Any individual which is an idea is not a mind. For any individual y which is an idea, there is some other individual x such that x is the mind of y.
7. (?z)(Lz -> ~Mz & (?x)(Nxz & (xz))) [Df. L]
Any individual which is an act of love is not a mind. For any individual z which is an act of love, there is some other individual x such that x is the mind of z.
8. (?x)(?y)(?z)((Px & Py & Pz & Mx & Nxy & Nxz) -> Hxyz) [Df. H]
Any three persons x, y and z such that x is a mind and x is the mind of y and z, are one and the same being (H for homoousios). It follows that the three divine persons are one and the same being.
9. (?x)(?y)(?z)~(Hxyz -> (?w)((x=w) & (y=w) & (z=w)) [Df. H]
For three persons to be one and the same being does NOT mean that they are all the same individual.
10. (?x)(?y)(?z)(Hxyz -> (Mx & Nxy & Nxz)) [Df. H]
For three persons x, y and z to be one and the same being, DOES mean that x is one mind, which is also the mind of y and z.
I’ll stop there for now. We can now see why the Bible equates God with the Father. The Father is, after all, the Mind of God. If you equate God with His Mind, then God is the Father. But if you equate God with His Mind plus any individuals that share that Mind, then you get a trinitarian God.
The foregoing proposal of mine does not mean that only God the Father thinks; rather, it means that only God the Father originates thoughts. The other two persons share in the Father’s thoughts.
Since a mind can be described as greater than any thought or act of love which it generates, we can legitimately speak of the Father as greater than the Son and the Spirit. However, since the three Divine Persons are all eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and since they share the Divine Mind, we can also speak of them as equal by nature. My two cents.
Hi everyone,
The existential qualifier doesn’t seem to have come out properly in my preceding post, so to clarify: in the premises listed above, (?x) should read: “There exists x.” The same goes for y, z and w. Cheers.
Hi Vincent,
Where in your argument is the consideration for two different individual wills?
Hi 4qmmt,
Like most Christians, I believe that the three persons of the Trinity share the same will. I would also say that the will they share is that of the Father, Who is a Mind/Will.
What, then, makes them three persons, if they share a common Mind and Will? Briefly: God is the only Mind Whose Idea of Itself actually talks back to it. Likewise, God is the only Will Whose Love of Itself talks back to it. In other words, God has a three-way conversation going on within Himself. That’s the Trinity.
If, however, your question pertains to the two wills of Christ, then I would say that although Jesus had two wills – one Divine and one human – the human will was subordinated to the Divine will, such that while it possessed a great deal of freedom, it did not possess the freedom to disobey God. In that sense, the person of Christ had only one controlling mind or will: that of God the Son, whose Mind and Will, in turn, is that of the Father, the fount of the Trinity. Nevertheless, we call the man Jesus the incarnation of God the Son, not God the Father, because the human nature of Jesus is the perfect human expression of God, just as God the Son is the perfect expression of the Father.
I’ve been looking at the ten principles I set out above and I can see that the notation came out all haywire, so I’ll try again. Below, (E!x) means “there exists some x” while (x) means “for all x.” !== means “is not equal to.”
1. (x)(Dx -> (E!y)(E!z)(Dy & Dz & (x !== y) & (x !== z) & (y !== z) & ~(E!w)(Dw & (w !== x) &(w !== y) & (w !== z))) [Df. D]
By definition of “divine,” there are three and only three divine individuals (call them x, y and z). There is no fourth divine individual (call it w).
2. (x)(Dx -> Mx v Ix v Lx) [Df. D]
Any individual which is divine is either a mind or an idea or an act of love. (The “or” here is exclusive, not inclusive.)
3. (y)((Dy & Iy) -> (E!x)(Dx & Mx & Fxy)) [Df. D]
Any individual y which is a divine idea is generated by a divine mind x.
4. (z)((Dz & Lz) -> (E!x)(E!y)(Dx & Mx & Dy & Iy & Sxyz)) [Df. D]
Any individual z which is a divine act of love is generated by a divine mind x through a divine idea y.
5. (x)(Dx -> Tx & Ox & Px) [Df. D]
Any individual which is divine is (i) timeless (or eternal), (ii) omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent and (iii) a person.
Hence there are three divine persons.
6. (y)(Iy -> ~My & (E!x)(Nxy & (xy))) [Df. I]
Any individual y which is an idea is not a mind. For any individual y which is an idea, there is some other individual x such that x is the mind of y.
7. (z)(Lz -> ~Mz & (E!x)(Nxz & (xz))) [Df. L]
Any individual z which is an act of love is not a mind. For any individual z which is an act of love, there is some other individual x such that x is the mind of z.
8. (x)(y)(z)((Px & Py & Pz & Mx & Nxy & Nxz) -> Hxyz) [Df. H]
Any three persons x, y and z such that x is a mind and x is the mind of y and z, are one and the same being (H for homoousios). It follows that the three divine persons are one and the same being.
9. (x)(y)(z)~(Hxyz -> (E!w)((x=w) & (y=w) & (z=w)) [Df. H]
For three persons to be one and the same being does NOT mean that they are all the same individual.
10. (x)(y)(z)(Hxyz -> (Mx & Nxy & Nxz)) [Df. H]
For three persons x, y and z to be one and the same being, DOES mean that x is one mind, which is also the mind of y and z.
I hope that works.
“Like most Christians, I believe that the three persons of the Trinity share the same will.”
Not heard that before. There are other Christians that really believe that?
So you are saying that when Jesus says “not my will but yours be done” and “I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” and “not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” etc. he is only referencing his “human” will, but since “the person of Christ had only one controlling mind or will: that of God the Son, whose Mind and Will, in turn, is that of the Father, the fount of the Trinity”…”God has a three-way conversation going on within Himself. That’s the Trinity.”?
No offense intended, but this sounds like utter gibberish and your premises have nothing to do with the Bible, all you are doing is constructing your own god. What’s the point?
“So you are saying that when Jesus says “not my will but yours be done” and “I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” and “not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
there is no way out of this one. if the person shares the totality of being i.e if x= fully y and fully y = “fully god,”
then fully y said “not my will but your will be done”
Hi Vincent,
Your view seems to relegate Jesus’ mind to be a *subset* of His Divine mind, and I would submit brings into question the *genuineness* of Jesus’ humanity. Your Jesus certainly wasn’t a “fully” functional human being, like all other human beings.
Again, if, according to Hebrews 2:14-15, Jesus stands in *solidarity* with the rest of humanity (except the sin nature), I don’t see how your Jesus could have genuinely experienced the “full” range of human experiences (“one who has been tempted in every way JUST as we are,”), with regard to temptations and sufferings, if his human mind didn’t possess or wasn’t allowed the freedom of “choice,” like all other human beings.
Hey John,
I just wanted to poke my head in here and tell you that I did take a look at CARM and your trinitarian discussions there and found several threads where you (f4t) had made some thoughtful and clear points in dialogue with trinitarians, but none seemed to be interested in engaging with the text or your arguments other then to tell you how wrong you were. Have ever seen anyone over there actually change their position on the trintity?
Hi 4qmmt,
I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head who has changed their position on the trinity as a result of CARM, but I do know of one who primarily was Oneness who converted to Biblical Unitarianism (goes by ‘nothead’). CARM actually was part of the reason why I left Oneness and became a Biblical Unitarian. There was a Biblical Unitarian poster (poster’s name escapes me at this time) who made the point that Jesus is never called “God” in Acts. Given the fact that Oneness Pentecostals are ‘big’ on the book of Acts, this struck me as really odd, and the more I thought about it, the more disconcerting it became. While I had already been questioning a number of texts that I thought Oneness was egregiously taking out of context (Isa 9:6; Mt 28:19; John 5:43; 14:26; Heb 1:4), the fact that Jesus is never called “God” in Acts was the straw that broke the camel’s back, if you will.
