Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this episode I reflect on the debate of episodes 317 and 318. Topics include:
- why I was willing to debate a Jesus-is-God apologist like Rogers
- Rogers’s post-debate statements that I think that all trinitarians are blasphemers, and that I regard them with “immense hatred.”
- what I meant by referring to Rogers’s views as “fringe”
- the idea that we can first interpret the Bible and construct our theology and only then bring in any sort of “philosophical” reasoning
- some things Rogers doesn’t understand about contemporary analytic Christian Philosophy
- why I don’t assume “that God can be only one Person” or that “if Jesus is God then the Father can’t be God”
- the importance of the concept of numerical sameness/identity when it comes to reasoning about God and Jesus
- apologists’ obstinate refusal to learn that these are valid forms of argument: a=c, b=c, therefore a=b; Fa, not-Fb, therefore not-(a=b) (“Fx” is a claim that x has feature F)
- a vast and directly relevant scholarly literature which Jesus-is-God apologists choose to ignore
- the idea of OT “signature acts” of God
Towards the end, I discuss the opening of the gospel according to Mark, with a view towards keeping its characters straight. Below, the terms referring to Jesus are blue, those referring to God are red, and those referring to John are in green. The parts which reflect an assumption of differences between Jesus and God are underlined.
Next episode: how Rogers, in his zeal to argue that Jesus is Yahweh, rejects a massive amount of contemporary conservative Bible scholarship.
Links for this episode:
podcast 264 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 2
podcast 263 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 1
Anthony Rogers’s post-debate discussion with his followers
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief
podcast 100 – Dr. Larry Hurtado on God in New Testament Theology
Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence
podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?
Pawl, The Incarnation
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
Tuggy: What is the Trinity?
podcast 223 – Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories – Part 2
podcast 222 – Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories – Part 1
podcast 221 – Thomas Reid on human prejudices and common causes of error
podcast 220 – Thomas Reid on First Principles and Common Sense – Part 2
podcast 219 – Thomas Reid on First Principles and Common Sense – Part 1
“Trinity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Trinity,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Trinity,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
podcast 265 – What apologists don’t understand about the terms “being” and “Person”
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible)
Acts 3:22; Deuteronomy 18:15; Matthew 5:43-48; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Isaiah 46; Mark 1:1-11
This week’s thinking music is “Procreation” by Little Glass Men.
I really enjoyed your debate follow up (more than the debate, actually) and in particular your discussion on the proper role of logic/philosophy in having a basic understanding of a passage. I’d go further and suggest he doesn’t seem to have a problem with applying “grammar” to the discussion. Rules of logic and rational thinking is just as important as rules of grammar I think – both have a role.
But, it did raise to my mind a thought I have from time to time on applying assumptions from logic to some of these questions — especially when it comes to things like “identity” and other possible contradictions in logic. Logic has proven reliable in our reality. But, in dealing with metaphysical realities such as the existence of God and possibilities within spheres such as that which are outside our space-time dimensionally bound reality where cause and effect may have different logical rules (if any), how do we hold fast to applying strict logical truths like identity? We are limited in the revealed truths to our capacity to understand and apply things like logic to them, but when faced with things like “Jesus is God” claims and focus on identity rules, perhaps we are on shaky ground?
I don’t know and don’t really have the philosophy chops to even express my wandering thoughts on the subject but I suspect you see where I’m sort of heading with it and I would love your philosophical thoughts on this – perhaps a show on this ?
Open discussions without the adversarial approach is much better regardless of what any tradition offers. Both sides can lay out the reasons why they believe as they do and let the spirit do the rest.
The fruit of one’s doctrine reflects the spirit behind it. Trinitarians have murdered millions of non trinitarians for being….NON TRINITARIAN. No doctrine that produces that kind of fruit is worthy of being called Christian. The trinity was forced on the masses through intimidation, threats, and violence by Rome. By decree Rome required all subjects of the empire to accept it or else suffer whatever consequence Rome decided.
Comments are closed.