Concordism and consequences

Concordism … is a hermeneutical approach to scripture. It is a hermeneutic which advocates interpreting scripture in light of modern science. One attempts to read modern science into the text. Concordism is a hermeneutic which may be adopted by Young Earthers or Old Earthers.

—Dr. William Lane Craig
Concordism | Reasonable Faith

With this definition, he also says:

Now I reject the hermeneutic of concordism. Instead we should adopt the hermeneutical approach of trying to determine how the original author and audience would have understood the text. Rather than trying to impose modern science onto the Genesis account of creation or to read it in light of modern science, we want to read the account as it would have been understood by the original people who read it. That requires us to bracket our knowledge of modern science and put ourselves in the shoes of these ancient Hebrews.

(By the way, concordism is not a heresy. It’s just bad hermeneutics which will obscure rather than illuminate the text.)

Thus, concordism is identified as “eisegesis,” the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas.

While I respect this, I note that the sequence of events in Genesis 1 does nevertheless generally match the history of life on earth. But it was not written by us, or for us, it was written in the ancient past in the Near East, with a divine stamp of approval for teaching divine sovereignty over the creation.

But this also, consequently, produces a problem for Trinitarian theology. If reading modern science into Genesis 1 is concordism and eisegesis, then reading the post-biblically developed and formulized Trinitarian theology into the Bible would also be concordism and eisegesis. While Creation Concordism is rightly not heresy, Theological Concordism is not so fortunate. Thus, I will point out that the good doctor of philosophy has unintentionally categorized his theology as concordism and eisegesis.

See also:

• A startling admission on Trinitarianism
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-startling-admission-on-trinitarianism.html

William Lane Craig on The Ben Shapiro Show

On May 12, 2019 William Lane Craig was interviewed by Ben Shapiro.

I really enjoyed this and now have rejuvenated respect for WLC. I like how he never affirmed Trinitarianism even though Ben seemed to have been baiting him to affirm it. Instead, he stressed that God sent Jesus and that Jesus was the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13-14.

Does Dr. Craig Have an Orthodox Christology?

“Dr. Craig clears up rumors concerning his views on the doctrine of Christ.”^[1]

In a podcast released July 9, 2017, Dr. William Lane Craig elaborated on his orthodox Trinitarian Christology, and offered this concession at minute marker 10:40:

Anybody who claims that he doesn’t go beyond the Bible [laughter from Trinitarian interviewer] doesn’t have an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity or the incarnation, because these doctrines are shot through with philosophy. Talk of persons and natures and essences and substances and things of that sort. These doctrines are formulated in philosophical categories.

While it is fine to approach the Bible and Biblical theology and Christology with intellectual categories, these must be introduced by the Bible itself, otherwise there will be contradictions in one way or another. One such contradiction is in regards to soteriological mechanics and another in regards to Jesus’ Passion Narratives. These are “deal-breaker” contradictions of colossal proportions. Thus, we can be most thankful that Dr. Craig has alerted us and confirmed for us that Trinitarianism is not in the Bible, which is precisely why many Christians don’t believe it.

Footnotes:

^[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reasonable-faith-podcast/id252618197?mt=2&i=1000389662520
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-dr-craig-have-an-orthodox-christology
Actually, he has stated some things about the Trinitarian human nature of Christ that I have criticized as unwittingly being heretical, see: Defending Trinitarianism http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism.html

Related entries:

• Comparing Saving Schemes
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/06/comparing-saving-schemes-what-must-i-do.html
• A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

Skeptical About Trinitarianism

A “Q” from Star Trek

It is not only the old who are wise, not only the aged who understand what is right. Therefore I say: Listen to me; I too will tell you what I know.
~ Elihu (Job 32:9, 10 NIV)

“I get a lot of questions about science and the Trinity. My own mother resisted Christianity for several decades because for her the Trinity was a contradiction. Today, in my blog I show why science and the universe we live in only makes sense if God is triune.”—Hugh Ross on Facebook July 13, 2016

I really admire the overall mission of Astronomer Hugh Ross and the Old-Earth Creationist organization he founded and administers, Reasons to Believe (RTB), to demonstrate the harmony between science and scripture (the Bible).

However, from time to time he reminds us that he is a devout Trinitarian. He has recently done just that in a short essay on his website, emblazoned with a large red and yellow Triquetra (see Appendix A), and confidently entitled: “How to Persuade a Skeptic That God Must Be Triune.”^[1]

In it, he rightly eschews physical analogies to the Trinity, like the (in)famous one for water, as unavoidably falling into the trap of Modalism.^[2] Therefore, he uses what he calls ‘extra-dimensional and trans-dimensional analogies’ that avoid the Modalistic trap of the physical analogies. However, with these he acknowledges that “even the analogies I offer do not fully illustrate all the known features of the Trinity, let alone the unknown ones.”^[3] This humble admission however does nothing to strengthen this presentation for Trinitarianism, especially since the Bible remains a closed book when using it—as I have not seen the scriptures I believe are relevant to the subject being referenced, as in the transcendence description in John 8:21, 23 and the passages presenting initial nonrecognition of Jesus’ resurrection body until an identifying mannerism.—Luke 24:15, 16, 30, 31 and John 20:14, 16.

By way of comparison, science fiction also employs the “extra-dimensional” genre when introducing new and exotic extraterrestrials. For example, in the Star Trek universe, there are extraterrestrial beings known as “the Q” who dwell in the “Q Continuum,” which is defined as “an extra-dimensional plane of existence.”^[4] The Q person who introduced this realm to Star Trek even appeared once as a resplendent three-headed cobra orb—as seen in the opening graphic. While not attempting to illustrate Trinitarianism, it is easy to see how this unintentionally does so, for Trinitarian apologists like the esteemed Dr. William Lane Craig employ the three-headed dog Cerberus of Greek mythology.^[5]

It is argued that if this “Hound of Hades” had an immortal soul (which by definition is immaterial and transcendent), then we would have an entity analogous to the Trinity, “a single tri-personal soul.” Thus the extra-dimensional person Q manifesting himself as tri-personal would also be analogous to the Trinity.

With the above prolegomena presented, I will now begin appraising “How to Persuade a Skeptic That God Must Be Triune” point-by-point, with Hugh Ross’ comments being prefaced with HR and mine by JS.