At any rate, there are only a couple of Trins imho who make any kind of effort to actually engage my arguments (I consider Andrew [goes by drewd4] to be one of them). The most knowledgeable and engaging Trin on CARM is a guy who goes by the name of Thelayman, but he usually posts under the Oneness board.
Aaron,
You asked: “Could you tell us what the differences are between the Father and the Son? If they both have all the attributes of eternal deity in what way are they different? Surely they have to be different somehow to be distinguished as Father and Son? What is that/are those difference(s)?”
The persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their actions, not by their eternal attributes. The differences are seen in that the one begets and one is begotten. Each has a different role in creation and redemption as well.
Consider the attributes of wisdom, love and goodness. Each is discernible from the others as individual, despite that they are identical with God. Wisdom is discerned from love and goodness by how it is carried out not by what it looks like. All three “look like” God.
Andrew,
“The persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their actions, not by their eternal attributes. The differences are seen in that the one begets and one is begotten. Each has a different role in creation and redemption as well.
Consider the attributes of wisdom, love and goodness. Each is discernible from the others as individual, despite that they are identical with God. Wisdom is discerned from love and goodness by how it is carried out not by what it looks like. All three “look like” God.”
I’m not sure how this works or if it does, but I am thinking on it. In saying that they are differentiated “by their actions” doesn’t that just beg the question, why is one of them doing one thing and the other one doing the other thing instead of vice versa? Isn’t it arbitrary? There must be a reason one of them carries out certain actions and the other carries out other actions. If you say that the reason is that “one of them is the Father and the other is the Son” the we have completed the circle and now we arrive back at the original question…what is the difference between the Father and the Son?
I’m not sure I understand the examples of wisdom, love and goodness because for them to be distinguished we don’t just make the distinction when we see them carried out but in our ideals we can define them as different things. They are the presence of different things in a person, known and understood before they are carried out and thus recognizable when they are in fact carried out.
Another question about “begetting” and “being begotten.” What does it mean to beget and be begotten for the Father and Son? It was regularly said by the early church fathers that one key difference between the Father and Son is that one was “begotten” and the other “unbegotten.” However, they usually went on to tell us what exactly that meant. What do you think it means to be begotten by God? If it means to be eternally generated by the Father, then is the Father not in some sense greater than the Son and is this not the difference between them that would answer why one is Father and the other is Son?
Thanks for you time
Respectfully,
Aaron
Aaron,
Thanks for the thoughtful response and questions. This would take a fair amount of space to answer, but I’ll try to boil it down.
1) The actions of the persons aren’t arbitrary. The Son eternally proceeds from the Father, so it makes perfect sense for the Father to send the Son. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, so it makes sense that the Spirit would come after Christ as “another Paracletos”. The actions in time flow from the eternal relations and fellowship of the Trinity.
2) How we define wisdom, love and goodness is irrelevant. God’s attributes are defined by God’s being. They aren’t abstract realities that God comports with. They just are what God is. “I Am What I Am”. They are identical with God, even though they are distinguishable and not identical with each other. My argument is the same for the three persons. Identical with the being of God, but not identical with each other.
3) I think that “eternal begotten” is a relational term. A Unitarian God has no foundation for relationship. “Personal relationship” is definitionally arbitrary in Unitarian theology as it isn’t based upon a necessary reality like what is provided for in Trinitarian theology. In Trinitarianism, God has and will always have interpersonal relationships. The Unitarian God pulled the concept of interpersonal relationships of one to another out of thin air, because there was no such thing until He arbitrarily came up with it.
The Father may be greater than the Son in the covenantal schema by which they related in Jesus’ ministry, but not an ultimate “greater than”. The Father is the Father because He has a Son, and the Son is the Son because He has a Father. They are ultimately equal. That is why when Jesus claimed a unique Sonship in John 5, the jews concluded, rightly, that Jesus was claiming equality with God.
Hope that helps. I have written a book on the subject from the perspective of a lifelong biblical Unitarian who changed his mind st age 32 (me). “The Triune God and the Doctrine of the Covenant” It’s cheap on Amazon.
Blessings in Christ…
Hi Andrew,
Forever4truth from CARM here. Regarding your statement, which we probably have already debated, “That is why when Jesus claimed a unique Sonship in John 5, the jews concluded, rightly, that Jesus was claiming equality with God,” I would like to point out two things:
1. I would submit that the text shows that it was the unbelieving Jews, not Jesus, who made the charge/claim to equality with God.
“*To this charge* Jesus replied, ‘In truth, in very truth I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he does only what he sees the Father doing: what the Father does, the Son does” (John 5:19, NEB)
2. How is Jesus arguing for dependence upon God, a claim of equality with God? That makes no sense to me. Again, Jesus’ words, “In truth, in very truth, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself,” clearly serve to show his absolute dependence upon God for all that he does.
Hi John, nice to talk with you outside of the pit, aka, CARM 🙂 . My view is not that Jesus is saying, “Wait a minute guys, I’m not actually equal with God, I’m subordinate.” I think He is saying, “My equality with the Father isn’t one in which I can just do my own thing, as We are perfectly united.” As a covenant servant, Jesus follows the law and, moreover, works as the Father works on the Sabbath.
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
On the face of it, if Jesus had said, “My Father works, and I work” and stopped right there, I would be inclined to agree the he was claiming or laying out his credentials for *ontological* equality with God. However, the fact that Jesus continued on by saying, “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing,” suggests to me that he’s claiming *functional*, not *ontological* equality with God?
Further support that *functional*, not *ontological* equality with God is what’s in view in John 5:17-20, is made evident in that we know from scripture that Jesus worked miracles not as God, but as a *man* empowered by God’s spirit (Mt 12:28; Luke 4:1, 18; Acts 10:38), and that his works can be said to be the Father’s works because His Father did His works “in” him (John 14:9-11; Acts 2:22). Again, it would be one thing if Jesus had healed the impotent man by his *own* divine power, but such is clearly not the case here, or in any other case.
As I told John Wilcox on CARM (in so many words), John 5:17-20 isn’t an instance of a divine *collaboration* between two equally divine persons (God the Father and God the Son), but rather an instance of the Son *obediently* carrying out His Father’s plans, as exemplified by doing what he is “shown” and “told” to do.
Finally, as with John 10:24-38, I would submit that Jesus’ *authority* derives not from him being God, but from being God’s Son.
Hi John,
You mean “johnny guitar”, right? Lol! He’s a gem. I mean that. He has a simple faith that he’ll ride with no matter what. I respect his tenacity.
Ok. The equality in function stems from the equality in nature. One shares a nature with his father, and Jesus is no different. Jesus “broke the Sabbath” and claimed that “God was His own father”, making Himself equal with God. The reason Jesus could do what He wanted on the Sabbath was because He is the son of the father. It is the two put together. The action of “breaking the Sabbath” flows from the fact that God is Jesus’ father in a unique way. The Jews claimed to be sons of God so that is not a problem. It is the kind of sonship that Jesus is claiming, one in which He appeals to when defending His “working” on the Sabbath.
It is a divine collaboration because of the servant role that Jesus took upon Himself. As a man, Jesus can fulfill the law in a way that the Father cannot, as He did not become a man. Jesus fulfills the righteous requirements of the law in our stead, and He had to do this as a mediator in the likeness of sinful flesh. The collaboration is in the Father as the covenant Lord and the Son in the role of covenant servant and mediator. “I and My Father are one.”
