Thursday, August 08, 2019

The Trinitarian Hammer

For illustration sake, say you were putting a desk together by reading the instructions that came with the parts. However, you quickly notice some quirks in the instructions. For instance, you notice after scanning though it that it relies heavily on the hammer tool, even for screws, for it directs you to use its claw to turn the screws. Your eyes then look back to the introduction, and you see that all it shows is the hammer for suggested tools, even going so far as to say that “a hammer is the only tool you will need to build this desk.” Looking at the parts to assemble the desk, you see not only screws, but also cams, nuts and hex bolts. Clearly, the author of the instructions is lying by saying that ‘all you’ll need is a hammer,’ and may also be ignorant of the range of tools available and how the parts function together. He is therefore an amateur and his instructions are unprofessional and near useless. In utter disgust, you may even wonder if he ever graduated from high school and seriously doubt that he ever stepped into a technical institute to receive the proper education needed to write these instructions. Clearly, you are on your own for building the desk, relying on your own God-given common sense.

I find that the same situation exists when reading an anonymous pamphlet, The Trinity.[1] The Trinity presents the bread and butter of Evangelical Trinitarian theology and reasoning, and it would be fair to assume then that its author received the highest education Trinitarian scholarship has to offer, and also that it would be honest, and certainly never present a single lie. Indeed, presenting just one single lie in defending your theology is unthinkable for any Christian!—Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20.

Reading this pamphlet, on page 1 it displays a classic Scutum Fidei (“shield of the faith”), commonly celebrated as the “Shield of the Trinity” diagram, and then declares: “Early Christians used this diagram to explain the Trinity.” (See Figure 1 below.)

Figure 1
~click to enlarge~


“Early Christians” is meant to convey the idea of first Christians. This is made clear when Irenaeus is called an “early church leader (A.D. 177)” and when “early” is defined as being before 300 CE: “early church leaders and/or writings all defended the doctrine of the Trinity long before A.D. 300.”[2] It then gives a list reaching back to 90 CE, with the claim that the Didache document teaches Trinitarianism. However, this claim about the Didache is so laughably wrong as to be a blatant lie.[3] The author of this pamphlet is not aware of the range of reading-comprehension tools at his disposal, for he is only familiar with his Trinitarian hammer. This right here destroys the credibility of The Trinity, just as the hypothetical author of those instructions has destroyed his credibility with his “hammer.”

Another Trintarian teacher even declared that the Scutum Fidei is “an ancient symbol.”[4] Is this claim of it being “early” and “ancient” also a blatant lie? The excellent scholar of Christian art, Robin M. Jensen, knows nothing about the Scutum Fidei in early Christianity, even up to the fourth century. There is no mention of it in her books Understanding Early Christian Art (2000) and Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity (2005). Alarming us further is another source stating that it derived from the Medieval Tetragrammaton-Trinity diagram of three circles and the Triquetra of three interlocking circles, thus:
The Shield of the Trinity diagram is attested from as early as a c. 1208–1216 manuscript of Peter of Poitiers’ Compendium Historiae in Genealogia Christi, but the period of its most widespread use was during the 15th and 16th centuries, when it is in found in a number of English and French manuscripts and books … The diagram was used heraldically from the mid-13th century, when a shield-shaped version of the diagram (not actually placed on a shield) was included among the c. 1250 heraldic shields.[5]
This is entirely in the domain of Medieval Christians, which are nowhere near the same chronological zip code as “early” (not to mention “ancient”).[6]

Is this pamphlet right on page 1 then stating an outright lie to be sensational? Placing something Christian in the “early” category naturally conjures up the domain of the first few centuries, as the pamphlet defines “early.” Likewise, calling something Christian “ancient” is obviously meant to identify it as originating with the first Christians—even Jesus himself. A professional and honest historian however would never describe something Medieval in this way, as “early” or “ancient.” That would be entirely misleading. I just don’t see any wiggle room here for these Trinitarian teachers. I find it hard to believe that the actual Medieval origin was unknown by them. Even though I am inclined towards being charitable, I sadly am left with little choice but to see deliberate lying here with the motivation to be sensational. This is no small matter. Lying about your theology with the aim of substantiating it would place them in the category described in Revelation 21:8, of being “cowards and those without faith,” “and those practicing spiritism (or “those who practice magic arts” NIV) and idolaters and all the liars.”

