{"id":41979,"date":"2019-11-16T23:12:40","date_gmt":"2019-11-17T05:12:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=41979"},"modified":"2019-11-16T23:12:43","modified_gmt":"2019-11-17T05:12:43","slug":"foolish-fallacy-flinging-or-how-not-to-refute-the-arguments-of-podcast-189","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/foolish-fallacy-flinging-or-how-not-to-refute-the-arguments-of-podcast-189\/","title":{"rendered":"foolish fallacy flinging, or how not to refute the arguments of podcast 189"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On Facebook, a fellow I&#8217;ll call &#8220;Billy&#8221; recently decided to school me on what he imagines are the many logical fallacies in my <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"podcast 189 \u2013 The unfinished business of the Reformation (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/podcast-189-the-unfinished-business-of-the-reformation\/\" target=\"_blank\">podcast 189 \u2013 The unfinished business of the Reformation<\/a>, a version of which has now been published in the conference proceedings by a German academic publisher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed-youtube wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<div class=\"nv-iframe-embed\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"The Unfinished Business of the Reformation - trinities 189\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/koogceUAG50?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Ok, I\u2019ve finished watching your presentation, and below is my careful critique of it. Note that I\u2019ve used \u201cO\u2019 = Objective, following your own abbreviation scheme. Enjoy.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the presentation <strong>&#8220;O&#8221; stands for &#8220;Observation.&#8221; <\/strong>This is not a good sign! <em>Will <\/em>I enjoy?<br \/><br \/><em>O1 (~13-14:30): Among others (see also O2 below), you succumb to a fallacy of informal logic known as argumentum ad ignorantiam within this objective, aka the \u201cargument from ignorance\u201d logical fallacy, i.e., \u201cthere is no evidence of X, therefore\u2026.\u201d For more information on this fallacy, see the following link:\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Argument_from_ignorance?fbclid=IwAR3kkOATShx6Val0SZZ_bFlceh_guQhJCdnYQjDYRFSJMjG7UBlE8Ug7EB0\">https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Argument_from_ignorance<\/a><br \/><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/get-a-brain.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-41982\" width=\"365\" height=\"249\" srcset=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/get-a-brain.jpg 586w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/get-a-brain-450x308.jpg 450w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 365px) 100vw, 365px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sorry, but you misdiagnose a fallacy here. There&#8217;s no mistake in this sort of reasoning, as explained roughly in minutes 7-12. <strong>We employ this sort of reasoning all the time<\/strong>, in both scientific and everyday scenarios. The form of reasoning I employ regarding Observation 1 is <em>not <\/em>: &#8220;There&#8217;s no evidence for P, therefore not-P&#8221; or anything like that.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O2 (14:30-16:25): I agree with the first part of your discussion here, and with Larry Hurtado. However, your conclusion in this objective is fallacious due to your a priori definitions containing too few potential resultants, i.e., only \u201cU&#8221;, &#8220;T&#8221; or &#8220;C\u201d, as you\u2019ve defined those. And this criticism applies to O1 above as well, and in fact (by logical necessity) to all of your other \u201cOs\u201d that follow. (In professional science, we fondly refer to this phenomenon as \u201cGarbage In, Garbage Out\u201d, or GIGO for short). More technically in name though, you\u2019ve succumbed here and everywhere within the presentation to the logical fallacy of \u201cfalse dilemma\u201d, simply because there are also other result-related alternatives. For more specifics on this fallacy, see the following link:\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_dilemma\">https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_dilemma<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Again, you don&#8217;t understand the reasoning. <strong>The argument is <em>not <\/em>of this form: A or B, not-A, therefore B (Where clearly A and B are not the only options &#8211; it might also be C or D etc.)<\/strong> Rather, we&#8217;re looking at facts and seeing whether they favor some hypotheses over others. You&#8217;re free to throw in fourth and fifth hypotheses if you like; that there can be other hypotheses doesn&#8217;t affect our comparison of the three hypotheses here (U, T, or C) using the Likelihood Principle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>So for example, at a minimum, instead of \u201cC\u201d&#8230; I\u2019d suggest <strong>you\u2019d have done better to include options like \u201cB\u201d (for \u201cBinitarianism\u201d) <\/strong>and also say, maybe an \u201cM\u201d (or \u201cX\u201d) to signify \u201cmore than three\u201d, e.g., for anyone who might regard additional Divine hypostases, meaning those beyond Son and Holy Spirit (see Heiser\u2019s multiple lectures for a number of other potential candidates) as additional possibilities for distinctly identifiable hypostatic aspects of the Godhead. Thus in this Objective [he means &#8220;Observation&#8221;] 2, if you had just included B = \u201cBinitarianism\u201d as another potential outcome option, then \u201cB\u201d would be much more likely than \u201cU\u201d. In this important sense, you therefore also succumb to the \u201cstraw man\u201d informal logical fallacy throughout this presentation, based on your straw-man assumption that any believer who isn\u2019t a Unitarian must either be a creed-style Trinitarian or \u201cconfused\u201d. That&#8217;s a false assumption, and ergo a straw man.