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
John Wilcox is actually his name, but supposedly when he got a new PC, he had to change it to ‘Johnny Guitar’ because according to him, CARM wouldn’t accept John Wilcox as his login, which clearly isn’t true. At any rate, while he may have tenacity, his adamant refusal to consider/consult Bible helps, such as Bible commantaries and Greek Lexicons, will surely be his undoing, as his uninformedness of basic bible principles is constantly on display.
At any rate, what scripture supports your claim “One shares a nature with his father, and Jesus is no different”? IOW, how did Jesus inherent his supposed divine nature from His Father?
Hi Andrew,
Just a piggyback question for you in connection with John B.’s questions: Do you think that John 8:59 is similar to John 5:18 in that the Judeans wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to be God or equal to God or divine or something like that?
Shalom
Hi 4qmmt. In a word, yes. Jesus is, at the very least, claiming to have existed prior to Abraham. That in and of itself refutes biblical Unitarianism. I believe Jesus is claiming self-existence in response to the question, “Have you seen Abraham?” The picture provided in the burning bush was of a fire (God) that didn’t need the bush for fuel in order to burn. God just exists without dependence upon creation. Before Abraham was, the Son of God just exists, or, “I am”. It is not worthy of stoning at the temple because some guy makes a crazy claim of being really old. It would be if the crazy guy claimed to be YHWH.
I understand the objection about the Septuagint translation of ego eimi and ho own. I don’t claim that Jesus is using the divine name, but referring to being self existent in parallel to “hashem/the name” that burned within the bush but had no need of the bush to burn.
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
Certainly many things that are not God pre-existed Abraham, so I’m not sure how something, whatever it may be, existing before Abraham is proof of eternal pre-existence. Was Jesus actually claiming to exist or using the ‘ego eimi’ as he did many other times as “I am the messiah”? e.g. Mark 3:16, John 13:19, John 4:26
You seem to read John 5:18 as if the Judeans were saying that Jesus was claiming to be equal in all ways to God and therefore to be God. But why wouldn’t you understand it simply as they thought Jesus was claiming to have equal authority to God? Are you suggesting that his accussers thought that claiming to be God’s son was a claim of actual deity? John 5:21-27 is about authority, as Jesus explicity points out in John 5:27.
Re: John 8:59, does it concern you that Jesus even said to people that believed him that they were consistently misunderstanding what he was saying? e.g. John 8:27 and John 8:43
4qmmt,
Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus did not preexist His birth. Jesus refutes that by exclaiming that He existed before Abraham. That may not matter as much to an Arian, but Dr. Tuggy isn’t an Arian and I don’t get the impression that you are either.
They asked, “You are not even 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?” “Before Abraham was, I am the Messiah.” That doesn’t sound like a coherent answer. In a book that begins with “…and the Word was God” and also has an unbelieving disciple become believing and exclaims to Jesus “My Lord and my God”, Jesus answering in John 8:58, “Before Abraham existed, I existed” sounds like a much more coherent answer.
Just because the Jews generally didn’t believe that Jesus was who He said He was, or didn’t generally understand His meaning, doesn’t mean that they never understood His claims. I think it is a reach on the part of unitarians to say that the reactions of the Jews should be ignored entirely.
Blessings…
Hey Andrew,
I am certainly not suggesting that their reactions be ignored entirely. On the contrary, their reactions are highly relevant.
What I am suggesting is that passage tells us is that we should be very cautious to assume that his interlocoturs’ understanding is correct. It almost certainly isn’t, as the context tells us and as Jesus makes explicit.
Thus, there is a very high probability that their question “You are not even 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?” stems from the fact that they did not understand what he was saying when he said immediately before that, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” in John 8:56. Thus, his answer in John 8:58 was not about his age or literal personal existence, but about why Abraham rejoiced.
For that, you need to read the whole context. It is, as everything else, about authority. That has been the historic center of Jewish arguments and is what Jews care about even until today. They are questioning how he could be greater than Abraham. That Abraham rejoiced is simply a reference to the fact that a descendant would come from Abraham’s seed that would bless the whole world etc. See Gal. 3:16-18. The ‘I am’ is Jesus simply saying “I am he” i.e., ‘I am the promised one.’ That promise is what Abraham rejoiced over.
Therefore, people who think that Jesus was answering their question in 8:57 as if he was answering their accusation that he wasn’t old enough to be alive at Abraham’s time by claiming that he literally and personally existed at the time of Abraham are misunderstanding him like the Judeans.
4qmmt,
Your comments above are a lot like Christ Date’s comments in the debate about “reading between the lines”. I don’t want to impose upon you something you haven’t said, but unitarians in general flip flop on their literal/figurative readings of Jesus’ words. When it comes to passages like John 6:38, 8:58, 10:30, 17:5 and 20:28; a figurative interpretation is given so that the words don’t mean what seems obvious on the surface. However, when it comes to something like John 14:28 or 17:3, Jesus suddenly is speaking literally in the most absolute sense.
The gospel of John is very clear to me. The prologue would make no sense if it’s main character, the Word, is not the same as the main character of the gospel. The Word is obviously the Son of God who existed in the beginning with God the Father, who is God and is the active instrument in the creation of all things that have been created. That points to an eternal person who came down from heaven to save His people from their sins.
As far as the Jew’s understanding of Jesus is concerned, seeing they did not see and hearing they did not hear, but that didn’t mean they didn’t understand what Jesus was implying. They just were not thinking by the Spirit, and so, could not believe Him. When I converse with atheists, they understand my arguments, but seeing they don’t see and hearing they don’t hear because the Spirit has not changed their hearts from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh.
Blessings…
Andrew,
What you have made clear here several times now is that you read and interpret the Bible based upon your reading of John 1. Pretty much everything you read is interpreted through the lens you have constructed of that passage. So tell me, how do you know what John 1:1 really means that you would read everything else based upon it?
For example, how do you know what ‘en arche’ refers to in John 1:1?
Andrew,
Thanks for your answer. I think some of that makes sense, specifically some of the parts about interpersonal relationships. I do wonder if this same idea of could be upheld in a subordinationist theology. This being a possibility because it could still include eternal relationships between Father and Son and the eternal begetting of the Son.
The primary thing about Trinitarianism that bothers me is that I can’t find it anywhere formulated and taught for quite some time and most early writings (100s-300s) seem to clearly be subordinationist. I know that “subordinationism” is a curse word and I was a Trinitarian for 20 years before I began to really question it but to me it seems alarming that such an important thing not be taught everywhere from the very beginning if it is in fact the case. The subordinationist view retains a lot of the Trinitarian teaching but is also historically present and seems to have been taught in the church. That doesn’t make it right necessarily either, but it is taught often and early.
I will put your book on my reading list. I am curious to your views before you were Trinitarian? You stated unitarian but there are varying unitarian views from those similar to Dale’s to Arian and even higher views than that which still qualify as “unitarian.”
Thanks again for your time. I saw that you have posted a lot on here. I will try to comb through your responses to others and see if that helps me understand your views and what you have to share. I think I could learn a lot.
In Christ,
Aaron
Aaron,
It depends upon the subordinationist theology. If the Son is in any way a true creature, then He cannot be considered eternal. If He is not eternal, the relationship between Him and the Father cannot be an eternal foundation for anything. It would be inherently temporal, having a beginning and having the possibility for an end.
I understand about the history. It is probably the best argument against the Trinity, if Dale’s understanding of the ECFs is correct. However, most of the church fathers had other wonky views about theology and don’t comport with Dale’s Christology either. I discuss this in the first chapter of the book. Not about the ECFs particular beliefs, but I parallel the development of the Christology/theology with the development of the concepts of “Canon” and “Sola Scriptura”. Neither of which are explicit in the NT. I am a Protestant, fully accepting both doctrines, but the councils that “decided” on the canon were had in the same centuries of those of the Trinity and deity of Christ, and sola scriptura wasn’t fully developed until the Reformation.