This would naturally extend to anyone using the Scutum Fidei “Shield of the Trinity” as ones practicing deception—for Jesus never instructed us to make such a diagram! It is a lie and akin to casting a magic spell of deception.

This type of “Trinitarian hammer” reasoning sadly reared its ugly head when an otherwise credible and well-respected astronomer, Hugh Ross, in a Facebook post presented a Scutum Fidei with the standard Trinitarian misreading of Genesis 1:26, 27 and Elohim.[7] These are misreadings due to failing to consider other tools of reading comprehension, and using the hammer of Trinitarian interpretation to the exclusion of other tools. I explained this in “Skeptical About Trinitarianism.”[8] Trinitarianism then makes its adherents into simpletons who fail at basic reading comprehension of their own scriptures, as well as liars. This level of ineptitude is sustained by the logical fallacy of the Lonely Fact followed by the fallacy of Hasty Generalization—that is, isolating one fact to the exclusion of others and then forming a conclusion based on that artificial restriction on the available facts. It’s a bad and abusive theology, with the remainder of The Trinity reading like a comic book of Mad Magazine proportions. It’s intellectually and spiritually disgusting.

 Footnotes:
[1] Rose Publishing (1999)
[2] Pages 9 and 4.
[3] Didache 7:1, 3 provides directions for baptism including the Matthean formula “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Exposing the claim that this teaches Trinitarianism as a blatant lie is the obvious fact that it is not stating that these three are persons of one God. The Didache ironically condemns the author of The Trinity by saying “you shall not bear false witness.”—2:3.
[4] Michael Patton and Tim Kimberley. Credo House, Apologetics Boot Camp, Part 4: The Deity of Christ. 32:55, in a video presentation when displaying the Scutum Fidei. Tim Kimberley specifically made that claim with Patton’s support. The quote in context is: “This is an ancient symbol. You say, ‘Ok well how do I conceive of God…’” Michael: “It’s not ancient, I just made it on Photoshop today.” (Laughter) “Well, you plagiarized it pretty heavily though. [laughter] I’ve seen something like this before in Latin.” (Laughter) Thus, this claim was not corrected, and this is no laughing matter and nothing to take lightly.
[5] Wikipedia, “Shield of the Trinity.”
[6] Additionally, Yale historian of Late Antique and Medieval art, Felicity Harley, stated regarding the origin of the Scutum Fidei: “I am not aware of any visual or archaeological evidence that places its origins in an ancient Christian context – I would suspect it was medieval.” (Personal correspondence, October 4, 2019.)
Lastly, after this entry was posted I found this reference: Depictions of the Trinity in Early Christian Art Between 200AD and 400AD by Shawn Patrick Thomas (A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Talbot School of Theology Biola University, December 2018). There, he informs us that “abstract icons … were not found until the Middle Ages with the Scutum Fidei (or Trinity Shield).” (Page 80)
[7] July 31, 2019. www.facebook.com/RTBHughRoss/photos/a.313268935417884/2356536847757739/?type=3&__tn__=-R. This Scutum Fidei was presented with the outer three circles blank, as if intended for teaching children to fill them in—which in my estimation amounts to spiritual child abuse.
[8] jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/skeptical-about-trinitarianism.html

Further reading:
Recommended videos:

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:36 PM

Friday, May 18, 2018

Quickly Refuting the Flat-Earth Folly

The position mentioned in the title argues that the earth is a flat disk and for geocentrism, and that this is the Biblical position.

This is a great folly, and is quickly refuted by one point:

Antipodal volcanism.

This is best seen in the Chicxulub crater and the Deccan Traps, lava flows which occurred nearly half-way around the earth following the Chicxulub impact.

See: Antipodal Volcanism and the K-T Extinction Event http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/10/antipodal-volcanism-and-k-t-extinction.html

This is a problem for the Flat Earth position as it does not believe in impact craters as they are incompatible with its geological model; instead, voices within that Flat Earth community call them sink holes due to childishly not understanding that the impactor disintegrated upon impact. See the following infographic:
It’s pure madness as described in 1 Timothy 6:4.