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Do we really want to say that the New Testament authors are binitarian, thinking that God is bipersonal<\/strong>, composed of (only) God the Son and God the Father? This, on the face of it, would be a bummer both for trinitarians and for unitarians, as it is logically incompatible with both of those views. Why would we want to see how that hypothesis stacks up against T, U, and C &#8211; each of which has plenty of scholarly and lay proponents?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Billy doesn&#8217;t seem to understand what a &#8220;straw man&#8221; fallacy is. (I&#8217;ll let him go to Wikipedia to fix that.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Also, <strong>in this presentation I&#8217;m <em>not <\/em>assuming that &#8220;any believer who isn\u2019t a Unitarian must either be a creed-style Trinitarian or &#8216;confused.'&#8221;<\/strong> Again, those aren&#8217;t categories of people, a classification meant to be exhaustive &#8211; rather, those are<strong> just three hypotheses<\/strong> about the views of the New Testament authors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So far our friend Billy has just gone on a spree trying to pin informal fallacies on me; this is not recommended when dealing with (present or former) professional philosophers. But his &#8220;critique&#8221; continues, <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/facepalm-1-1024x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-41983\" width=\"291\" height=\"291\" srcset=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/facepalm-1-1024x1024.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/facepalm-1-450x450.jpg 450w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/facepalm-1-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/facepalm-1-768x768.jpg 768w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/facepalm-1.jpg 1400w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br \/><em>O3 (16:25-19:00): I have no problem with your logic here.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Of course you don&#8217;t, as Observation 3 is less of a problem for your theory. <\/strong>But the form of reasoning is <em>exactly the same<\/em> as with all the other Observations! Billy, this is <em>not<\/em> how one evaluates the reasoning in a presentation: to howl &#8220;fallacy&#8221; when the reasoning seems to hurt your side and to say &#8220;that&#8217;s all well and good&#8221; when it seems not to hurt your side. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O4 (19:00-19:55): Logically, this one is also subject to the criticism that it meets the criterion for an \u201cargument from ignorance\u201d fallacy (see O1 critique above). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sorry, this is again <strong>a beginner&#8217;s mistake<\/strong>. <em>Not <\/em>observing something, or observing the lack of something, can be important to confirming and disconfirming theories. I&#8217;ll let you supply your own examples here &#8211; say, from medicine or criminal investigations, or some branch of science your&#8217;e familiar with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>With that stated though, if not intellectually, I\u2019m at least spiritually more sympathetic to this one than to O1. But it nonetheless still falls victim to <strong>the \u201cfalse dilemma\u201d logical fallacy<\/strong> (see O2 critique above), due again to your a priori definitions containing too few potential resultants. So also in this one, if \u201cB\u201d = \u201cBinitarianism\u201d had merely been one possible outcome, then your premise here would fail just due to the existence of a passage like, e.g., Colossians 2:8-9.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>There can be no false dilemma in the presentation because <\/strong>I have nowhere said or assumed that U, T, and C are the only possible explanations for these Observations. I&#8217;ve just not discussed something you evidently want to hear about. <br \/><br \/><em>O5 (19:55-20:28): Again, choice \u201cU\u201d would be supplanted here by &#8220;B&#8221; merely if \u201cB\u201d had also been included as one of your potential resultants. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"400\" height=\"345\" src=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/do-not-think-it-means.jpeg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-41981\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;Resultants&#8221;? I don&#8217;t think <a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/resultant\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"that word means (opens in a new tab)\">that word means<\/a> what you think it means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>And this also brings up another concept of logic borrowed from the philosophy of science known as \u201cfalsifiability\u201d. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Oh do tell. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Specifically, those \u201c17 times\u201d that you mention within this one (or \u201c8 times\u201d or whatever it actually is) are all \u201cblack swans\u201d for your \u201cUnitarianism\u201d claim. And all that it takes to refute that claim, logically speaking, is the existence of just one of those \u201cblack swans\u201d. See this link for the related logical background:\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Falsifiability (opens in a new tab)\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Falsifiability\">https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Falsifiability<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Bro, this is just a word salad. <\/strong>I take stab at what you have in mind with the black swans example below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O6 (20:28-21:05): FWIW (personally I think not much), this is one of your \u201cstronger\u201d arguments. However, it too has at least one black swan, which is Matt. 22:43-46, wherein Jesus is also quoting Psalm 110:1, a passage that you yourself also mention later in your O8.