I was a part of a group called “Christadelphians”. Our Christology was essentially the same as Dale and Anthony Buzzard.
Blessings…
Andrew,
I would categorize anything where the Son is seen as eternal to be “subordinationist.” Although of course Arianism and Biblical Unitarianism obviously teach that Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father the difference I see there is that in Arianism he is “created out of nothing” (even if done so eons before the foundation of the world) or in the case of BU is just seen as a human who didn’t exist prior to his conception in Mary.
Subordinationism is unique in that it allows for the affirmation of things such as “begotten, not made.” The way I see it, the loss is not in co-eternality or co-creator but co-equality. Although some would argue that subordinationism can be a form of Trinitarian viewpoint, I see it as a Unitarian viewpoint (certainly the highest Unitarian Christology, but still Unitarian).
Aaron,
There is a trinitarian theology called “the eternal subordination of the Son”. I believe the thought in it is that the Son is inherently in a “lower position”, but ontologically equal. It’s kind of like a marriage in that even though the husband is the head, he is not superior to is wife in nature. There has been a push for this lately in response to a move towards egalitarianism in the church.
Blessings…
Is there a trick to viewing comments? Once we get a few responses into a thread, they disappear off to the side.
If the attribute of *infinitude* precludes the persons of the Trinity from being three individual beings, then wouldn’t the same preclude God from being a single Being?
I don’t see how an a being who is absolute could be anything but a singular whole.
can you explain “singular whole” and how this “singular” whole is 3 different “things” /existences .
“singular whole” is transforming the 3 into “singular” ?
still don’t get it, very confused.
Sure. My comments here are in the context of divine simplicity, which means that God is a simple being or, properly, “not composed of parts”. God’s being is not “thing upon thing”. That means that God is not many finite parts which add up to His infinite being. You can’t add to infinity. It logically follows that if God is simple, He is an infinite whole and not more than “one”.
However, God is also more than one thing, meaning, He is a plurality of attributes. These attributes are not parts, as God is a simple whole. God is one, but is many in that sense. The attributes are absolute and interdependent. Now, if God can have many attributes and still be an absolute “one”in divine simplicity, it stands to reason that He can be more than one in person and remain a singular God.
All of His attributes could not be without the others. God cannot be infinite and be mutable. He cannot be good and not be wise. Same with the persons. He cannot be father without having a son. Absolute and interdependent.
“However, God is also more than one thing, meaning, He is a plurality of attributes.”
These attributes are not parts, as God is a simple whole. God is one, but is many in that sense.
The attributes are absolute and interdependent. Now, if God can have many attributes and still be an absolute “one”in divine simplicity, it stands to reason that He can be more than one in person and remain a singular God.”
what is a “person” ? is “person” and “attribute” the same thing ? can you separate “person” from 1 ?
“The attributes are absolute and interdependent.”
is the father interdependent on the son?
You aksed: “what is a “person” ? is “person” and “attribute” the same thing ? can you separate “person” from 1 ?”
A “person” is an existent thing with the attribute of “personhood”. “Personhood” is an attribute. Not sure what you mean in the third part. Nothing that God is can be separated from His being. As God is simple, there are no parts to “disassemble”.
As far as the interdependence between the persons of the Trinity. Yes, there is dependence on a son in order for the Father to be a father. The Father, as one who begets, cannot be a begettor without an object of begettal. Trinitarians believe that the Father has always been a father. He cannot eternally be a father without eternally having a son. In that way, the Father is dependent upon the Son.
the father (person) is doing act (begetting) and causing the son (person 2)
the father is identified as “fully god” so does this mean “fully god” /”whole god” beget an object (son) ?
and “whole god” /”fully god” @ same time existed as begotten ?
The term “fully God” just means full deity as opposed to “a god”, like a created deity. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Jesus is a lesser, created divine being. Trinitarians believe that all the attributes that make God the Father divine, are shared by the Son and the Spirit.
The relations between the persons of the Trinity are like eternal modes of existing. It’s not like the Son was “born” in some way on a day in eternity past. If you consider a Unitarian God’s eternal mode of existing -the way He existed before having a relationship with creation- that existence would be necessarily static. In the Trinitarian view, as the Father, Son and Spirit exist with eternal relationships as the focus, that existence is dynamic and moving.
So you are claiming that Jesus is YHWH, or a mode of YHWH – is that correct?
In the sense that “mode” means “a way in which a thing exists”, the Son is a mode of YHWH. Just not in the “modalist” sense.
quote:
In the sense that “mode” means “a way in which a thing exists”,
do you mean :
like sofa exists as red colour, green colour and blue colour at the same time?
or:
human exists as fully male and fully female at the same time? 2 WAYS of existence ?
but then if you plug in a mind in each way, how are they ways of existence ?
hello Andrew,
can you explain what you mean by “mode”
i will give following example:
sylvester stallone is rocky and rambo.
now lets imagine that the fictional characters rocky and rambo came to life and met syslvester stallone.
would they be stallones ways of existence ? SAME being /ONE consciousness or would they be SEPARATE consciousnesses ?
would it be “one person” shared in 3 or 3 separate ones ?
if you believe that each person in trinity IS a person and is “alive” and aware of the other persons, how can this be “modes ” ?
i don’t get it.
You seem to be describing “modalism”. If Stallone had existed forever as Sylvester, Rocky and Rambo; three eternal distinct persons, your analogy would be a little closer. S.S. became Rocky for a time when he decided to play him in a movie.
“Mode” as I am using the term, is defined as “a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done.” Modalism presents the modes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as temporal in opposition to eternal. God became the Son at some point in time. Trinitarians believe that the Deity just exists as F,S and HS, not in any temporal way.
“You seem to be describing “modalism”. If Stallone had existed forever as Sylvester, Rocky and Rambo; three eternal distinct persons, your analogy would be a little closer.”
but it still would mean that stallone would know how it is to exist as rocky and rambo, so in reality it is just one consciousness, not 3 separate consciousnesses like the trinity.
in trinity the three share the same powers, but they don’t each share the same conscious mind, for this reason i see three beings.
quote :
“Mode” as I am using the term, is defined as “a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done.”
is the father an expression or is he a person who expresses his actions and thoughts?
The Stallone analogy fails because Sly has not always been all three personages, nor does he exist eternally.
The Father is a person who expresses His thoughts through action.
“The Stallone analogy fails because Sly has not always been all three personages, nor does he exist eternally.”
for arguments sake , lets just say
sly did exist as all three, would sly be three differing persons or one person ? so will rocky tell sly “hey sly, i’m you, and you me”
sly says “yo rocko, you r me and i u, we are one”
sly has the full experience of rocko and rocko has the full experience of rambo and rambo has the full experiential knowledge of sly, we do not see that the son has the full experiential knowledge of being father and father has full experiential feeling of being the son, we see three beings who are NOT each other. same powers, DIFFERENT persons, different EXPERIENCES.
i see three beings man.
this is not the conversation we see in the trinity. we see three individuals who are not each other, on the other hand sly is rocko.
“The Father is a person who expresses His thoughts through action.”
so he cannot be a mode/way of existence; it is a separate mind/consciousness , it is not one mind/once consciousness which expresses. this cannot be “way of existence”
Andrew,
Your comments are interesting, however I have a hard to reconciling them with the Bible. For example, you said: “God cannot be infinite and be mutable.”
Where does the Bible describe God as infinite? Infinite it what way?
How do you understand immutability? The Bible describes God as changing His mind and even having regrets for things He did. Since you believe that Jesus is G-d, how does a dead Jesus not impact your notion of immutability?