This problem has been humorously depicted in this graphic spread around the Internet that uses the Chicxulub impact as an example:

As should be self-explanatory, only a globe could withstand an impact of that nature, whereas a disk would be thrown-off balance or possibly even shattered.
Animated version is here: https://tenor.com/52fZ.gif

But here are two potential replies and my responses:

Potential flat-earther reply 1: “Where’s the asteroid that reportedly made the Chicxulub crater?”
Me: Disintegrated. The only reason why impactors are rejected is due to being incompatible with Flat-Earth geology, which is circular reasoning.

Potential flat-earther reply 2: “Why couldn’t the Chicxulub crater and Deccan Traps have occurred independently of each other as they were only recently connected in time?”
Me: They could have occurred independently of each other, but that would leave the Deccan Traps without a clear cause, so it’s far more compelling that it was caused by the shockwaves of the Chicxulub impact. This is only compatible with the globe model, not the Flat-Earth model.

Impact craters and their associated antipodal volcanism are a gift that informs us of the earth’s spherical character. To deny this is to deny God’s Word in nature.—Romans 1:20.

It’s thus hard to imagine a position that’s more unreasonable than this. Unreasonableness of this type is a “work of the flesh” listed together with depraved sexual sins that Christians are admonished to avoid like the plague. (Galatians 5:19-21) As James said: “This is not the wisdom that comes down from above; it is earthly, animalistic, demonic.” (James 3:15) The NET Bible footnote explains that this “describes life apart from God, characteristic of earthly human life as opposed to what is spiritual. Cf. 1 Cor 2:14; 15:44-46; Jude 1:19.” It is totally depraved in its fallaciousness.

Appendix
  1. Hugh Ross Explains
  2. Flat Earth falls flat on the South Pole
Hugh Ross Explains
Recently, Astronomer Hugh Ross commented on the Flat-Earth folly on Facebook:

Question of the Week: What are the best scientific evidences for a spherical Earth that is best understood by laypeople?

My Answer: The three that I have found to be most effective are 1) to point out that airlines have their planes fly to faraway cities along curved paths rather than straight paths, 2) when on Earth you look at a faraway tall mountain the top of the mountain is visible but not the bottom, and 3) when you take a flight from Athens to Johannesburg on a clear night you can watch the constellation Orion gradually turn upside down.

https://www.facebook.com/RTBHughRoss/posts/1723067687771328

Question of the Week: How can one refute the claim made by atheists, skeptics, and even some Christians that the Bible a flat-earth book?

My Answer: First of all, the idea that the Bible promotes a flat-earth doctrine presupposes that people living 2–3 thousand years ago lacked the capacity to determine the true shape of Earth. That presupposition is incorrect. The fact that at different locations on Earth different stellar constellations are seen and they are seen at different orientations was sufficient to persuade ancient peoples that they were living on a spherical body. Aristotle wrting in the 4th century BC cited this evidence as proof that Earth is spherical. However, documented mentions of a spherical Earth by Greek philosophers date back to the 6th century BC. Erastosthenes in the 3rd century BC used the sunlight lines at summer solistice in wells at different latitudes to determine the diameter of Earth to 1 percent precision.
Both ancient Greek and Egyptian astronomers pointed to the semi-circular shadow of Earth on the Moon during lunar eclipses as evidence for the sphericity of Earth.

The biblical texts most often cited in the claim that the Bible teaches a flat Earth are Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7. Of these passages, the most cited is Isaiah 40:22. The relevant part of Isaiah 40:22, referring to God, states, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.” Whether the “circle of the earth” refers to a human on Earth or God looking down on Earth from above, in both cases the phrase would be consistent with a spherically shaped Earth. It is worth noting that only a sphere always looks like a circle when seen from above.

The Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 all refer to the “four corners of the earth.” However, even today, astronomers, physicists, and educated people around the world recognize and use the “four corners of the earth” as phenomenalogical language referring to the most distant parts of Earth from the standpoint of an observer at a specific location of Earth. It is clear from an examination of the context for all three of these passages that the most distant parts of Earth is the intent implied by the use of the idiom, the four corners of the earth. As the Theolological Wordbook of the Old Testament points out, the Hebrew word for “corners” used in Isaiah 11:12, kanap, in most of its appearances in the Old Testament is used figuratively.