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Well, thanks, but it is <strong>unclear why you suppose that this passage in Matthew is relevant to Observation 6<\/strong>, which is that in the New Testament <em>theos <\/em>nearly always refers to the Father, rarely to the Son or Spirit, and never to the Trinity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O7 (21:05-21:40): No issue with the logic here other than that the conclusion is too simplistic in light of scriptures like Colossians 2:8-9.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I&#8217;m <strong>starting to see a pattern <\/strong>here. Let&#8217;s look at that passage:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily&#8230;<\/p><cite>Colossians 2:8-9, NRSV<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Just as I suspected. <strong>This passage has <em>nothing whatever<\/em> to do with Observation 7,<\/strong> which is the New Testament usage of phrases like &#8220;God and ___&#8221; and &#8220;God the ___&#8221;.  Nor is the conclusion here, about the various probabilities of this observation assuming the truth of T, U, or C &#8211; any more or less &#8220;simplistic&#8221; than with the other observations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O8 (21:40-22:30): Again no problem with the logic here other than just to mention again that if \u201cB\u201d had been included as a potential outcome, then again it would be more likely here than either \u201cT\u201d or \u201cU\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Not clear here that B would come out better than U. Can you see why? <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O9 (22:30-24:27): I\u2019d classify this one as falling under the fallacy that Heiser pointed out of over-emphasizing \u201cproof texting\u201d. See my earlier comment to Aaron and yourself regarding that, i.e., that comment to which you replied ad hominem. Moreover, in your discussion here in O9, you also simply ignore at least one \u201cbig reveal\u201d (as you call it) that completely contradicts your view, i.e., John 20:28. And under the falsifiability criterion noted above, <strong>all it takes is just that one \u201cblack swan\u201d <\/strong>to falsify your claim.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">About <strong>your &#8220;black swan&#8221; example<\/strong>, that&#8217;s a famous example of the fallibility of <strong>inductive reasoning<\/strong>. Swan 1 is white, Swan 2 is white&#8230; Swan 100,000 is white, etc. &#8211; so we conclude (by inductive reasoning) that ALL swans are white. And then we eventually find a species of black swans. D&#8217;oh! (This really happened.) But the reasoning in this presentation is not induction, but rather <strong>abductive reasoning<\/strong>, a.k.a. inference to the best explanation. The argument of this presentation just isn&#8217;t easily torpedoed by someone&#8217;s favorite text. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>About John 20:28, it&#8217;s not a problem<\/strong> for my theology, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"when you interpret that verse in the context of the rest of the book (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/kermit-zarley-on-my-lord-and-my-god\/\" target=\"_blank\">when you interpret that verse in the context of the rest of the book<\/a>. In brief, it&#8217;s meant as a double confession, of the one Lord (Jesus) and the one God who is working in him, somewhat like 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By the way, just saying <strong>&#8220;What about this verse?&#8221;<\/strong> isn&#8217;t a very effective objection to this style of argument. Do you see why? <br \/><br \/><em>O10 (24:27-24:46): Not always. See Heiser\u2019s materials for specific contradictions [he means counterexamples]. Possibly you just hadn\u2019t viewed Heiser\u2019s materials yet before you delivered this presentation in 2017?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I am and was aware that <strong>there are arguably exceptions to this rule<\/strong>. However, that it&#8217;s an overwhelming rule with few exceptions is enough to make the point. Do you see why? <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O11 (24:46-26:41): John 20:28 would again comprise a sufficient \u201cblack swan\u201d counter-example, and there are also other such counter-examples within Heiser\u2019s lecture materials as already provided, if you care to look.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>No, John 20:28 is not an example of the phenomenon described.<\/strong> Does Dr. Heiser actually discuss other cases? I don&#8217;t know. I would be interested to see these examples if he does. These are not cases just of some word like &#8220;Lord&#8221; or &#8220;God&#8221; applying, in various places, to both God and Jesus; see the examples given for would counts as examples of <strong>stylistic name-swapping<\/strong>.<br \/><br \/><em>O12 and O13 (26:41-28:50): These two by far comprise the worst and intellectually most careless sections of your lecture. Your entire premises within both sections are directly contradicted by Revelation 22:12-13: \u201cAnd, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.\u201d (See especially verse 13). And note that it is clearly Jesus who is doing the talking there, not \u201cGod the Father\u201d. Hello?