HR: In my book and DVD Beyond the Cosmos, I appeal to extra dimensions to offer better analogies for the Trinity, analogies that do not fall into a modalistic trap. Modalism is the heretical doctrine that avows that God is sometimes the Father but not the Son or Holy Spirit, at other times the Son but not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and at still other times the Holy Spirit but not the Father or the Son. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always exist and are always fully functional as God and yet there is but one God. (underline added)

JS: When he says “always exist” he means forever into the past as well as future. However, as I stated in my rejoinder to his colleague Keneth Samples in “Trinitarian Samples,”^[6] there are three overlooked fatal flaws in that underlined statement. The first has to do with the problem of the Holy Spirit being a person involved like an incubus in Mary’s impregnation and retaining her virginity, as well as the problem of becoming Jesus’ father when Jesus said “I live because of the Father” and not the Holy Spirit at John 6:57. The second deals with Jesus’ emphatic declarations in the Passion Narratives that he would be killed and resurrected, and condemned as a satanic lie that he would not really be dead. The third deals with Jesus’ own theology where he believed that the Father was God, and never once included his divine nature or the Holy Spirit into God. Thus, one can offer all the “extra dimensions” they want to escape the trap of Modalism and still fall into another trap of disagreeing with Jesus’ own teachings that he wholeheartedly believed in. Indeed, there does not seem to be any space here “between Scylla and Charybdis” for safe navigation.

Scylla and Charybdis

HR: The analogies I offer, however, are still only analogies. They illustrate some but not all the characteristics and attributes of the Trinity. Because God transcends the space-time dimensions of our universe and is fully functional independent of the cosmic space-time dimensions and because our human powers of conception and imagination are limited by the space-time dimensions, it is impossible for us to gain more than a partial description and understanding of the Triune God.

JS: I appreciate his humility and concession that his recourse to extra- and trans-dimensions are analogies as opposed to explanations that they look and sound like, as well as being imperfect. As he also said: “In my book, Beyond the Cosmos, I offer some extra-dimensional analogies … but even the analogies I offer do not fully illustrate all the known features of the Trinity, let alone the unknown ones.” (See footnote 3.) This is a confusing admission. It appears to me though that we’re approaching God’s existence the same way, of locating him in another, nonmaterial realm, but then diverging in application—his being a Trinitarian application oblivious to how it contradicts Jesus. Lastly, I find it contradictory that he says that “our human powers of conception and imagination are limited by the space-time dimensions,” but then confidently discusses extra- and trans-dimensions.

HR: As to how we can better argue for and establish the existence of the Triune God, I have found by experience that one of the best ways is to show people how science makes sense only if God is Triune. (underline added)

JS: Therefore, all scientists who do not embrace Trinitarianism fail to make sense of science. This is a very bold and sweeping claim which he attempts to demonstrate. This bold claim also reminds one of a similar bold claim made popular by Theodosius Dobzhansky, that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” While HR rejects this claim, he as a Trinitarian promotes another one that we will see is of equal persuasive power.

HR: One example would be to point out that love is not possible unless there are at least two persons to express and receive love. The problem with strictly monotheistic religions like Islam and Judaism is that a non-loving entity supposedly created beings that give and receive love. How can the lesser create the greater?

JS: There are a number of problems with this set of claims:

1. The first is that a person can love something and that love is not restricted to loving someone, and that a person can have the potential for expressing love—as in God before creation. Thus, HR’s claim that “love is not possible unless there are at least two persons to express and receive love” is an artificial Trinitarian constraint operating on his mind, preventing him from appreciating that a person:

1. Can love something.
2. Can have the potential for expressing love, which applies to God before creation began.

2. The second problem here is that HR is interpreting the God of Judaism through the Trinitarian filter that God can only be love (1 John 4:8) if he is not a person but an impersonal construct housing distinct (not separate) persons. Thus he has his own preconceived Trinitarian bias built into his perception of the God of Judaism—that is, in his mind constrained by Trinitarianism, a single person cannot be love. However, what he is failing to take into account is that the God of Judaism, named Jehovah, is a person and is not presented as “a non-loving entity” in the Bible. Thus Jehovah can still be love and be a single person simultaneously. HR and his fellow Trinitarian colleagues would do well to ponder how Jehovah described himself to Moses at Exodus 34:6-7:

   Jehovah was passing before him and declaring: “Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin.”

   Alternately, the NET Bible has Jehovah describing himself as “slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands.” So clearly then HR has misrepresented the God of Judaism who has presented himself as the gold-standard of expressing love and with the greatest potential of expressing love. But HR explains further:

HR: To put it another way, in strict monotheism, God must create in order to have any possibility of giving or receiving love. If God is a single person, he is unfulfilled until he creates. For the Trinitarian God, creation is an option. It is not a need.

JS: The fallacy here is that Jehovah God is “unfulfilled until he creates,” for He did not create to be fulfilled, but for others to enjoy living. As Acts 17:25 says, He does not need anything from us, and therefore certainly does not need love from us to feel fulfilled. Thus creation was not a need for Jehovah. Consequently, the Trinitarian claim about love is refuted by Acts 17:25.

At this point, a response could be: ‘What was a unipersonal God doing before creation?’ The direct answer is that divine revelation begins accounting for God’s activities starting with creation. That our human minds may not be able to comprehend what a unipersonal God may have been doing prior to that is irrelevant. Indeed, Jehovah even declared at Isaiah 55:9: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Thus, it is perfectly harmonious with divine revelation that before creation God was loving because he had the greatest potential to express love, which was expressed when he commenced creating.

HR: The problem with polytheistic faiths is that the multiple gods possess different creation plans and goals. Thus, in polytheistic religions like Hinduism, there is the expectation that the natural realm will be inharmonious and filled with inconsistencies and unresolvable anomalies. However, centuries of scientific research reveal the opposite. The more we study the record of nature the greater level of harmony and consistency we see and the longer the list becomes of resolved anomalies.

Science, therefore, establishes why God in some sense must be uniplural, as the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) used in Genesis 1, implies. The uniplurality of God also explains why both singular and plural pronouns are used for God in Genesis 1:26-27.

JS: That is truly fascinating how “centuries of scientific research” reveal a “harmony and consistency” in nature indicating a common designer behind it. Thus, contrary to his opening claim that “science makes sense only if God is Triune,” he just argued that ‘science makes sense only if God is a person.’ Going any further than that is going beyond science—and into theology. His use of the non-Biblical term “uniplural” was not gleaned from science but from the Trinitarian handling of both Elohim and Genesis 1:26-27 as he subtly revealed. These two handlings however are plagued with problems:

1. First, Elohim never implies “uniplurality.” Strong’s dictionary defines it as “gods in the ordinary sense” and adds that it may also mean “the supreme God,” as a plural of excellence. The later way is how it appears in the Genesis creation account.
2. Second, Genesis 1:26-27 has God saying “Let us make” in verse 26 but then has God alone creating in the following verse. However, the NET Bible explains what is happening here using the Bible and not human reasoning:

   In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). ... If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).