The passage in Job 38:5 referring to Earth states, “Who fixed its dimensions? Certainly you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?” The inference made by those claiming that the Bible is a flat-earth book is that the “measuring line” is a straight line which would be suitable for measuring a flat disk but not a sphere. This is an overinterpretation. Lines can be straight or curved. Also, it is customary to measure the diameter of a sphere with a straight-edge ruler.

Job 38:12-14 refers to the dawn seizing “the edges [or ends] of the earth” and earth taking “shape like clay under a seal.” What is interesting here is that for a spherical earth the arrival of dawn first shows up at the most distant horizon, end, or edge of the point of view of a human at a fixed point upon Earth’s surface. The taking shape like clay under a seal would apply to either a disk or a sphere and may be saying more about Earth’s rotation or its manufacture than its actual shape.

The irony of choosing Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 to sustain the claim that the Bible is a flat Earth book is that these biblical texts better fit a spherical Earth than they do a flat Earth. While it would be an overinterpretation to conclude that these texts explicitly teach that Earth is a sphere, no where in the Bible do we find any text saying that Earth is flat. The Bible remains the only holy book for which we can say that it contains no provable errors or contradictions.

https://www.facebook.com/RTBHughRoss/posts/1716460378432059

Flat Earth falls flat on the South Pole
An official outlet for the Flat Earth Society reveals a division of opinion on Antarctica, the continent where the south pole is: it is either an ice wall boundary or a continent. This division in that geological model is a fatal flaw making its folly extremely obvious. This division is expressed in these terms:

There are two main theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica. The first and most widely accepted theory says that Antarctica is a portion of ice surrounding earth, and that in its end there is a huge wall of ice (with different sizes depending on the subtheory) which is the edge of the earth. The second theory says that the center of the earth's surface is the point where the Equator and the Prime Meridian meet, and therefore Antarctica is a distinct continent located at the South.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica

With this significant division of opinion over the south pole, with the later theory divorcing Antarctica from the south pole, the Flat Earth falls flat. As absurdity refutes itself, so the Flat Earth Society has explained the Flat Earth into oblivion.


See also:

Labels: , , ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:02 PM

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Reading Genesis


Genesis 1:28-30 presents some very beautiful language that is also imbued with just as much controversy. These verses read:
28 God blessed them [nascent humans] and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food.” It was so. (NET Bible, underscore added)
From this we learn two things:

First, the first humans were told to “subdue” the earth, ruling over the three domains occupied by the animals: the water, air, and land. The Hebrew word here is כבש [kabash]. As the NET Bible explains:
Elsewhere the Hebrew verb translated “subdue” means “to enslave” (2 Chr 28:10; Neh 5:5; Jer 34:11, 16), “to conquer,” (Num 32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 2 Sam 8:11; 1 Chr 22:18; Zech 9:13; and probably Mic 7:19), and “to assault sexually” (Esth 7:8). None of these nuances adequately meets the demands of this context, for humankind is not viewed as having an adversarial relationship with the world. The general meaning of the verb appears to be “to bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.” In Gen 1:28 one might paraphrase it as follows: “harness its potential and use its resources for your benefit.” In an ancient Israelite context this would suggest cultivating its fields, mining its mineral riches, using its trees for construction, and domesticating its animals.
It also is an invitation to construct crafts that can dominate all three domains. Thus, to “rule over” רדה [radah] was also originally meant to be constructive, not abusive. Unfortunately, while not originally intended to have negative consequences on the animals, following Adam and Eve’s fall, the negative consequences bore their ugly heads with humanity abusing the animals’s realms.

Was Life Created?