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Why would you think that Revelation 22:12-13 asserts or assumes the eternality of the Son? I take it that uniqueness is being asserted there, not eternality or timelessness. At any rate, you&#8217;re again missing the point. Let me grant that that text assumes that the Son is eternal. Notice that no passage in the New Testament, not even this one, read in the way you insist, seems concerned to assert the eternality of either Son or Spirit. This, in light of many centuries of trinitarian arguments since the mid 300s, is most surprising, <em>if <\/em>the New Testament author are trinitarians. But it&#8217;s not surprising at all if they&#8217;re unitarians &#8211; as with most of the other facts discussed here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">About <strong>O13: Unqualified implications of limits on the Son<\/strong> &#8211; Revelation 22:12-13 has nothing to do with that evidence. You just choose to skip over those passages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>O14 (28:50-30:05): See Heiser\u2019s materials within the \u201cJewish Trinity\u201d video&#8230; wherein he deals with the Shema in detail.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Naturally, I&#8217;ve seen and thought about that presentation. I don&#8217;t see how it&#8217;s relevant to O14, though. Feel free to enlighten me. Your&#8217;e doing a bang-up job so far!<br \/><br \/><em>O15 (30:05-31:27): More \u201cproof texting\u201d, and including John 17:3 again, as already addressed in one of my earlier comments. Understand too that there is no inherent logical contradiction, except maybe within certain human brains that are simply incapable of grasping the concept, of one hypostasis of God addressing himself as God within a second or third person grammatical construct. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Billy, when someone has a thought out position, you should be cautious about throwing <strong>accusations of mindless &#8220;proof texting.&#8221;<\/strong> I suspect you&#8217;re not feeling the force of O15 because like many apologetics aficionados, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"you don't understand the logic of identity (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/apologetics-blind-spot-numerical-identity\/\" target=\"_blank\">you don&#8217;t understand the logic of identity<\/a>. It&#8217;s possible that <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"this post (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/podcast-248-how-trinity-theories-conflict-with-the-bible\/\" target=\"_blank\">this post and podcast<\/a> or <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"this one (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/podcast-124-a-challenge-to-jesus-is-god-apologists\/\" target=\"_blank\">this one<\/a> may help you to understand why the passages I cite in O15 are <em>not <\/em>what a trinitarian should expect to find. If you&#8217;re willing to put in some work, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"this will go more into the technicalities (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/god-and-his-son-the-logic-of-the-new-testament\/\" target=\"_blank\">this will go more into the technicalities<\/a>, the sorts of machinery you&#8217;d learn to use in a college class on modern logic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By the way, this is <em>not <\/em>about my claiming that there is some &#8220;inherent logical contradiction&#8221; in &#8220;the Trinity&#8221; &#8211; notice that there are no such claims in this presentation. Nor is it assumed that God can&#8217;t address himself in various &#8220;Persons,&#8221; whatever that may amount to. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Folks, PhDs are humans too and are wrong &#8211; sometimes terribly, tragically wrong &#8211; about all sorts of things, <em>but <\/em>when someone is a PhD in Philosophy, and he gives a presentation in front a room full of PhDs and, and as best you can tell no one there busted him out for a bunch of stupid mistakes in reasoning &#8211; it is <em>unlikely <\/em>that you and your sidekick Wikipedia are going to unmask a tragic parade of errors in reasoning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Compare with this case: you hear a presentation by a physicist<\/strong>, and in your great wisdom you determine it&#8217;s riddled with basic errors in Algebra. Frankly, for an average person, even if you&#8217;ve brushed up on Algebra with help from Wikipedia, it&#8217;d be stupid and arrogant in a case like that to stand up and accuse the physicist of a bunch of mathematical blunders. Just so in the present case, with a philosopher and logical fallacies. <strong>Apologists, if you are training laypeople<\/strong> to idiotically correct experts in their fields of expertise, <em>you are doing it wrong<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Billy&#8217;s energy would have been better spent understanding how the Likelihood Principle is applied, considering the meaning and significance of the Observations discussed, and whether he really wants to urge that the New Testament authors are really binitarians. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;Ok, I\u2019ve finished watching your presentation, and below is my careful critique of it. &#8230; Enjoy.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":41982,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"default","neve_meta_container":"default","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"off","neve_meta_content_width":70,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"off","neve_meta_disable_footer":"off","neve_meta_disable_title":"off","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,21,6,9,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-bible","category-complaints","category-philosophy","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41979","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=41979"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41985,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41979\/revisions\/41985"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}