Thus the Trinitarian handling of both Elohim and Genesis 1:26-27 are clear mishandlings, and the Trinitarian misuse of Genesis 1:26-27 fails to take other scriptures into account. These two Trinitarian failures constitute scholastic absenteeism for keeping both Hebrew and Biblical scholarship absent from discussion.

HR: One question that remains is why three Persons and not two, four, or more. Both creation and the redemption of billions of humans reveals a division of labor that points to three Persons.

JS: First, creation does not reveal “a division of labor that points to three Persons.” Instead, at a minimum it reveals a common designer as he revealed above, and scripturally Jehovah is the creator who used his Son Jesus in creation with the power of God’s holy spirit. (Genesis 1:2; John 1:3; Colossians 1:17)^[7] Second, the scriptural case for redemption also does not reveal a Trinitarian division of labor, for God sent his Son Jesus to earth into Mary’s womb (Galatians 4:4) by the impersonal power of the holy spirit (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35)^[8] for Jesus to die and be raised out of death by Him, by Jehovah God.—Matthew 12:40, 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:18-19, 26:2; Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34; Luke 18:31-33; Acts 2:32; 3:15; Galatians 1:1.^[9]

HR: Also, John in his first epistle explains that God’s spiritual light in the world has three components: life, love, and truth, wherein the Son takes responsibility for bestowing life, the Father takes responsibility for bestowing love, and the Holy Spirit takes responsibility for bestowing truth.

JS: 1 John does not present “three components” in that Trinitarian manner—that is just his interpretation filtered through his Trinitarian theology. Demonstrating this is the very holy spirit. Regarding that, I think he has in mind 1 John 5:6-8, which says in part: “And the spirit is bearing witness, because the spirit is the truth.” However, this passage includes Jesus’ (baptismal) water and (sacrificial) blood with the spirit in bearing witness to the truth, which obviously are not included in the Godhead. Thus, his apparent reference to this passage ironically supports the interpretation that the holy spirit is not a person.

HR: Psychologists point out that when two people isolate themselves from the rest of humanity, they frequently become codependent in their relationship. A third person breaks the codependency. This need for three persons is illustrated in marriage. The bride and groom unite to become one where the bride and groom become an ezer (essential military ally) for one another. However, for this alliance to truly build an increasingly loving relationship and an increasingly productive ministry, the married couple must completely embrace God as their ezer. (italics original)

JS: In God’s rebuke of idolatry, he declared: “To whom will you liken me or make me equal or compare me, so that we should resemble each other?” (Isaiah 46:5) This demonstrates that the comparison to a human couple needing a third party is irrelevant.

HR: In conclusion, the universe, its life, and God’s plan revealed both in nature and Scripture for the redemption of billions of human beings reveals the work of three supernatural Persons who are one in essence, character, purpose, and plan.

JS: In conclusion, the universe, its life, and God’s plan revealed both in nature and Scripture for the redemption of billions of human beings reveals the work of Jehovah God and his celestial court, as exemplified by our Lord Jesus Christ who surrendered his life in our behalf to furnish the ransom sacrifice, and who are one in essence, character, purpose, and plan.

Even though skeptical, I started out as honest-hearted and objective over Trinitarianism, for I need to know the truth about God. I honestly believe that if RTB can convince me that Trinitarianism is true, that I’ll change my mind. But after reading and studying “How to Persuade a Skeptic That God Must Be Triune,” my skepticism remains as strong as ever, and this article has even convinced me further that Trinitarianism is a fallacious theology that constrains the minds of its adherents.

While devout Trinitarians can speak of trans- and extra-dimensional manifolds to explain God’s transcendence in being triune, I will be satisfied with Jesus’ own explanation found at John 8:21, 23:

“I am going away … Where I am going, you cannot come. … You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.”

Here Jesus spoke in terms agreeable to the intent of HR, that God dwells in a “higher” transcendent realm. As one source explains regarding Jesus’ ascension to heaven:

Jesus’ ascension, while beginning with an upward movement, from the viewpoint of his disciples, may have thereafter taken any direction required to bring him into his Father’s heavenly presence. It was an ascension not only as to direction but, more important, as to the sphere of activity and level of existence in the spirit realm and in the lofty presence of the Most High God, a realm not governed by human dimensions or directions. (underscore added)^[10]

The upward movement was an illustration of the transcendence of the spirit realm, operating on a trans-dimensional level. Digressing from Jesus’ explanation and including him as a distinct (not separate) person within the Trinitarian Godhead creates analogical problems seen in the outset, for instance, of using an immortal soul of a mythological three-headed dog when Jesus stated quite clearly and forcefully on multiple occasions in his Passion Narratives that belief in an immortal soul is satanic.^[11] Therefore, all attempts to explain or rationalize Trinitarianism become explorations in blasphemy. They all may even be reduced to what the Apostle Paul warned Christians of in Colossians 2:4 (NET Bible): “I say this so that no one will deceive you through arguments that sound reasonable.” Here the NET Bible footnote explains:

Paul’s point is that even though the arguments seem to make sense (sound reasonable), they are in the end false. Paul is not here arguing against the study of philosophy or serious thinking per se, but is arguing against the uncritical adoption of a philosophy that is at odds with a proper view of Christ and the ethics of the Christian life.

Thus all honest truth seekers need to be careful to not be deceived by slick reasoning but instead keep all relevant scriptures in mind as our theological guide. The alternative is falling prey to the “doctrines of demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1) The Apostle Paul repeated this danger in his warning in 2 Corinthians 11:3 (NET Bible):

“But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”

This is a clear, clarion call to be alert to doctrinal deception about the identity of God and Jesus Christ. As a result, just as the serpent is a symbol for deception, so the Q seen and discussed at the outset is ironically also a closer match to the Trinity due to appearing as serpentine.

Appendix

1. The Trinitarian Symbol of the Triquetra
2. Good advice from Hugh Ross

The Trinitarian Symbol of the Triquetra

One source says under “Germanic paganism” that:

The triquetra has been found on runestones in Northern Europe and on early Germanic coins. It presumably had pagan religious meaning and it bears a resemblance to the valknut, a symbol associated with Odin.

Consequently, I really don’t think it’s appropriate to associate the Christian God with a pagan symbol potentially derived from the pagan god Odin—as this could indicate that theological derailment has occurred somewhere. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triquetra#Germanic_paganism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valknut)

Good advice from Hugh Ross

In the RTB Weekly Digest dated February 14, 2017, Hugh Ross provided an excellent piece of advice on detecting deception. He said:

Pay attention to context. Many of the most convincing-sounding, anti-God arguments you find online are cherry-picked verses or data from just one narrow scientific discipline. It’s easy to make an argument sound like the right one by ignoring all of the facts that contradict it.