Second, we learn about the basis for the food chain. Regarding the last two verses, the Jewish Study Bible presents a note that interprets the text in the most painfully literal way imaginable:
Humankind, animals, and birds all seem originally meant to be neither vegetarians nor carnivores, but frugivores, eating the seeds of plants and trees.
This illustrates what happens if one interprets these verses without getting the point, or, by ‘not seeing the forest through the trees.’ According to this, humans were meant not to just be exclusively herbivorous, but were to be exclusively frugivorous, and animals were not just to be exclusively herbivorous with no scavenging and certainly no predation, but were also meant to be exclusively frugivorous. This of course is completely unhistorical, and ignores that the entire spectrum of vegetables, grains, legumes, as well as mushrooms, all fall into the domain of “every seed-bearing plant.” Also, fauna has always included carnivores, both scavengers and predators. (Compare with Psalm 104:21 where faunal predation is celebrated in song and 2 Peter 2:12 where faunal predation is considered natural.) Fortunately, old-earth creationist and astronomer Hugh Ross explains these verses better:
In Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 God gave humanity some specific dietary guidelines appropriate to their circumstances at the time. … With reference to animals, who rely on instinct rather than choice in their eating habits, His instructions reflect no change from one passage and time frame to the next. God simply stated and reiterated the importance of green plants. Both humans and animals ingest some nongreen plants, such as mushrooms. However, green plants are the foundation of the food chain. It seems likely that God emphasized to Adam and Eve (and us) that since all life depends on green plants for survival, proper management of these plants would be essential. (A Matter of Days, 2nd edition. 2015. P. 93)
His comments have the advantage of also harmonizing with Genesis 2:15 where God commands Adam to “care for it and to maintain” the Garden of Eden. The NET Bible footnote explains further: “Note that man’s task is to care for and maintain the trees of the orchard.” (emphasis original) It is also not stating that no animals were scavengers or predators: that is just as unhistorical as saying they were exclusively frugivores.

Thus, the original purpose of humankind was to be a benefit for the earth, the precious jewel that God bequeathed to them and us. We were to cultivate the green vegetation as we peacefully occupied the domains previously ruled over by the animals. Only after the entry of human sin did kabash and radah inherit negative connotations.

Additional reading:

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:07 AM

Thursday, December 14, 2017

A theology in crisis?


“the doctrine of the Trinity stands today at a point of crisis”
“the Trinity is a local phenomenon in the realm of systematic theology, with no provenance in the territory of New Testament scholarship”
“Some [Trinitarian] proof texts evaporated because they were, in fact, never anything but Trinitarian mirages.”
“Many arguments that once seemed foundational to Trinitarianism no longer apply.”

That is how the Trinitarian Dr. Fred Sanders appraised his theology in his 2016 academic tome The Triune God. This situation was showcased by Dr. Dale Tuggy in his podcast site where he read from The Triune God in “Review of Sanders’s The Deep Things of God – Part 2” (trinities.org/blog/podcast-193-review-of-sanderss-the-deep-things-of-god-part-2). There he read from pages 162-164 and 179, where Dr. Sanders expressed his call of alarm. What he said is worth repeating. Beginning on page 162, under the heading “The Shifting Foundation of Biblical Trinitarianism,” he wrote:


Although there has been no change in the material content of the doctrine of the Trinity, the epochal shifts in biblical interpretation in the modern period have greatly altered the available arguments for Trinitarianism. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity stands today at a point of crisis with regard to its ability to demonstrate its exegetical foundation. Theologians once approached this doctrine with a host of biblical prods, but one by one, many of those venerable old arguments [163] have been removed from the realm of plausibility. The steady march of grammatical-historical exegesis has tended in the direction of depleting Trinitarianism’s access to its traditional equipment, until a prominent feature of the current era is the growing unpersuasiveness and untenability of the traditional proof texts that were used to establish and demonstrate the doctrine.

[Dale Tuggy then mentioned that he skipped some quotes. I will not. These are:]

“Most theologians no longer expect to find in the New Testament a formal Trinitarianism, only and elemental Trinitarianism,” remarked conservative Jesuit theologian Edmund Fortman in 1972. The heightened historical consciousness of modern scholars has made the very idea that Trinitarian theology has a foothold on the documents of the New Testament seem laughable: “Whatever Jesus did or said in his earthly ministry,” wrote R. P. C. Hanson in 1985, “he did not walk the lanes of Galilee and the streets of Jerusalem laying down direct unmodified Trinitarian doctrine .” [R. P. C. Hanson, Studies in Christian Antiquity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985), 296.]

[Dale continued reading:]

The presupposition has become widespread that the doctrine of the Trinity is a local phenomenon in the realm of systematic theology, with no provenance in the territory of New Testament scholarship.