You also mention 3 omni’s. Where are you finding these in the Bible?
These are very deep and appropriate questions and would be very difficult to answer in this small space. God’s infinity is affirmed logically and from the bible. How could the God who created all things (time, space and matter) exist in eternity as finite? How would you describe God as finite? does He have physical dimensions? Is He subject to time?
Ps 139:1-6 says that God knows all things (omniscient) and that He is everywhere (vs 7-8/omnipresent). As far as omnipotence goes, would you suggest that the creator of all things does not have all power? (All of these attributes imply infinitude)
I understand immutability in that God makes no inherent change to His being or eternal purposes. I don’t take a hard view of immutability. I do believe that all God does flows from what He is, which doesn’t change. As far as the passages in scripture in which God “changes His mind”, I understand these from the point of view of “divine condescension”.
I have written a book on the subject of the Trinity and have a chapter on how God interacts with creation in light of the two natures of the Son. That might answer your questions. It’s called “The Triune God and the Doctrine of the Covenant”. It’s available on Amazon pretty cheap.
I agree these are difficult questions to tackle in this type of forum, but you made quite a few assertions and then derived trintiarian “proofs” from those. So my concern is that such proofs are no more valid than the underlying assumptions. For example:
God is not physcially bound to our universe, I would agree. However, no one is subject to time – time is simply a measurement of existence based upon change and is therefore not limited to our universe. Since God exists, His existence and of course His actions (change) can be described using temporal terms.
“Ps 139:1-6 says that God knows all things (omniscient) ” – Read the context and you will see that it has nothing to do with omniscience, as in knowing all things at all times. As it is written in many places, the author is speaking about the fact that God knows a person so well that He knows what is in their heart. Here He is only referring to David, but even if you want to stretch that to mean all people, it still does not even come close to “omniscience” since the Bible repeatedly tells us that God knows by searching, testing, looking etc. In the Bible, God actually discovers things.
Ps 139:7-8 hardly speak of omnipresence, it simply describes how God will find David wherever he is. He cannot hide. Is God in all material of the universe? If not, what does it mean that He is omnipresent?
God can be powerful beyond our ability to comprehend, but that does not necessarily mean that His power is infinite. In fact, no passage in the Bible
declares that God is infinite in any way. The language of the Bible is that there are things about God that are without measure or without end, but that does not mean infinite, just beyond counting. But the Bible says the same thing about the sand on the seashore, and armies, and many other finite things.
By “divine condescension” do you mean that God is acting stupid in order to stoop to our level? What is your basis for that assumption? The Bible gives no such indication, but rather the opposite. Look at Jer. 18. How can that possibly be condescending? God is simply describing who He is and what He will do.
I will take a look at your book, but from what you have been describing, it sounds like the foundation for your trintiarian arguments is Greek philosophical suppositions about the nature of God, not what the Bible says about Him. My difficulty with trinitarian arguments begins there. Serious exegesis simply does not support the suppositions.
You may be surprised. The first 60% of the book is providing an ancient near eastern framework for interpreting scripture, not Greek philosophy. The later portions that have things in common with philosophy are not necessarily invalid. Just because they share conclusions with Aristotle, doesn’t mean he was wrong in everything. He had the same general revelation that everyone is given through creation. You have to prove him wrong or you have committed a genetic fallacy.
Even if you choose not to buy the book, if you open the “look inside” feature, you’ll find contact information if you’d like to discuss this in a longer form through email.
Blessings in Christ…
You are right, it matters not where the ideas one claims are biblical come from, other than that they align with those actually found in the Bible. I recently heard a well known Bible scholar state, “theology is a subset of exegesis.” That is my concern.
With that said, I took a quick look at your book preview and am interested to see more. I immediately found two interesting things:
1. You used to be a unitarian and became a Calvinist
2. Your statement that you want to “prove the text. By that I mean, what is the text itself and what is it doing?”
With these in mind, perhaps you could give us your single strongest argument from Scripture for your claim that Jesus is G-d.
Shalom
Ill give 2. 1st Corinthians 8:6 and John 20:28. John is an unambiguous assertion that Jesus is the God of the disciples and 1st Corinthians 8:6 is linking Jesus with the Shema. I go in depth on the latter passage in the book.
Shalom to you as well
Andrew,
For some reason there is no reply button below your post, so I am replying here.
I find it fascinating that you would present these two verses together, as taken together they actually stand strong against your claim.
Re: John 20:28 “John is an unambiguous assertion that Jesus is the God of the disciples.”
To be frank, I have never understood why this verse is used as proof of anything. It is anything but unambiguous. Here are just a few problems.
1. John is quoting direct speech, correct? So John is not asserting anything, let alone asserting that Jesus is the God of the disciples. Would you not agree that this direct speech reflects Thomas’ astonishment at seeing the resurrected Jesus? If so, why would you choose to think that Thomas is making a theological declaration? Wouldn’t it be more logical to read his exclamation as a figure of astonishment befitting the moment? If you saw this take place and Thomas was looking up to heaven when he said ‘my God,’ would that change how you interpret its meaning?
2. Of course, we could also ask why Thomas did not say “You are my Lord and my G–d” which is how most trinitarians read the verse. At least that would be a far less ambiguous statement. I can only deduce that most people read it that way however because that is what they want him to have said.
3. Three verses later John declares “these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Don’t you find it odd that if Thomas had just told us that Jesus is G-d, John would have repeated that point here? Wouldn’t ‘Jesus is G-d’ be the most important and extraordinary thing that John would want them to know, if it were so?
4. Also if Lord and God were meant to both refer to Jesus, wouldn’t this be the perfect time to see the so-called Granville Sharp rule in effect? Though lack of evidence clearly does not prove anything, I find it quite odd that in other places GS is used to justify a singular referent reading while here we see the definite article for both theos and kurios, yet many Trinitarians desire to read it as a single referent.
Finally, though much can be debated about the meaning of the all prepositions and conjunctives etc. in 1 Cor. 8:6, one thing stands out with little debate. 1 Cor. 8:6 declares there is one God, the Father…and one Lord, Yeshua Mashiach. God the Father is the only one connected to the Shema here.
How do you harmonize these two verses then if Thomas calls Jesus G-d and Paul says there is only one God, the Father?
Of course, if Thomas is not calling Jesus God, then all is logical and consistent.
I guess the way the page works with replies is how they indent to the right. Once it goes so far to the right and runs out of room, the reply option isn’t available. Are you not a Christian? I ask because I don’t know any Christians that avoid typing the “o” in “God”.
Ok:
1) Most would agree that this (20:28) is the climax of John’s theology. According to Jesus, Thomas was “not believing”. Upon recognizing the risen Lord, Thomas immediately “answered Him”. The words are directed to Jesus and there is simply no evidence that Thomas was looking up or anything of the sort. The passage is unambiguous to whom the words are directed.
2,3) I see this not as a scene of astonishment, but a confession of what Thomas believed (see vs 29). The next verse (30) gives us a purpose statement that tells us what we are to believe for salvation. That Jesus is the Christ (“my Lord”; Ps 110:1) and the Son of God (“my God”; John 1:1c). I believe, with good evidence that when John says “Son of God”, he means “God” (19:7).
4) I’m not sure how GS rule would be applicable here. The fact that Thomas “answered Him” gives us the referent of his subsequent words. Remember, this is a confession of Thomas’ belief followed by a purpose statement of what to believe. John tells us that he wrote the book so that we would believe something, not in “my Lord”/Jesus and “my God”/ God, but the focus is on one person, Jesus.
