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 being two Gods. But I don’t have that problem, so don’t need the solution.
Bosserman: 1:52:13 – 1:58 Jesus is my God. With all love, I must say that this is more than an intellectual matter. Repentance is necessary. So just as Jesus rebuked the Samaritan woman (“You worship what you do not know.”) Unitarianism makes man the focus instead of God; it is “a man-made religion.” As the serpent tempted Eve to put herself over and be the measure of God, so unitarians disregard God’s word and critique God rather than believe as he says. And as the serpent says they can “be like God” so unitarians “blur the line” between creator and creature, and make God dependent on his creation. This is “exactly” what the serpent promised Eve. And as the serpent questioned God’s threat of death, unitarians arbitrarily exempt one son of Adam [Jesus] from need of atonement, and they think that God arbitrarily (“by fiat”) forgave Jesus [for Adam’s sin?]. So the serpent was right about this one man. I’m not being rude, I have to call out your unwillingness to submit to God until he fits your box. (Offers prayer that the sinners present, the unitarians, would be given grace to submit to God’s word, the veils removed from their eyes. )
My final comments: Both debaters behaved pretty well, and spoke reasonably clearly. Bosserman decides to preach and posture rather than argue; his closing statement adds nothing to the debate, other than highlighting his central reliance on a 16th c. doctrine of atonement, on which God can’t forgive, as it would be wrong or unjust, unless he exercises his wrath upon someone, and on which some strong (Augustinian? Calvinist?) doctrine of original sin is supposed. But as probably his opponents don’t accept that, he should have argued independently of such theories. To his credit, even though his views entail that his opponent deserves to go to hell for believing unintarian Christian theology (and so arrogantly rejecting what God says about himself), he tries very hard to avoid rudeness and highhanded condescension.
Finnegan would have done better to spend more time reviewing his positive arguments, and reminding the audience why Bosserman did not successfully refute or rebut them.
All in all, I think Finnegan won the debate, and not by a little. He argued that by biblical criteria which Bosserman accepts, Jesus can’t be God himself, i.e. the one true God. Because he stuck to plain reasoning and sources Bosserman is committed to, he did not beg the question. In the end, Bosserman could only fall back on mystery and his own alleged intellectual humility. But it’s no good to say “Well I just humbly follow the Book” when the very issue at hand is how best to understand the Book. He could not make stick his charge that unitarians are arrogant, unrepentant, or over-confident of their intellectual powers, and Finnegan’s manner, his plain-spoken arguments, and his obvious focus on scripture made all those accusations ring hollow. I think at least one claim was ill-considered and a few arguments unclear, but he had enough compelling arguments to win this debate.
Jesus was, but is not a man. Gal 1:1 is clear on that.
Jesus became a spirit (1Co 15:45). Following Biblical precedent this must refers to his nature, as one who is described in the Bible as “spirit” is always spirit in nature, not physical, whether applied to demons, angels, God or…, in this case, Christ. Jesus is explicatively not physical, or, “made of dust” (1Co 15:46-48), as human beings are.
And no man has seen God at any time.
Andy – I can add a recent experience to this. A man in the congregation of which I am a part spent some time one evening proving that when you read “the angel of the Lord” in the OT, it refers to a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. More rubbish.
However, I gained something from it. I looked up every passage in the Bible where the phrase is used, and can now state, dogmatically, that the phrase angel (of) YHWH is NEVER preceded by the definite article in the Hebrew Scriptures.
What’s more, Stephen (when telling the story of Moses and the burning bush) says “an angel of the Lord” – signifying no definite article in the Greek translation, either.
So now, I am richer. The Son of God was/is not an angel. Hebrews 1 and 2 are clear on that. And there is no evidence that he ever appeared as an angel.
So I am free to take the words of Hebrews 9:26 (with context) literally: Christ appeared ONCE, at the completion of the ages, to put away sin through the sacrifice of himself. That is something no angel could have done. So he has been manifested – not as an angel – but as a MAN, in order to die.
I find that thrilling.