[Again, Dale skipped over a quote that I will not:]

So deep has this presupposition sunk into the practices of the field that Ulrich Mauser could write in 1990, “The historically trained New Testament scholar will today proceed with the task of interpretation without wasting a minute on the suspicion that the Trinitarian confessions of later centuries might be rooted in the New Testament itself, and that the Trinitarian creeds might continue to function as valuable hermeneutical signposts for a modern understanding.” [Ulrich Mauser, “One God and Trinitarian Language in the Letters of Paul,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 20:2 (1998): 100.]

[Dale continued reading, but I will skip ahead to this part:]

Perhaps no development in biblical studies has left the foundation of Trinitarianism [164] unaffected, partly because the long Christian exegetical tradition had at various times delighted to find the Trinity in nearly every layer and every section of Scripture. If the doctrine of the Trinity had come to be at home in every verse of the Bible, it was more or less implicated in revisionist approaches to every verse.

At any rate, the overall trend of sober historical-grammatical labors has been toward the gradual removal of the Trinitarian implications of passage after passage.

[Dale paused and noted that only one example of a “removal of the Trinitarian implications” of a passage was cited, 1 John 5:7. This skipped-over part reads:]

Some of these proof texts evaporated because they were, in fact, never anything but Trinitarian mirages: 1 John 5:7’s “three that bear witness in heaven,” for example, withered away at the first touch of “the lower criticism,” textual criticism. By overwhelming consensus, the comma johanneum is judged not to have been in the original manuscript, and therefore it should not be used as biblical support for Trinitarian theology, though it has some value as early Christian commentary on John’s letter. The discarding of the Johannine comma is perhaps the clearest example of the helpful, clarifying, and destructive work of biblical scholarship. … Nor is this cutting-edge research; it was seen and affirmed in the eighteenth century and disseminated in the early nineteenth. … [165] [T]he complex clashes of premodern, modern, and postmodern modes of interpretation have left the field of Trinitarian exegesis in extensive disarray. Many arguments that once seemed foundational to Trinitarianism no longer apply.

[Dale then jumped over to page 179, which I will include the most succinct parts:]

There is something disconcerting in maintaining a doctrine while replacing many of the arguments for it. If Trinitarian theology can arise using one set of arguments, but then discard many of those and set about seeking better ones by which to maintain its claims, does this imply that Trinitarians intend to go on believing what they are believing, no matter what? … Proof-switching could signal that a system of orthodoxy [180] is functioning like what Marxist analysis calls an ideology: a set of power relationships concealed behind ideas that really defend them by rationalization. … Buildings that have always stood firm can, on inspection, be found to have less than optimal support, and undergo seismic retrofitting without ever coming down. After the tectonic shifts of biblical criticism, Trinitarian theology is due for some seismic retrofitting.
[End quote.]


As noted, the reason for saying that “after the tectonic shifts of biblical criticism, Trinitarian theology is due for some seismic retrofitting,” is that “the overall trend of sober historical-grammatical labors has been toward the gradual removal of the Trinitarian implications of passage after passage. Some of these proof texts evaporated because they were, in fact, never anything but Trinitarian mirages.” The sole example of a “Trinitarian mirage” was 1 John 5:7. However, he likely also had in mind another Johannine scripture, the Trinitarian favorite John 8:58. He may also agree that another Trinitarian favorite of Jeremiah 23:6 is nothing more than a Trinitarian mirage. Resources explaining how these are Trinitarian mirages, scriptures stripped of their “Trinitarian implications,” (more like Trinitarian accretions) are:
  1. Articles here:
  2. YouTube videos from Ask an Apologist:
(For the record, Dr. Hugh Ross is aware of these resources and has offered no rebuttal at all.)

The last video gives a more detailed explanation for Jeremiah 23:6.