On 1 Cor 8:6, I once asked a committed orthodox Jew this question. “If I were to ask a 1st century believing Jew, ‘Who is the one Lord, through who are all things?’ What would he say?” He said, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” That is crushing for the unitarian. This is clearly a reference back to the Shema. The key terms are there (Lord, God, one) and it is a statement of Christian commitment over and against the surrounding pagan world. The Shema is a statement of Israel’s covenant commitment over and against the surrounding pagan world. The parallel is clear.
The harmony is provided in that as the Son is the “one Lord” for Christians, the Father is also “Lord”. As the Father is the “one God” for Christians, the Son is also “God”. Jesus is “our only Master and Lord” (Jude 4). Does that mean that the Father isn’t? Of course not. The Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3). Does that mean the the Son isn’t? Of course not. See John 1:1 and 20:28.
Blessings…
4qmmt,
Good points. As I’ve pointed out to others on CARM (I go by f4t), John 20:8-9 ‘sets the context’ for all that follows. It seems clear to me that John’s authorial intent in ch. 20 is to show how Jesus’ disciples came to believe in his resurrection, not how they all came to believe in his supposed identity as the God of Israel.
Without question, Jesus in 20:27 isn’t asking Thomas to stop “doubting and starting believing” that he is the God of Israel, but that he is truly *alive* from the dead.
As such, I believe Jn 20:8 and 20:29 form an *inclusio,* serving to affirm the disciples belief in Jesus’ resurrection, not belief in his identity as the God of Israel. As you pointed out, if Thomas were making a statement or declaration of belief in Jesus’ identity as the God of Israel, we should have expected him to have said, “YOU ARE my Lord and my God,” something along the lines of the Centurion or perhaps Nathanael’s confession, “Rabbi, you you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel” (Jn 1:49).
I know Trins often assert that John 1:1 forms an inclusio with 20:31 or 20:28, but if that were true, it seems John should have worded his ‘purpose’ or ‘summary statement’ to have reflected this, as in, “That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, THE WORD MADE FLESH…”
As another Biblical Unitarian on CARM rightly pointed out, why wasn’t Thomas’ supposed confession in Jesus as God ever repeated in some creedal form in Acts or the epistles at baptisms? That seems pretty incredulous to me.
Perhaps more importantly, if John’s purpose for writing his gospel was because he believed Jesus was UNIVERSALLY our Lord and our God, why is it that we never find this articulated in scripture, like we do about the Father in Rev 4:11:
“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
since you created all things,
and because of your will they existed and were created!” (NET)
Hey Andrew, yeah, looks like something weird with the layout, as it happened again. So here is my response to you MAY 26, 2019 @ 6:06 AM post.
First, thanks for the thoughtful post. I truly appreciate that you took the time to respond to each issue (unusual and difficult in forums like this).
No, I’m not a Christian. I do believe the Bible is valuable for instruction and learning. I believe the Torah is God’s instructions for living and hope everyone learns to use them wisely. I also see Jesus’ teaching consistent with the Torah and the prophets, and believe that he was the anointed one that he claimed to be, but as you obviously know now, I do not believe that he is an any way God.
Can’t say I find your reading of John 20:28 very convincing. I am curious how you read it when you were a Unitarian. Was it so unambiguous back then as well?
Regarding your specific answers:
1. Why do you consider John 20:28, a quotation of a third party’s direct speech, the climax of John’s theology over John 20:31 in which John tells us the purpose of all he is telling us? If John 20:28 was the climax, why didn’t John point it out in v31 where he made his summary?
Yes, we have no evidence as to where Thomas was looking or what his posture or tone was, but that is exactly the point. Lacking such evidence, the statement is ambiguous. What would make it far less ambiguous is a statement of identity such as “You are my Lord and my God.” I understand that is how Trinitarians want to read it. But it does not say that and therefore it is ambiguous. Moreover, how easy would it have been to write or say ‘You are my lord and my God’ if that is what was meant?
2. Sure, Jesus sees in Thomas a reaction that indicates he now believes, but believes what? Thomas now believes that Jesus resurrected in contrast to what he thought in John 20:25. That is what Jesus refers to in 20:29. No one told Thomas that Jesus was G-d. They told him that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. So nothing in 20:29 supports a claim of deity, but rather fits perfectly well with the astonishment of seeing a dead man alive again.
3. A. Jesus flat out refutes such a notion in John 10:33-36. I think Dr. Tuggy has a good discussion or two on this.
John 19:7 doesn’t help either, because a) the accusers are those that wrongfully oppose Jesus and clearly want to kill him and would be highly motivated to say plainly that he said that he was god if that is what they meant b) the claim throughout Scripture is that Jesus claimed to have the authority of God (Matt 28:18, Luke 4:32, Acts 10:42). That is what it means that “he made himself Son of God.” It does not say that he claimed to be the son of God, it says he “made” himself son of God, as in appointed himself to the position of authority. They are arguing that his claims of authority are not from God but from himself (Mark 11:28, John 2:18). That is the general argument throughout the NT. Even his enemies would not say Jesus made himself into an actual god. If they meant that he said he was God, then why didn’t they say that?
B. If son of God = God, then there are going to be a lot of gods like Jesus – see Matt. 5:9, Luke 20:26, Romans 8:14, Gal. 3:26. Of course, Adam was also a unique son of God, right? (Luke 3:38)
4. It actually does not say Thomas answered him. It simply says ‘Thomas answered/replied/responded and said to him.’ Of course, there is no punctuation in the Greek uncials so that we don’t even know if what was meant was “responded and said to him ‘my lord and my God’” or “responded and said to him ‘my lord’ and my God!” In other words, it is not possible to prove that the remark ‘my God’ was anything other than part of the general response to the astonishing situation of seeing a dead man alive again.
With regard to 1 Cor. 8:6, as I mentioned, there is considerable room for debate on how to understand the prepositions and ta panta (which needs to be understood in context, and hardly ever means ‘all things’ as in every last thing in the universe). This is a hard forum for that discussion, however, suffice to say your reading is not the only possible reading, or as I would argue, not the best reading.
I also did not follow the logic of your last two paragraphs.
There is no “lord” in the Shema. There is YHWH and Eloheinu and Echad. If you are reading “kurios” in 1 Cor. 8:6 as YHWH, then you are claiming that Jesus is the one YHWH in contrast to the Father who is the one God. Is that what you mean to say?
You have not made it clear how you reconcile the fact that if Jesus is G-d ala Jphn 20:28, why the Father is called the only God or only true God. Jesus is never called God (pace your John 20:28), but rather lord, (i.e. master) as we see elsewhere (Jude 4) and yet we are to understand them to be the same? Of course, Jesus is also never called God in John 1:1, unless you think word = Jesus (which I understand you do), but of course that is for another long discussion 🙂
Hi 4qmmt. As a unitarian, I read a common interpretation that Thomas was merely saying, “I see the Father in you” as a reference to “if you have seen Me you have seen the Father”. That’s a fine interpretation if you ignore the prologue or give it the fanciful one offered by biblical unitarians. John 17:5 also makes it clear that Jesus pre-existed His birth negating that “the Word was with God” is a personification.
1) I see “my Lord and my God” to be the words Thomas said to Jesus. Sorry if I was confusing. The bible doesn’t generally tell us people’s posture or tone when speaking. If I’m understanding you correctly, that would make most statements made by people in the bible ambiguous. For me (and most Christians), this is an unambiguous statement that Thomas viewed Jesus as his God.
2) Thomas said what he believed. He makes a confession of his belief: “My Lord and my God”. He doesn’t say, “You ARE alive!” It’s right there in black and white.