This is so true, for he has correctly identified the most common culprit of deception. May we apply this principle also with theological considerations.

Footnotes:
^[1] Found here: www.reasons.org/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/how-to-persuade-a-skeptic-that-god-must-be-triune and www.reasonsblogs.org/2016/07/13/how-to-persuade-a-skeptic-that-god-must-be-triune

^[2] See: Popular Arguments some Trinitarians use that are on a Trinitarian "Never Use" List
jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/06/popular-arguments-some-trinitarians-use.html

^[3] Facebook July 14, 2016

^[4] “Q Continuum.” Memory Alpha. memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Q_Continuum

^[5] The Trinity and Siamese Twins. www.reasonablefaith.org/the-trinity-and-siamese-twins Here he explained that: “If the alien being is a tri-personal soul in one body, and the body dies, then, yes, we’d have a trinity. The difference is that it would be disembodied, whereas God is unembodied.” (italics original) Since Q was manifesting himself as an immaterial, transcendent three-headed cobra orb (as a being with “semi-transparent cobra-like heads extending from a brilliantly glowing sphere hovering above the ground, surrounded by lights”), then he is an even closer match to the Trinity than Cerberus. (“Aldebaran serpent.” Memory Alpha. memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Aldebaran_serpent)

^[6] jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/04/trinitarian-samples.html

^[7] Regarding Colossians 1:17, a NET Bible footnote notes that “BDAG 973 s.v. συνίστημι B.3 suggests ‘continue, endure, exist, hold together’ here.” Reflecting this scholarship, the NWT has: “by means of [Jesus] all other things were made to exist.” John 1:3 concurs where it states that “through [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made.” (NIV) Notice though the word “through” (from the Greek word dia). Thus it is harmonious with divine revelation that Jehovah the almighty creator created Jesus (John 6:57; Revelation 3:14) then everything else through him (1 Corinthians 8:6). Accordingly, Jehovah was the source of creation. This is also the position found in the BDAG lexicon, page 225, where we are told that dia refers to Christ “as intermediary in the creation of the world” at John 1:3.

^[8] See this point explained further here: Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism-part-ii.html

^[9] Regarding the Trinitarian division of labor in salvation, see “Trinitarian Samples” under “The Trinity and Salvation” here: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/04/trinitarian-samples.html. For additional reading regarding those events in the Gospel accounts which are called the Passion Narratives, see: “A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke” here: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html. For additional reading regarding how God alone resurrected Jesus, see the “Excursus: Who resurrected Jesus?” in “Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis” here: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html.

^[10] Insight on the Scriptures under “Ascension (Correctness of the Term),” page 187.

^[11] Jesus did this as seen in his second and most impassioned Passion Narrative recorded in Matthew 16:21-23 and Mark 8:31-33. Here, he identified any contradiction as ultimately originating with Satan. Thereafter, his disciples were afraid to respond when he repeated his Passion Narrative, as seen in Mark 9:31-32 and Luke 9:44-45. Thus, each time he repeated his Passion Narrative it was understood that questioning its truthfulness had its origin with Satan. As the point of these sobering narratives was that Jesus was going to be killed and resurrected, Jesus clearly did not believe in the immortal soul or in Trinitarianism, and viewed any contradiction—however well-intentioned—as originating with Satan. See: “A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke” here: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html.


Additional reading:

• Identifying Jesus
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/identifying-jesus.html
• My Thoughts on: The Spirit Realm
  www.jimspace.000space.com/tsr.htm
• A Rebuttal of Trinitarianism
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-rebuttal-of-trinitarianism.html
• Passing Through the Curtain
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/12/passing-through-curtain.html
• Elohim and what Trinitarian Scholars Actually say (By Andrew Graham)
  letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/elohim-and-what-trinitarian-scholars-actually-say
• Elohim - A Plural Form of Three? (By Andrew Graham)
  letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/elohim-a-plural-form-of-three

See also:

• Dimensions of the Trinity. A radio interview with Dr. Hugh Ross on this subject. Here, he uses the analogy of three fingers intercepting a two-dimensional plane.
  www.reasons.org/audio/dimensions-of-the-trinity
• Polycephaly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycephaly

Presentations by Professor Dale Tuggy:

• Podcast 131 – 10 Apologists’ Mistakes about the Trinity – Part 1
  http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-131-10-apologists-mistakes-trinity/
• Podcast 132 – 10 Apologists’ Mistakes about the Trinity – Part 2. The argument about love is addressed from ca. 3:50-9:40.
  http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-132-10-apologists-mistakes-about-the-trinity-part-2/
• Craig, White, and Cerberus
  http://trinities.org/blog/craig-white-and-cerberus/
• Moreland’s and Craig’s “Trinity Monotheism” – Part 1
  http://trinities.org/blog/morelands-and-criags-trinity-monotheism-part-1/

Trinitarianism and Docetism: Did the Person of Jesus Feel the Pain of His Ransom Sacrifice?

As introduced previously on my blog,^[1] Dr. William Lane Craig is an ardent defender of the Trinitarian paradigm. Here I respond to one of such defenses where he is answering a person identified by the initial “M,”^[2] and demonstrate that Trinitarianism is not the only interpretive model, nor is it necessarily superior. In fact, it will be shown that the Trinitarian model presents a Jesus who as a person was immune to the pain and suffering of his sacrificial execution, which is clearly reminiscent of the heresy of Docetism—that Jesus Christ only appeared to be human and only appeared to suffer.

Comments by Dr. Craig are prefaced by “WLC,” and mine by “JS”.

WLC: You see, because the early Christian church believed in the deity of Christ, you’d expect that if the Gospel accounts were largely the product of the church rather than accurate records of the life of Jesus, the Gospels would suppress or omit embarrassing or awkward traces of Jesus’ weakness and humanity. But they don’t! Instead we find many such traces: Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist, Jesus’ exhaustion and falling asleep in the boat, Jesus’ ignorance of the time of his return, Jesus’ agony in the Garden, and so on. These are not the sort of features someone who believed in Jesus’ deity would just invent. They are therefore indications of the historical credibility of the accounts in which they appear. In fact, there’s actually a name of this tool of historical Jesus research: it’s called the criterion of embarrassment. It states that if a saying or event in the life of Jesus is embarrassing or awkward for the early church, then the probability is increased that the saying or event is authentic, i.e., actually happened.

JS: The criterion of embarrassment does not require the initial premise to be the “deity of Christ,” that is, that Christ is the second person equal to the first and third persons of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead. No, it merely requires that Christ be more than human. Thus, an archangelic pre-human existence or simply being the messiah would satisfy the criterion of embarrassment.