So how extensive is Dr. Sanders’ call for a “seismic retrofitting”? After quoting Athanasius’ book On the Incarnation, he states that there has to be a “shift in register” to follow what Athanasius prescribes: “a good life, a pure soul, virtue, holiness, purity, and imitating the good deeds of the sacred writers.” That is, “a spiritual and ascetical training that will result in communion with the mind of Scripture’s authors … and promises hermeneutical insight.”[1] The problem with this approach though is that it does not demand that Trinitarianism be the outcome. For instance, ones who have indeed pursued “a good life, a pure soul, virtue, holiness, purity, and imitating the good deeds of the sacred writers” and ‘a spiritual and ascetical training resulting in communion with the mind of Scripture’s authors and producing hermeneutical insight,’ have arrived at a Patritheistic theology where the Father alone is the “only true God.” (John 17:1-5) Thus, claiming that a pious life can only result in adopting Trinitarianism is actually an act of hijacking and is quite unreasonable, and also reduces piety to intellectual snobbery. It is also a call to abandon the scriptures and rely on one’s own supposed piety, an act proscribed at 2 Corinthians 10:12. Christians are not to “measure themselves by themselves,” but rather are to “explain spiritual matters with spiritual words,” or “matching spiritual with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13, NWT, Byington) This is accomplished by becoming “doers of the word” (James 1:22), studying the Bible objectively and honestly to not have a deceptive heart.

Thus, Christians are instructed differently by “the sacred writers.” Indeed, David, Isaiah and James all urge us to search for God by drawing close to him with clean hands and pure hearts. (Psalm 145:18; Isaiah 55:6; James 4:8) This calls for humble objectivity to question the Trinitarian groupthink and transcend it, outwitting confirmation bias to find the true God that Scripture reveals. Trinitarianism is indeed “a theology in crisis.”

Questions for Dr. Fred Sanders:
  1. What other Scriptures do you think no longer support Trinitarianism and were just Trinitarian mirages (or, examples of Trinitarian confirmation bias) the entire time? John 1:1, 8:58, 20:28?
  2. Have you done any objective research into the life and character of Athanasius? Are you sure he was as savory and pious as you are portraying?


Footnotes:
[1] Page 181. While Dr. Sanders quoted Athanasius as stressing the importance of piety, Athanasius himself was known for being extremely impious, as a slanderer and wicked schemer. On this outrageous hypocrisy, see Dr. Dale Tuggy, “Assessing Athanasius and his Arguments” trinities.org/blog/podcast-171-assessing-athanasius-and-his-arguments and Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993), 37.


Additional Reading: See also:

Labels: , ,

posted by JimSpace at 1:45 PM

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Foreknowing the Fall?


Did God create Adam and Eve knowing that they would fail to meet his standards and behave offensively and disobediently?—Romans 5:18, 19.

Two Pauline scriptures are used to argue that God indeed did that: 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, for both conclude with the phrase πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, which literally means “before times everlasting.”[1] The NET Bible has it rendered as “before the ages began” with a footnote saying “before eternal ages.” The NIV however has it translated as "before the beginning of time,” and the HCSB similarly has “before time began.” This makes it appear like God began the redemptive process for humanity before the creation of the physical universe, as in foreknowing that the Fall would happen even prior to physical creation.

However, this would create a theodical problem, a problem affecting God’s righteousness by making him party to the disastrous consequences of our primeval parents’ fall into sin and death. As the book Reasoning From the Scriptures notes:[2]
Would it be just or loving to condemn a person for doing something that you yourself planned for him to do? ... Jehovah is a God of love. (1 John 4:8) All his ways are just. (Ps. 37:28; Deut. 32:4) It was not God's will for Adam to sin; he warned Adam against it. (Gen. 2:17) ... Perfection did not rule out the exercise of free will to disobey. Adam chose to rebel against God, despite the warning that death would result.
Interestingly, the NWT does not translate either scripture as seen above, but as “before times long ago” (2 Timothy 1:9) and as “promised long ago” (Titus 1:2).[3] Thus, the redemptive process began only when it needed to, thousands of years prior with the first redemptive promise expressed in Genesis 3:15, right after the Fall occurred and not before. The BDAG lexicon concurs with this handling of the Greek text, for it says on page 33 under αἰώνιος in boldface type that it pertains “to a long period of time, long ago,” and only offers “before time began” as a secondary, possible rendering in those two pastoral scriptures.

Click to enlarge.

Even if the phrase is literally “before time began,” this may be taken as hyperbole.

