Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
This episode is the final portion of the EPS session devoted to the forthcoming book, One God, Three Persons, Four Views, edited by Dr. Chad McIntosh. You’ll hear the entire Q&A portion of the session, plus my commentary thereupon. Topics include:
- Jesus and the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7
- Jesus’ claim in Mark 2 and in Matthew 9 to be authorized to forgive sins
- the accusation of blasphemy lobbed at Jesus in Mark 14:61-64.
- the “worship” of Jesus in Matthew 2 and elsewhere
- how Revelation 1 describes the exalted Jesus in similar terms to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7
- the title “Alpha and Omega” which is used in Revelation for both God and Jesus
- whether John 15:3 implies that it must have been God who died for our sins
- whether Romans 10:9 shows that in Paul’s view Jesus is Yahweh
- whether being begotten by God implies being God, and the charge in John 10 that Jesus is “making himself God”
- John 17:5 and the issue of Jesus’s pre-human existence in the New Testament
- whether John 12:41 implies that Jesus is Yahweh
- John 1 and the deity of Christ
- that the Hebrew echad can refer to non-simple, complex unities
There is also a question about and some more discussion of Dr. Craig’s controversial claim that it is an anachronism to suppose that New Testament authors could make claims involving the concept of numerical identity. I point out that any normal adult, then or now, can wonder, after twice referring, if they’ve referred to the same thing twice or rather to two things in succession. I also point out that the anti-modalist plank of trinitarian confessions, even ancient ones, employs the concept of same-thing-as when it denies that any “Person” of the Trinity is numerically the same with any of the others (i.e. that all of these are false: f = s, s = h, h = f).
For his part, Dr. Craig asks me if I accept a Socinian account of atonement, and you’ll also hear the humorous end of this panel session, as the editor Dr. McIntosh hands out clever gifts to each of the four authors.
In the final segment I critique some answers Dr. Craig has recently given on his podcast to some listener questions about the Bible and “the Trinity,” also offering my own answers.
Links for this episode:
podcast 373 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 2
podcast 372 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 1
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Questions on Morality, the Trinity, and Retirement, December 11, 2023
1 Chronicles 20:29; Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 5; Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; Mark 12:28-34; Deuteronomy 6:4; Deuteronomy 4:35; John 14:28; John 1:18; John 20:28; John 20:17; John 10:31-36; John 20:30-31; John 14:9; Acts 17:11.
How much did Aristotle understand about numerical sameness (identity)?
Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ
fulfillment fallacy: the Bible teaches that David is God
fulfillment fallacy: the Bible on another previous life of Jesus
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant
podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
podcast 92 – Dr. Joshua Thurow on objections to atonement theories
podcast 91 – Dr. Joshua Thurow on theories of the atonement
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
This week’s thinking music is “Run Hard” by Mr. Smith.
I absolutely loved this series of 3 (plus the UCA intro)! As a Unitarian for years, I am elated to see mainstream evangelicals engage with the subject matter. WLC’s disdain for having to counter these arguments is nearly palpable, which is sort of exciting. Definitely, I am no philosopher, but I really cannot even comprehend WLC’s newly-discovered theory (“ancient deficiency of identity understanding” [or whatever]). It seems very silly to assert that, at minimum, a person cannot distinguish numerical identity sheerly from observing that they are not the same as another person. Sometimes in academic circles, I’ve noticed that very accomplished people sometimes step out into ridiculous assertions, and they just bank on that their reputation carries the argument. Frustrating to watch it, but it does sometimes work. The lack of questions and comments from the audience about this (save one person) smacked of this phenomenon from my perspective. Thank you for this interesting set of podcasts.
Comments are closed.