WLC: So I delight in the spotting of such features in the narratives because it confirms that we are on good historical grounds in what we are reading. … In particular, Jesus’ crucifixion is the supreme instance of the criterion of embarrassment, an event so firmly established historically that has itself become a criterion of authenticity in its own right, other events’ being assessed in light of the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion. …

But don’t these incidents in some way really cast doubt upon Jesus’ divinity? Not at all, M.! Muslims very typically do not understand that Christians do not believe that Jesus is simply divine, masquerading as a man (like Superman disguised as Clark Kent). Rather Christians hold Jesus to be truly God and truly man, to have two complete natures, one human and one divine. So to point out features of Jesus’ human weaknesses and limitations is something in which the Christian exults because it goes only to confirm Jesus’ true humanity. He has stooped so low as to take on all our fragility and weakness.

JS: So Jesus is a divine person with the inherent divine nature who, as an incarnation, has a human nature. This is one person with two natures, which is ironically just like the action hero who is truly superhuman as Superman and is truly human as Clark Kent. How can that analogy be denied and simultaneously confirmed through the matching description? That action hero has two complete natures and he relies on his superhuman nature while disguised as Clark Kent, just like the Trinitarian Jesus who produced miracles and claimed to be God per Trinitarianism!

WLC: Frankly, I’m glad that Jesus didn’t face his impending crucifixion like some phony action hero but was in agony about being savagely scourged and crucified. That’s someone I can identify with! That’s real courage! That’s a man I can admire and follow.

JS: I fully agree with Dr. Craig that Jesus didn’t face his impending execution like some phony action hero, but truly experienced agony. And this is precisely why we can deny Trinitarianism, as it unwittingly presents Jesus as a “phony action hero.” Consider why: WLC has proclaimed numerous times that Jesus was never a human person, but rather was a divine person with a human nature. While his human nature felt the piercing pain of his agonizing sacrificial death, he was actually not a human person but a divine person who never felt any such agony! This is certainly not a person anyone can honestly and wholeheartedly relate to.

WLC: As for Jesus’ words on the cross, I am convinced that they have been seriously misunderstood by many Christians. I used to think, as many Christians believe, that when Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, God the Father had turned His back on God the Son, and Jesus was at that moment bearing the penalty of separation from God for our sins. Of course, there’s something a bit strange about that theological interpretation. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death and that Christ died for our sins. But at this point Jesus obviously wasn’t dead! So how could this be the moment of atonement? And if it was, why did Jesus, having atoned for sin, need to go on to die? His other words from the cross don’t seem to express any such abandonment by God (“Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit”). So what’s going on here?

JS: Correct, Jesus clearly wasn’t dead yet. But his exclamation may be the result of him feeling the removal of “God’s power” from him. (Acts 10:38; compare with Mark 5:30 and Luke 8:46) That this is occurring finds support in what Satan accused Job of, of maintaining his integrity to God because of a protective hedge that God had erected around Job. (Job 1:10) Once that was removed, then Job would be thoroughly tested. So what’s going on here is this, Jesus felt his God’s spirit as a protective hedge until this moment after he had been nailed to the stauros for some hours, then he felt it being removed in response to Satan’s challenge.

WLC: Well, look at Psalm 22, M. Jesus was steeped in the Old Testament and knew the Psalms. Psalm 22 is the prayer of God’s righteous servant in distress. So what was Jesus doing at this most terrible moment of his life, in excruciating pain and humiliation? He was praying to his Father!

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Psalm 22.1)

Instead of wallowing in hopelessness and despair, he’s praying Psalm 22 aloud to God. I get choked up just thinking about it. What a man! What faithfulness! This is not the moment at which Jesus is farthest from God; this may well be the moment when he was nearest to God.

JS: Sure, his exclamation quoted Psalm 22:1, but he was not merely quoting it to God. He was applying it from his heart about how he felt. He was truly faithful to death, despite Satan’s accusations to the contrary that he would fail. From this perspective, we can react from the heart too as we reflect and empathize with his tortuous ordeal. He was not merely giving an emotional prayer to God, he really felt God removing the protective hedge of his spirit around him! This is far more dynamic and heart-felt than WLC’s interpretation.

WLC: So I’d encourage you to revel in Christ’s true humanity as well as in his divinity. Both are vital to our salvation.

JS: Yes, we must indeed revel in Christ’s true humanity, a man born from a woman under the Mosaic Law (Galatians 4:4) who fearlessly proclaimed his future death by torturous execution in the Passion Narratives, even rebuking Peter for his suggestion that he would not really suffer death.^[3] If Jesus was really a divine person as taught by Trinitarianism, then this would have been a perfect moment for him to clarify this crucial point. But he did not, for the only reason that he was entirely what Galatians 4:4 says, that he was born as a man. He was a descendent of David (Romans 1:3) with a prehuman existence. Yet WLC is also correct that we should revel in Christ’s true divinity. He was faithful to death, and thus was resurrected by his God and Father as he passed through the spiritual curtain into the divine spirit realm, leaving his sacrificed body outside,^[4] now sitting on the throne of God (Revelation 3:21) as his divine agent representing him to the full.

In conclusion, it appears to me that Trinitarianism has failed to notice that it has presented a Jesus with docetic overtones, one whose person did not feel any pain while his human nature did. But this is not something that honest and objective people can relate to. Fortunately, the real Jesus as seen in the Bible really did feel all the pain and agony associated with his sacrificial death!

Footnotes:
^[1] See:

• The Person of Christ http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-person-of-christ-as-introduced-on.html
• Defending Trinitarianism http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism-im-sure-that.html

^[2] Do the Gospels Support a Muslim View of Jesus? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/do-the-gospels-support-a-muslim-view-of-jesus

^[3] See: A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

^[4] See:

• Passing Through the Curtain http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/12/passing-through-curtain.html
• Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html
• Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
• Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

Further reading:

• “A Refutation of: A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity, by Dr. William Lane Craig” by Andrew Graham
  http://letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/a-refutation-of-a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
• Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere? (Y!A)
  http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2010/09/my-first-question-trinitarians-how-can.html

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The following is a re-post of this article by Eric Metaxas as seen publicly in the Wall Street Journal at this link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

By ERIC METAXAS

Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).

Correction
An earlier version understated the number of zeroes in an octillion and a septillion.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

Video version of this article:

Related Videos from Dr. William Lane Craig:

Recommended reading:

• Why the Earth Will Never Be Invaded, by Robert Lanza, M.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/why-the-earth-will-never-be-invaded_b_6879216.html This references Metaxas’ article seen here.
• Maybe We Really Are Alone In the Universe http://time.com/3747812/life-in-space-alone/
• Jupiter's 'Smashing' Migration May Explain Our Oddball Solar System http://www.space.com/28901-wandering-jupiter-oddball-solar-system.html
• Humanity is cosmically special. Here’s how we know.
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html
• Life on Other Planets? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-on-other-planets-discovery-of.html

Apo-lava-getics

Definition: The systematic defense of a position (apologetics) that produces more heat than light, along with obfuscating steam and/or smoke.