Marg
Re 1 Cor 8:6, there is nothing in the context to make such a limitation. It is true that the Greek word ‘all’ sometimes means ‘all with some limitation’ but in those cases it is obvious. For example Luke 11:42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth? of your mint, rue and all OTHER kinds of garden herbs” NIV 2010
The word ‘other’ is not in the Greek but the NIV has added it, quite correctly, to make the verse make sense to English readers.
But the addition of the word ‘other’ here, and in the other verses where ALL means ALL with exceptions, is clear from the CONTEXT and NOT theology.
And that’s the rub. We can create a theology and then view any scripture in the light of it. But that’s circular thinking. For example, I could come up with a theology that Moses was God incarnate and part of a Godhead. After all, the Bible calls him God, he could do things that only God could do, and so on. Utter rubbish, of course, but I could come up with some decent sounding arguments, invent a few new grammatical rules to support it, change word meanings or ignore word meanings and even translate my Bible in such a way as to cement my case. Have not Trinitarians done all these things?
But take away the theology and translate the Bible according to established Grammatical rules and then let it speak for itself and it’s picture is clear. So why pollute it with a priori beliefs?
Andy
Further to my previous post, I went to Anthony Buzzard’s site to try to find examples of the idiom Dale mentioned, but couldn’t find anything specific. I am well aware of the idiom of stating a future event using a past tense, to emphasise just how certain it is that it will happen, but I’m not so clear on the use of the present tense in a past tense setting as a Jewish idiom.
It’s certainly a Greek idiom (the historical present, as well as the progressive present). I wonder if actual examples of what Dale had in mind could be posted?
Andy
Exactly. It’s the CONTEXT that makes the meaning clear. And nobody has yet shown how the response “I am (the Messiah)” could possibly be an answer to the question he was asked.
So John 8:57 remains as valid evidence for the pre-existence of the Son of God.
Then there is 1 Corinthians 8:6. As we all agree, the difference between the one God and the one Lord is perfectly clear – something that Trinitarians choose to ignore.
But the passage has a further significance. The one God is the Father, FROM WHOM come ALL THINGS.
What contextual reason is there for limiting this statement? God is the source of EVERYTHING – including the visible universe. In fact, the world around us is the universal evidence of God’s power, seen by all men, leaving them without excuse (as Paul points out in Romans 1).
So what is there in the context that would alert the Corinthians to exclude the visible universe from the “all things” that come from the Father? How were they to know that it referred only to things they could not see? And how would that help them to understand that “idols are nothing”?
By the way, Dale, I understand the time limitations for someone who has a job and a lot of responsibilities; but I do wish you would give us the next instalment on the evolution of your beliefs regarding the trinity. That was a fascinating series, and many of us have been waiting for the conclusion.
Dale
Taken in isolation, it could mean that. But how does it answer the Jew’s question “You’re not 50 years old. How come you’ve seen Abraham?”
The translation “I have existed since before Abraham was born” is both grammatically sound and answers their question and thus fits the context.
Andy
Hi Marg,
I agree, this would be an interesting debate. I have too much on my plate to really jump into in right now though. As to ““Before Abraham was born, I am (the Messiah)” does not make sense, either.” – Yes, it does make sense – this is a Jewish idiom attested elsewhere in the NT. The idea is that the past is fixed – it is too late to change it. The present too is too late to change – only the future is the realm of the merely possible. So one describes what has been predestined as either past or present – it is as set in stone as they are. See Buzzard and other sources for the other NT examples.
Debates of this kind make me wish for a different debate on a more specific topic: the possibility that God’s Son existed prior to his coming into the world, and that God prepared for him a body in which to die (Hebrews 10).
John 8:57 has been discussed at length elsewhere. We all agreed that Jesus was NOT claiming the name of God. The context makes that clear.
But the context ALSO makes clear that the interpretation, “Before Abraham was born, I am (the Messiah)” does not make sense, either.
Andy’s argument in this regard is (in my opinion) both sound and cogent.
Is that a fair appraisal, Dale? If it isn’t, I would value knowing why not.
Comments are closed.