3) He doesn’t deny His deity in 10:33-36, He affirms that He didn’t “make Himself” God. The Father “sanctified and sent Him”. His claim is affirmed by the Father. His claim started with two allusions to Deuteronomy. a) John 10:27-29 is an allusion back to Deut 32:39. There YHWH has the power of life and death, “none can deliver from His hand”. According to Jesus, He and the Father have the power of eternal life. b) Deut 6:4 says that YHWH is one. Jesus says, “I and my Father are one”. That is why they knew Jesus was claiming to be YHWH.
4) I find the claim that Thomas is just saying “OMG” to be very tough to swallow. Especially when the gospel begins with, “…and the Word was God.”
5) There is no “YHWH” in the Greek Shema (LXX), there is only “kurios”. The NT authors follow suit and never use the divine name. The difference between “Lord” as a divine name/title and used as a reference to a general authority is seen when Jesus is called the “one Lord”. There are many lords as we are to obey our governing authorities. But Jesus is “LORD” in a unique category like the one occupied by YHWH. I go a bit deeper in ch 4:3 (titled “Is Jesus YHWH?”) of my book. a) In the broadest theme of scripture (covenant) Jesus is strikingly paralleled with YHWH. b) Many Old Testament YHWH passages are applied to Jesus in the NT. And c) Jesus is “the Lord” of Deut 6:4.
Again, if you wish more answers from me I refer you to the book or like I said, my contact info is visible in the sample on Amazon.
Lastly, you say that you aren’t a Christian but believe in God and that Jesus is His Messiah? Do you say you aren’t a Christian because you don’t believe in the Trinity or the deity of Christ? I didn’t understand that part.
Blessings…
Andrew, I’m not replying to myself but to your last comment:)
I’m actually trying to keep this relatively short 🙂
1/2/4. I think you are straining quite hard to make John 20:28 say what you want. The context is about Thomas’ disbelief that Jesus was resurrected as the others said. You really don’t think he was absolutely stunned to see Jesus alive?
John 20:16 – essentially the same situation and she calls him rabboni (my rabbi).
John 20:17 – Speaking to Mary, Jesus says he is going to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.
John 20:20 – The disciples rejoice, no mention of claims of deity. In fact, if they thought he was God, why did they worry about anything? Why would they be surprised?
John 20:23 – Jesus gives them his authority.
John 20:25 – Thomas explains that he must see the physical person alive before he believes that they have seen him alive. Why? Of course, because resurrection would be an absolute miracle.
John 20:26 – Jesus shows up eight days later. How much doubt about their seeing Jesus alive do you think Thomas had by then?
John 20:27 – Jesus tells him touch me and believe, believe what? That I am alive, of course.
*John 20:28 – If Thomas was simply exclaiming astonishment at seeing a dead man alive, what would you expect him to have said?
*If Thomas was stating his theological belief, I would expect him to have said something like the centurion (27:54) “Truly you are my Lord and my God.”
John 20:31 – John tells us in his words (not a quote) what he wants us to believe – Jesus is the messiah, the son of God. No mention whatsoever of Jesus being G-d, why not?
My original point was that the verse is certainly too ambiguous to make it the ‘sure fire go to proof text’ for Jesus being deity. Furthermore, I think simply reading what the story (text) says makes a very strong case that it has nothing whatsoever to do with deity claims. It is simply a story point that Jesus did in fact resurrect – a completely shocking moment in all history, no?
Are you sure your interpretation is not being influenced by your presupposition about Jesus’ deity?
3. His use of the common “how much more then” formula is meant to say that if other ‘men’ can be called ‘gods,’ then how much more then that he could be called ‘son of God,’ because son of God is even a lower title than ‘god.’
The whole power of life is an issue of authority, which is the central issue of the NT. He is claiming to be a man who was anointed and given all authority by God – a thoroughly outrageous claim! But then he backs it up by what he does, right?
5. I agree with you that the NT portrays Jesus as being given unique authority, that much is abundantly clear as we have numerous direct statements with regard to that. But I think you are straining a lot of gnats to make him something he isn’t, nor does he need to be in order to be the messiah. There is plenty there without making a man god.
But perhaps the best thing is to simply ask this:
What should be written in the Bible if Jesus is not God?
What would we expect the Bible to say if Jesus is G-d?
Though I believe Jesus was who he said he was, there is little else I have in common with what has been Christianity for the last 1900+ years or how Christians read the Bible.
Shalom
Hi 4qmmt. I think we are at an impasse here. I don’t know how much clearer it could be. Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God.” To most, that is the epitome of unambiguous.
As far as the purpose statement goes, it is clear to me that for John, “Son of God” is synonymous with “God”. “These have been written so that you will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. This follows right after Thomas confession of belief, “My Lord and my God”, and Jesus’ commendation. To say that you believe that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God” is synonymous with saying that Jesus is “my Lord and my God.”
My presupposition for the first 32 years of my life was that Jesus was not God. I became a Trinitarian “kicking and screaming”, so to speak. I was forced into the position that I am in from a renewed understanding of the ontology of the bible. The bible is interpreted by what it is and what it is doing, which is a covenant document.
Your two questions at the end there are answered by the covenant framework of the scripture. If you look closely at the major covenants of the bible (Abrahamic, Davidic, New Covenant), God promises to save His people by Himself, not to send someone else to do the work for Him. Man had his chance to maintain fellowship with YHWH by his own merit, but failed miserably. God opted for a covenant of grace by which He would do all of the work Himself. If Christ is God, I would expect that the He would do all the work that God promised to do, which He did. If Jesus is just a man, then God is reverting back to the old way that failed in Eden and Canaan.
Shalom
I agree, we are influenced by our own presuppositions, and so we are reading the same texts differently, that’s all. But to be frank, I don’t really care what people think nearly as much as I care about what they do. And so even though we may disagree, I’m sure your time is valuable and I much appreciate the fact that you took the time to thoughtfully and respectfully lay out your case and address mine. That rare act on the internet is telling:)
Shalom
Regarding the John 20:28 Discussion.
I believe the Greek literally states something like this (using interlinear bible ) “the master of-me and the God of-me.”
As is commonly know, the term God (Elohim) is sometimes used for describing person who is a representative, agent or judge who represents God.
Could Thomas have possibly meant “My Lord and my (true and only) representative to God” knowing that Jesus is the one mediator between God and man.
Hi Buddy,
I think even some unitarians are being influenced far too much by trinitarians with regard to Thomas’ statement. I’ve believe that I have heard Dr. Tuggy even say that he thinks that John 20:28 is one of the few places that Jesus is called God. That is why I laid out the context. It is a narrative and is therefore describing actions, not theology. Notice that John makes no editorial comment either to affirm or clarify the meaning, such as he does in passages like, John 9:22-23, John 12:6, John 13:11, and John 21:19.
You are right about the Greek, but in English we simply say ‘my x’ to denote possession. Your point about ‘elohim’ is also a good one, though I don’t think it is applicable here.
The most interesting thing that you are bringing out though is that in the Greek there is no verb in his statement. That is not a trivial issue. If Thomas was making a statement of identity, we would expect him to have said something along the lines of what the centurion said in Matthew 27:54; something like: “Truly you are my Lord and my God.”
If John wanted his readers to think that Thomas considered Jesus to be any type of god, all he needed to do was include a small verb. He didn’t. That is very telling, especially when only 3 verses later he gives us his summary statement of Jesus’ identity and it in no way includes God.
In addition, comparative textual analysis supports reading this as a simple statement of astonishment to be the best approach.
First, the apostles would have been speaking Hebrew (possibly Aramaic, though not as likely), certainly not Greek. In Hebrew, what Thomas said is only two words: Adon’i ve’elohai. Though in Hebrew the present tense ‘to be’ verb can be implicit, in this case there is no nominal sentence here because it includes the ‘ve’ = ‘and.’ Without the ‘and’ it could read “my lord is my God” but it makes no sense to say “my lord is and my God.” Thus, what we have here are essentially two separate vocatives, and the ‘and’ makes most sense if it is simply connecting two separate statements, as in Thomas said, “my Lord!” and “my God!”