See also:
Defending Trinitarianism jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism.html

A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke

In order for a theological paradigm to correctly represent the source text, as in the Bible, it must be in harmony with it throughout, even in the most minute details. Does Trinitarianism pass this test of harmonizing with every detail? There is one feature of Jesus’ teachings that makes this question worthy of examination.

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is an immortal divine person with divine and human natures in hypostatic union, along with an immortal soul; and that it was Jesus’ human nature that died, not his person.^[1] However, this is emphatically incompatible with Jesus’ repeated declaration that he would be killed, as seen in what is termed the Passion Narratives.

Notice the conversation Jesus had with Peter in the most significant Passion Narrative found at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33.^[2] Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter with good intentions rebuked him, saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matthew 16:22, NASB) Here Peter tried to console Jesus, naively attempting to reassure him that he would not be killed. Now since Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is immortal on two counts, an immortal divine person with an immortal soul, it is actually in agreement with Peter’s rebuke in that it too would have assured Jesus that he would not really die. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic and thoughts of men alienated from God, as he proclaimed to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.”

“Get behind me, Satan!”

On the contrary, if the Trinity were true—if Jesus was immortal—he would have confessed to Peter:

“You know Peter, you have a good point. As the second person of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead, I’m in essence immortal, and even my human nature has an immortal soul! So I really can’t be killed. Only my flesh is going to die, which is no real sacrifice at all since I’ll still be alive the whole time. Good point Peter!”

“Good point Peter!”

But instead, Jesus pronounced his fiery rebuke on Peter. Indeed, emphasizing how serious Jesus was about being killed is that not only did he twice repeat his description of his persecution and death, but that on these later two occasions, no one dared to correct or console him for fear of receiving another incendiary denunciation.^[3]

But why did Jesus also say “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna, the Valley of Hinnom burning garbage dump].”? (Matthew 10:28, NIV) What he meant is revealed in Luke’s parallel: “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell [Gehenna]. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” (Luke 12:4-5, NIV) That is, fear the person who has the power to deny you a resurrection from the dead. Interestingly, Hebrews 5:7 informs us that Jesus relied on God to be resurrected from the dead.^[4]

Therefore, Jesus had to willingly sacrifice his life and be completely, positively dead (not still alive as an immortal soul and as the second immortal divine person of the Trinitarian Godhead) in order to be the Ransomer. Thus, the Bible is clear as seen at Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was born from a woman and that he was resurrected by his God and Father (Galatians 1:1), the “only true God.” (John 17:1-5)

Consequently, Trinitarianism is certainly seen to be a deception that fits into what Paul warned Christians about at Ephesians 4:14, that “certain kinds of very cunning people, who are skilled at deceitful scheming” would “come in and teach false doctrines which would in turn stunt the growth of the believers.” (NET Bible footnote) In order to grow to maturity then, this deceptive scheme must be rejected and replaced with a theological paradigm that correctly represents Biblical monotheism.

Summary
The Passion Narratives place Trinitarianism at the receiving end of Jesus’ rebuke.

• Jesus did not believe in the immortality of the soul.
• Jesus did not believe in Trinitarianism.

Footnotes:
^[1] To elucidate, Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus did not fully or really die, as his “divine nature did not die,” only his “properties of divinity” with his human body died. (Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.” carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity-hypostatic-union-and-communicatio-idiomatum) Notice it is also claimed in that article that “the person of Jesus died.” However, both Trinitarianism (see The Person of Christ link below) and that same article presents the opposite, that the person of Jesus is divine and therefore “did not die”—it was the “properties of divinity” with his human body that died. This is an ignored yet glaring contradiction of astronomical magnitude that wreaks havoc with that source’s credibility. Additionally, another Trinitarian source confirms concisely that “Jesus died physically, but remained alive spiritually,” and that Jesus’ “essence did not die, nor could it” and “His physical body died, but His inner being is eternal and could not die.” (Houdmann, S. Michael. “Did God die? If Jesus was God, and Jesus died on the cross, does that mean God died?” www.gotquestions.org/did-God-die.html) This position was also presented by one of the brightest minds of Trinitarianism, Dr. William Lane Craig, in this video: “Was God Dead for Three Days?” youtu.be/g4uhWvEpAvk, specifically from 0:55 to the end. Here he stated:

“So when Jesus died on the cross, his human nature died, not his divine nature, he died as a man. Human death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that’s what happened when Jesus expired on the cross. His soul was separated from his body, which then became a lifeless corpse and was laid in the tomb, and then later we Christians believe was raised from the dead. So you can see that the divine nature, the divine person of Christ, is not in any way, um, extinguished in the death of the human nature of Christ on the cross.”

Thus he confirms the Trinitarian position that the person of Jesus never died, it was just his human nature on earth that expired.

Lastly, the following Trinitarian made these telling statements:

Christ’s human nature didn’t expire on the cross. Rather, the body of Jesus expired. Human nature is more than a body. Human nature, as I define it, is a composite entity. Although Jesus died, he continued to exist in a discarnate state, between Good Friday and Easter, because he had/has an immortal human soul united to the Son. The death of Jesus did not dissolve the hypostatic union. At both divine and human levels, Jesus continued to exist during the interim between his death and resurrection. triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-immortal-dies.html

He too confirms, loquaciously, the Trinitarian position that the person of Jesus never died—it was only his human body that died. (He is working with a definition of “human nature” that includes the immortal soul, whereas Dr. Craig’s definition focuses on the physical body.)

See also “Do You Reject Trinitarianism? (Point 1).” jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism.html

^[2] The parallel account of Luke 9:22 does not include the rebukes as seen in Matthew and Mark.

^[3] See:

1. After his Transfiguration traveling through Galilee: Matthew 17:22-23, Mark 9:31-32, and Luke 9:44-45
2. His final approach to Jerusalem: Matthew 20:18-19, Mark 10:32-34, and Luke 18:31-34. See also Matthew 26:2 which lacks a Gospel parallel. The Bible in Basic English renders this last scripture as: “the Son of man will be given up to the death of the cross.” (italics added)

Thus, Jesus predicted his rejection, persecution, and death three times: before and after his Transfiguration and during his final approach to Jerusalem. It seems like if Peter was right that Jesus was not really going to be killed, that Jesus would hardly have repeated his prediction two more times. Matthew 12:40 records another Passion Narrative embedded within his proclamation of the Sign of Jonah to the wicked generation in Matthew 12:38-42. This brief account specifically points to the fulfillment of Jonah’s experience in an aquatic grave to the Son of Man’s experience of being dead for a similar length of time. (See: Messianic Symbolism of Jonah jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/05/messianic-symbolism-jonah-jonah-wayward.html) Note too the parable of the fortified vineyard in Matthew 21:33-41. There, Jesus is clearly placing himself within this parable as the landowner’s son who was ‘thrown-out and killed,’ with the Greek word for “killed” being the same in Matthew 16:21. Thus Jesus was including a Passion Narrative within this parable.

