{"id":38946,"date":"2017-05-10T20:31:40","date_gmt":"2017-05-11T00:31:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=38946"},"modified":"2017-05-10T20:31:40","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T00:31:40","slug":"why-i-think-youre-identifying-jesus-with-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/why-i-think-youre-identifying-jesus-with-god\/","title":{"rendered":"why I think you’re identifying Jesus with God"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Sometimes,<\/em> trinitarians think that the Son just is<\/em> God<\/strong>, and<\/em> that the Father just is God, and yet<\/em> the Son is different from the Father. But these can’t all be true. In modern logic, we represent the claims as:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. s = g<\/li>\n
  2. f = g<\/li>\n
  3. – (s = f)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    If you understand that numerical sameness (=) is symmetrical and transitive, you’ll “see” why these can’t all be true, since any two entail the falsity of the remaining one. But that’s not my point now.<\/p>\n

    My point is that in the face of this objection some young apologetics enthusiasts will (1) assert that here I’m “assuming unitarianism,”<\/strong> or (2) triumphantly announce that “the Son is God” simply means that the Son is divine<\/strong>, not <\/em>that the Son and God are numerically identical.<\/p>\n

    About (1): No, I’m not.<\/strong> I’m only assuming the aforementioned facts about numerical identity, which are taught in any beginning logic course. 1-3 simply are an inconsistent triad, and anyone can know this, irrespective of their theological commitments. About (2): Of course, that is<\/em> what many trinitarians mean by “Jesus is God.” More on this below.<\/p>\n

    But why did I think<\/strong> the trinitarian was saying that Jesus just is God (j=g)? Good question! And, it has a good answer. Most likely, I just heard<\/strong> the trinitarian in question argue like this:<\/p>\n

    1. Only God can forgive sins.<\/p>\n

    2. Jesus forgave sins.<\/p>\n

    3. Therefore, Jesus is God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Never mind that the first premise is false according to the New Testament<\/a>. Just focus on premise 1. They seem to be using “God” here like a name, a singular referring term which refers to the one God. Notice that 1 makes two<\/em> claims about God<\/strong>. First, he can forgive sins. Second, only<\/em> he can; that is, no one else can. Here’s how we analyze a statement like that in standard logic. (This is the right structure – the symbols vary by textbook and are a pain to put in a blog post.)<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. (x) (Fx -> x = g)<\/li>\n
    2. Fj<\/li>\n
    3. j = g<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      In English: 1. For any x whatever, x can forgive sins only if x just is God. 2. Jesus can forgive sins. 3. Jesus just is God. This is an obviously valid argument<\/strong>. In other words, if<\/em> 1 and 2 are true, then 3 must also be true. That, my friend, is why<\/strong> I hear you identifying Jesus and God. You<\/em> deployed the concept of numerical sameness \/ identity in premise 1. And this is why I’m interpreting you as deploying it in the conclusion – because I’m charitably listening to you, trying to hear you as reasoning correctly<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      Of course, it is a great mistake<\/a> for any Christian to agree with 3. But that’s another conversation.<\/p>\n

      But suppose you then clarify that by “Jesus is God” and “The Father is God” you mean only that each is divine<\/strong>. What about those <\/em>claims? And what about the “Only God” argument above interpreted as involving only a divine being?<\/p>\n

      Good questions. And they have good answers. Here’s a redo of our inconsistent triad above:<\/p>\n

      1. Jesus is divine.<\/p>\n

      2. The Father is divine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      So far, so good. There are logically consistent; conceivably, they could both be true. But now add:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      3. There is only one being which is divine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It follows that Jesus just is the Father<\/strong>, and vice-versa. But (hopefully) you did not<\/em> want to imply that! Here’s the triad symbolized:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Dj<\/li>\n
      2. Df<\/li>\n
      3. (x)(y) ((Dx & Dy) -> x=y)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (For any x and any y, they’re both divine only if the one just is the other.)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        This is not an inconsistent triad, as above. Rather, it’s consistent. But these three imply something that any Christian must deny.<\/p>\n

        \"\"Here’s the “only God” argument interpreted as involving only predication<\/strong>, as describing Jesus as divine, rather than identifying him with God.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Only a divine being can forgive sins.<\/li>\n
        2. Jesus can forgive sins.<\/li>\n
        3. Therefore, Jesus is a divine being.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          In logic,<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. (x)(Fx -> Dx)<\/li>\n
          2. Fj<\/li>\n
          3. Dj<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Again, obviously valid. But<\/strong> again, premise 1 contradicts the New Testament<\/a>. Thus, the argument is unsound.<\/p>\n

            Premise 1, contra some of Jesus’s critics<\/a>, is not even remotely plausible. Why<\/em> can’t an omnipotent God authorize<\/strong> a non-divine being, even a man, to forgive sins? Even you<\/em> could authorize another to forgive a wrong on your behalf, or a debt. These are not<\/em> hard things to do! In case you’re tempted here to agree with Jesus’s Jewish critics, the author of the first gospel helps you out:<\/p>\n

            Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power to men<\/strong>. (Matthew 9:8)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            It’s because of the argument you made…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,21,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apologetics","category-bible","category-logic"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38946"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38946\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38952,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38946\/revisions\/38952"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}