‘Elohai’ is even translated as the vocative “O my God” on many occasions, eg. Ps. 3:7 (3:8 in Heb), Ps. 22:2 (21:3 in LXX) and Ps. 83:13 (83:14 in Heb, 82:14 in LXX). The LXX translates these exactly as we see in John 20:28 – ‘ho theos mou’ – thus we actually have good grounds to translate it in John 20:28 as ‘O my God!” Of course, you won’t find it translated that way because the translators are trinitarians 🙁
Look at the earliest Greek manuscripts and you will also see that there is no punctuation and the ‘and’ (kai) could be functioning in this same manner to connect two separate vocatives. In other words, a perfectly legitimate (and sensible) way to translate John 20:28 is “Thomas responded and said to him, “My Lord!” and “O my God!” Of course, in this case, there is nothing that requires that the second phrase “my God” or “O my God” be directed at Jesus.
If Thomas was simply exclaiming astonishment at seeing a dead man alive, what would you expect him to have said?
Well now that is interesting (re: ‘‘Elohai’ and the reference to the similar phrases in the Septuagint).
The English translation of simply “My God” in those instances seems more to relate a personal relationship with God verses an expression of astonishment. 🙂
I can see Thomas then saying this more in relation to Jesus being his personal “God” (in the mediator sense).
Thanks for the comment. I learned something.
Hi Buddy,
My point was not to suggest that in those references I gave they were saying “Oh My God!” as in a sense of astonishment, but rather that they were vocatives spoken as exclamatives, simply meaning they were understood as vocal expressions of emotion aimed at the specific person mentioned in the expression. There are a variety of emotions being expressed in those and the similar passages. In John 20:28, Thomas is likely saying to God something like ‘O my God’ as in ‘O my God, it is true!’ which is expressing joy and thankfulness to God, the One who raised Jesus from the dead. Something that likely happened a lot – Acts 13:30-31.
I agree with you that there is nothing technically wrong with Jesus being called ‘god’ as Moses and other men were at rare times, but in this case, unlike all the rest, there is no identity statement made here. If there were, I would agree that your reading here would be plausible. But there is no verb. There isn’t even a a mention of Thomas kneeling or falling down or anything else to suggest that he was making a statement of identity about Jesus, so trying to turn this into a statement of factual identification is rather futile.
The Kant approach is that areas of the “dinge an sich” things in themselves are not accessible to pure reason.
is attribute of omniscience 1 and 3 @ the same time ?
I don’t see any evidence that it would be. However, there are 3 “omni” attributes. Each could be considered to be representative of aspects of God’s infinity.
Dale, do you accept divine simplicity?
Andrew
No. I have always considered it to be a unjustified speculation taken over from Neoplatonism. To me, it is obviously impossible that God should be simple, in the sense they meant it. For instance, his wisdom is different than his compassion. To me, simplicity fits better with what I call Ultimism, a perennial enemy of theism. Of course, nowadays, there is a lot of reformulating of just what “simplicity” is supposed to be. If it is just that God is not composed of parts, I agree with that, as I think he is a spirit.
“Not composed of parts” is what I mean. All that God is, just is God logically follows because nothing about Him is of anything else. If we can agree that the attributes of personality, love and wisdom are identical with God Himself despite that they are not identical with each other, wouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable for the three persons of the Trinity to be identical with the Deity, even though they aren’t identical with each other?
so your saying love is god wisdom is god personality is god x is god y is god and z is god and they all are beings ?
No. I’m saying one being, not beings.
i still don’t understand what you mean, i will ask for further clarification. when you say that the father is god, then does that mean inherent in the person of the father divine attributes? is this the same for the other two?
Yes. All that the Father is, the Son is and the Spirit is.
so 3 beings, right?
Nope. One being.
“All that the Father is”
what is the father ? what does he have ? the son is not the father, what does the son have ? what is inherent in each person? and how is it that each person is not a being ?
The Father is eternal deity. The Father has all the attributes of eternal deity. The Son has all the attributes of eternal deity. What is inherent in each person is all the attributes of eternal deity. The persons of the Trinity are not individual beings because each is infinite. Two clarifications. 1) When I use “being” in this discussion, I mean “a thing that exists”. 2) When I use “God”, I mean “the eternal, singular creator of the universe”. I’m not using it as a proper name. Imagine a “time” when all that existed was God. There is no when or where, all that exists is God. This existence is infinite having no spaciotemporal boundaries. Three beings could not exist this way as each being would be an independent entity. One would end where the other began and so forth. That is the essence of finitude. Three beings cannot be infinite as you cannot add up to infinity. This is definitional for divine simplicity.
When you assert, “The persons of the Trinity are not individual beings because each is infinite,” then how can God be a *single* Being?
Again, if the attribute of *infinitude* precludes the persons of the Trinity from being three individual beings, then wouldn’t the same preclude God from being a single Being?
Andrew,
Could you tell us what the differences are between the Father and the Son? If they both have all the attributes of eternal deity in what way are they different? Surely they have to be different somehow to be distinguished as Father and Son? What is that/are those difference(s)?
quote:
What is inherent in each person is all the attributes of eternal deity.
so in other words EACH individual person has full experience of “ALL the attributes of eternal deity” ?
yet they are 3 different things ?
quote :
When I use “being” in this discussion, I mean “a thing that exists”.
what is “thing” ?
“Imagine a “time” when all that existed was God. There is no when or where, all that exists is God. This existence is infinite having no spaciotemporal boundaries. Three beings could not exist this way as each being would be an ”
now it sounds like you are making the “threeness” into singular “oneness”
3 is dissolving into oneness?
intrinsic
/?n?tr?ns?k/
adjective
belonging naturally; essential.
quote:
“Not composed of parts” is what I mean. All that God is, just is God logically follows because nothing about Him is of anything else. If we can agree that the attributes of personality, love and wisdom are identical with God Himself despite that they are not identical with each other….
end quote
if God is invisible and His attributes like power, knowledge, hearing etc are “belonging naturally” to him, and they are also invisible, how can we say “they are not identical with each other” this would cause to split an invisible being and this assumes non -identical can be distinguished like human sight can be distinguished from human being. aren’t we imposing our thinking on God when we say “they are not identical with each other” ?
so when god is “seeing perfectly” does he know that his seeing and hearing are not identical or does the question even come up in his mind like it does in human mind?
“the seeing one” is “the hearing one”
does god distinguish his attributes in his mind like we try to make distinctions in him ?
That is a main difference between the being of God and the being of everything else. All of what creation is, are a collection of constituent parts. Not so with God. All that God is, just is God. Many characteristics that are identical with the infinite being of God, yet, not strictly identical with each other.
To your last question, I would say that God’s knowledge of Himself and all that goes along with that are as exhaustive as it could possibly get.
Dr. Tuggy, how successful have you found logical argumentation to be in breaking through to Trinitarians? I really appreciate what you are doing here, and I think you are right, but my impression is that this kind of argument only lands with freethinking Protestants who are mostly outside the gravitational pull of their churches, if they do attend church at all. It is frustrating that Trinitarians seem mostly immune to Unitarian theological competition as of yet—whether they are confronted with Biblical exegesis or logical arguments.
I have a question
Where did ignatius of antioch says’ that jesus is not God and where he did also say that jesus is not pre-existed in creation, but pre-ordained ?
Gab, Where did Ignatius of Antioch say that Jesus did not eat peanuts? Or that he did not preach to the American Indians? Or that he does not live on Venus?
KevinG
Is that your unitarian style of response ?
Comments are closed.