^[4] Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

Epilegomena

The picture of the censuring Jesus was chosen as it satisfactorily represents Jesus’ wrath in his rebuke, not necessarily his personal appearance.

By way of contrast, the “Good point Peter!” image was included to drive the point home that if Trinitarianism were true, then Jesus would have had to respond in a different manner then what is seen in the Gospels—and this accompanying graphic makes this more poignant with a touch of humor. Sometimes such contrasts may serve to awaken a smug Trinitarian to the reality of his egregious error.



Related blog entries:

• Comparing Saving Schemes jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/06/comparing-saving-schemes-what-must-i-do.html
• Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
• The Laws of Physics, Scripture, and Things that are Impossible for God. jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/10/the-laws-of-physics-scripture-and.html
• Mapping the Greatest Missionary's Journey jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/09/mapping-greatest-missionarys-journey.html
• Trinitarians: what exactly did Jesus sacrifice? (Y!A) jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/04/trinitarians-what-exactly-did-jesus.html
• Based on the teachings of Christ and the Bible, which is the way Luke 23:43 should ACCURATELY be translated? (Y!A) jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2011/09/based-on-teachings-of-christ-and-bible.html Trinitarians may claim that the proper comma placement proves soul immortality, when actually it does nothing of the sort. Please read this.
• Biblical monotheism is... jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical-monotheism-is-monolatrism.html
• The Person of Christ jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-person-of-christ-as-introduced-on.html [Here Dr. William Lane Craig emphatically explains the Trinitarian position that Jesus is a divine person, not a human person, with a human nature.]

Blog Index

If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:

The Person of Christ

As introduced on an earlier presentation here,^[1] Dr. William Lane Craig defends both theism and Trinitarianism. As he is an erudite and astute thinker, I enjoy reading his contributions to these important discussions.

On his website he has again defended Trinitarianism, this time in response to questions from a Trinitarian believer on the person of Jesus Christ.^[2] Here I will present his response and my counter-response prefaced by “JS”:

Dr. Craig: The orthodox doctrine promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon (451) is that Christ is one person with two complete natures, human and divine. So rather than say that Christ is “fully God and fully man,” which sounds like a contradiction, we should rather say with the Council that Christ is truly God and truly man (vere Deus, vere homo). (italics original)

JS: I appreciate this distinction between “fully” and “truly” with the intention of neutralizing a contradiction with the former. However, if we have a glass that is full of water, we also have a glass that truly holds water. The glass is truly a water glass, as it is full of water. Thus, his attempt to save Trinitarianism from a contradiction only serves to sustain it. If “fully God and fully man” is contradictory, then so is “truly God and truly man.” We can thus be thankful that Dr. Craig alerted us to this contradiction even though his attempt at alleviating it does not hold water.^[3]

Dr. Craig: You are right that worship is to be directed to God alone and that worship is properly directed toward Jesus Christ in the New Testament. It follows that Christ is God. Moreover, you are correct in saying that we worship the person of Christ, that is, the person Christ is.

JS: The “worship” that is directed to the Almighty Creator God is in acknowledgment of his majesty and dominion. Additionally, acceptable, non-idolatrous “worship” of a qualified sort is also directed toward people who are not God. I explained this in another blog presentation, which I will quote from:

(quote) At Joshua 5:14 Joshua prostrated himself before the prince of the army of Jehovah, who was doubtlessly Michael the archangel. The Hebrew word here rendered “worship” in the KJV is the same word used in Genesis 43:26, 28 regarding Joseph and 1 Chronicles 29:20 for King David. However, all such prostrations are “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.

At John 20:28, while there is no description of a prostration, Thomas declared to the resurrected Jesus: “My Lord and my God.” The meaning of this is qualified by John's explanation in verse 31: “these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” not God. Jesus functioned as “God” to Thomas, like Moses functioned as God to others, but Thomas still believed that Jesus was the agent representing God in God's behalf. (end quote)^[4]

An interesting exception is seen in Revelation, once at 19:10 and again at 22:8. Both times the apostle John prostrated himself at the feet of an angel to worship him. His intentions though were evidently headed the wrong way, as he apparently was over-awed by the angel. Thus, both times the angel censured him, and redirected his worshipful, exclusive devotion to God. But Joshua needed no censuring when he bowed down to Michael the archangel because he knew that ultimate devotional worship belonged exclusively to Jehovah God—as he said at Joshua 24:15: “But as for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.”

Thus, when Dr. Craig said that “it follows that Christ is God,” he unintentionally declared that Michael the archangel is God. What he and other Trinitarians need to do to rescue themselves from unwittingly espousing things they do not actually espouse is to understand that non-idolatrous, acceptable “worship” is given to ones who are not God. In Jesus Christ’s case, worship directed to him is “to the glory of God the Father.”

Dr. Craig: Christ is the second person of the Trinity, who pre-existed his incarnation. He is God, pure and simple. He is a divine person, not a divine-human person. For that reason medieval theologians were always careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person. He is a divine person who has assumed a human nature in addition to the divine nature that he already had. (underline added) In virtue of having a complete human nature as well as a divine nature Christ is both God and man, human and divine. But he is not a human person. (italics original) He is a divine person who possesses a human nature as well as a divine nature.

JS: First, Christ was not incarnated, but was born from a woman. (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26-42; John 1:14; Galatians 4:4) This is not a minor difference of semantics, but is loaded with soteriological significance that Trinitarians consistently miss. Second, Jesus is called the “last Adam” at 1 Corinthians 15:45 for a soteriological reason. According to divine justice as expressed in the Mosaic Law, soul was to be given for soul. (Exodus 21:23; Leviticus 24:18) Since Adam was created as a sinless soul, another sinless soul had to be given in exchange as a ransom: this ransomer would have to correspond to Adam by being a sinless man. Therefore, the Apostle Paul at 1 Timothy 2:6 used the word literally meaning “corresponding ransom,” ἀντίλυτρον; antilutron. The ransomer would have to voluntarily surrender what Adam lost by his disobedience in Eden, perfect human life. Nothing more, nothing less is required to avoid upsetting the soteriological balance. (Romans 5:14, 17) Thus, it was Jesus as the second and last Adam who emptied himself of divine glory (Philippians 2:7) to become what Adam lost: a sinless, perfect human life. (1 Corinthians 15:45) This, his sinless perfect human life, he voluntarily surrendered and sacrificed. Thus, as Adam was a human person, so Jesus Christ born from Mary was a human person. As I have explained elsewhere, Philippians 2:7 says Jesus “emptied Himself” (NASB, NWT, RSV, ASV, and others read the same) or “divested himself” (Murdock) to become a man. He emptied himself of divine nature to become a man born from a woman, ontologically lower than angels. (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 2:7, 9) He was not incarnated or materialized, he was born. Thus, the end product (a man born from a woman), shows what was emptied or discarded: everything he was before (divine nature as a spirit person).^[5] He was born as a man, miraculously through the operation of holy spirit as a sinless human person just as Adam was created as such. Trinitarianism denies these scriptural teachings and thus unwittingly denies Christ’s ransom sacrifice and Christian salvation.

Dr. Craig: Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, objected to Mary’s being called “the mother of God” (theotokos) because what she begat and bore in her womb was not the divine nature of Christ but his human nature. But the Council of Chalcedon ratified calling Mary “the mother of God” because the person she bore and gave birth to was divine. True, she did not beget his divine nature but his human nature; but the person she bore was the divine second person of the Trinity. So she is properly called the mother of God. (underline added)

JS: What is overlooked here is that Jesus’ divine nature was for a time, four days in fact, in hypostatic union with a zygote in Mary’s fallopian tube, as well as in hypostatic union with the rest of his pre-sentient developmental stages. Clearly at this early stage Jesus’ cognizance would be confined to his divine nature. Yet, this ignored and embarrassing situation is avoided by simply believing that Paul spoke the truth, that Jesus divested himself of what he was before becoming a man—a man supported and sustained by his heavenly Father before sacrificing his life and returning to heaven and being restored to his divine nature, exalted in position, and granted immortality. (Luke 8:46, 9:43; John 10:32; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:9; 1 Timothy 6:16) To call Mary the mother of God then is blasphemy, as well as profoundly ridiculous and foreign to the Scriptures.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Craig, Mary begot Jesus’ human nature and not his divine nature, and Jesus is a divine person not a human person. To condense further: Jesus’ human nature developed in Mary’s womb, not his divine nature. Therefore a logical disconnect has been committed. By his own admission, Mary gave birth only to the human expression of Jesus’ divine person, and therefore did not give birth to God. This logical disconnect is repeated when he says that Jesus’ human nature was strengthened by an angel. Clearly Jesus’ divine nature could have strengthened his human nature infinitely more than an angel (refer to #8 in the article referenced in footnote 1).

Dr. Craig: Moreover, the Council of Chalcedon and all theologians afterward were careful to deny that the individual human nature of Christ (that body/soul compound that walked the hills and shores of Galilee) was a person. That would be to postulate two persons in Christ, one human and one divine. The Church Fathers were insistent that there is only one person who Christ is, and that person is divine. The rule that all orthodox Christology must follow was this: neither divide the person nor confuse the natures.

JS: That is commendable that Trinitarians have been careful to not postulate two persons of Christ, for such would be absurd. However, to say that Jesus was a “body/soul compound” on earth that was a divine person with a divine nature is equally absurd for this reason: it is redundant. If Jesus had a divine nature and was an incarnation, then he did not need an immortal soul. Redundancy of this nature is patently absurd!

Dr. Craig: Now obviously this doesn’t answer all the questions! Indeed, perhaps the hardest remains: How can one person have two natures, human and divine? In particular, if Christ had a complete human nature, then why wasn’t there a human person? These questions I’ve attempted to tackle... (italics original)

JS: As Trinitarianism does not directly and resoundingly answer these burning questions, as well as the ones I presented, then the only recourse is that it is not worth believing in.

In the end, we can sincerely thank Dr. Craig for alerting us to the dilemmas inherent within Trinitarianism.

Appendix

Passing Through the Curtain jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/12/passing-through-curtain.html

Synopsis: As the High Priest passed though the curtain from the Holy to the Most Holy on Atonement Day with only the blood and not the body of the sacrificed animal, so Jesus presented the value of his sacrificed life and not his body when he passed though the greater spiritual curtain in the presence of the Almighty God Jehovah.

Footnotes:

^[1] Defending Trinitarianism http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism.html

^[2] Was Christ a Human-Divine Person? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/was-christ-a-divine-human-person

^[3] After writing this, Dr. Craig expounded on the Trinitarian position this way: “[Trinitarians] do not believe that Jesus is simply divine, masquerading as a man (like Superman disguised as Clark Kent). Rather [Trinitarians] hold Jesus to be truly God and truly man, to have two complete natures, one human and one divine.” So Jesus is a divine person with the inherent divine nature who, as an incarnation, has a human nature. This is one person with two natures, which is ironically just like the action hero who is truly superhuman as Superman and is truly human as Clark Kent. How can that analogy be denied and simultaneously confirmed through the matching description? That action hero has two complete natures and he relies on his superhuman nature while disguised as Clark Kent, just like the Trinitarian Jesus who produced miracles and claimed to be God per Trinitarianism! Dr. Craig continued: “Frankly, I’m glad that Jesus didn’t face his impending crucifixion like some phony action hero but was in agony about being savagely scourged and crucified. That’s someone I can identify with! That’s real courage! That’s a man I can admire and follow.” (Do the Gospels Support a Muslim View of Jesus? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/do-the-gospels-support-a-muslim-view-of-jesus) I fully agree with Dr. Craig that Jesus didn’t face his impending execution like some phony action hero but truly experienced agony. And this is precisely why we can deny Trinitarianism, as it unwittingly presents Jesus as a “phony action hero.” (See this point developed further here: Trinitarianism and Docetism: Did the Person of Jesus Feel the Pain of His Ransom Sacrifice? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/04/trinitarianism-and-docetism-did-person.html)

^[4] Prostrations http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/03/prostrations-at-joshua-514-prince-of.html

^[5] Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html

Credits:

• Introductory picture from the book Draw Close to Jehovah, page 93.

Related blog entries:

• Mapping the Greatest Missionary’s Journey http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/09/mapping-greatest-missionarys-journey.html
• Biblical monotheism is... http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical-monotheism-is-monolatrism.html
• The Exaltation of Christ http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/08/exaltation-of-christ-god-elevated-him.html
• Do You Reject Trinitarianism? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism.html
• Do You Reject Trinitarianism? Part II: Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism-part-ii.html
• A case for Christ’s pre-human existence http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-christs-pre-human-existence.html

Related link:

The True-False Two Being Jesus
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/jesusimposter.html