In closing, ones who think that God created with redemption in mind fail to appreciate that this would include God in the Fall, making him a party to it. Thus, having God create knowing in advance that his crowning creation, humanity, would rebel and offend him does nothing to support theodicy. Claiming that God being omniscient means that he knew in advance that humanity would offend him is ridiculous and assumes that knowing everything means that you know what someone else will do at all times and with all choices. It is an anti-theodicy and is nonsense.


Footnotes:
[1] Astronomer and creation apologist Hugh Ross argued like this in this podcast discussing his excellent new book Improbable Planet: http://www.reasons.org/audio/improbable-planet-2-3

[2] “Adam and Eve” page 29. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989205#h=23. See also under “Fate” page 142 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989229#h=29, and in Insight on the Scriptures under “Foreknowledge, Foreordination: Predestinarian view” p. 852 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549#h=13

[3] It is interesting that Paul while writing under divine inspiration did not provide a chronological total here from Adam's sin to his day, not even a rough one (as in “about 4,000 years ago” per the 6,000-year interpretive paradigm), but simply left it as ‘a real long time ago.’


Related blog entry:
The Earth that Adam Knew?
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/earth-that-adam-knew-what-did-earth.html

Additional reading:

The Bible shows that humans were created to live, not to die. God placed Adam and Eve in a delightful garden where they could enjoy life. He designated one of the trees “the tree of life.” Likely if Adam and Eve had proved their appreciation and loyalty to God, he would have let them eat from that tree, symbolizing his grant of everlasting life for them. (Genesis 1:30; 2:7-9) However, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. Their sin brought upon them the sentence of death.—Genesis 3:17-19.
—Happiness (1980) p. 113


Credits:
Opening picture from Learn From the Great Teacher chapter 8, seen here: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/learn-from-great-teacher-jesus/others-are-higher-than-we-are.

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 2:10 PM

Friday, August 26, 2016

Identifying Jesus

The Transfiguration

As introduced here previously,[1] Dr. Hugh Ross works tirelessly to show the harmony between science and Genesis. While I am moved to applaud these efforts, I must also address his occasional Trinitarian apologetics. His latest such effort, “If Jesus is God, Why Did He Call Himself the Son of Man?”[2] will now be appraised in the usual fashion, in the spirit of Proverbs 27:6 and 17, with his comments being prefaced by HR and mine by JS.

HR: I have met a lot of skeptics and cultists who assert that Jesus never claimed to be God.

JS: Denigrating your opponents like Jehovah’s Witnesses as “cultists” is frankly unprofessional and does nothing to reflect the love and respect that Christians are admonished to show others. (1 Peter 3:15) Calling them non-Trinitarians would have clearly sufficed, but no, that term lacks the biting force that the pejorative “cultist” has. Additionally, it is extremely unlikely that any non-Trinitarians will be attracted to Trinitarianism after being insulted with an inappropriate rebuke.

HR: Rather, they say he referred to himself as the son of man. It is not just skeptics and cultists [Here we go again!] who are troubled by this issue. I have met just as many Christians [Trinitarians] who ask, “If Jesus is the Son of God, why did he so consistently refer to himself as the son of man?” The common follow-up question is how can I be certain that Jesus is really God and that the Trinity is a correct doctrine? [emphasis original]

Whole books have been written answering these questions.

JS: The goal then would be to read the right books!—Ecclesiastes 12:12.

HR: My goal here is to provide three brief yet adequate answers that you can quickly share with people expressing these kinds of challenges, concerns, and doubts.

JS: I strive to remain completely objective and not be emotionally invested into any paradigm or position, no matter how long it’s been held or how near and dear it has been to my heart. If HR thus fulfills his word and provides “adequate answers” demolishing opposition to Trinitarianism, then I will seek the true God with him. If not, then I must express why they are inadequate in clear, respectful, and heartfelt terms. These three “adequate answers” he provides have to do with:
  1. The outdated Trinitarian handling of John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.
  2. Jeremiah 23:6 but ignoring Jeremiah 33:16.
  3. Failing to include Revelation 1:13, 14:14 and other relevant scriptures.
Thus, I am very disappointed and feel behooved to offer responses to these arguments that quite frankly strike me as unprofessional and invalid.

HR: First, while Jesus in the gospels almost always referred to himself as the “son of man,” there is at least one occasion where he explicitly claims to be God. The gospel text is John 8:58, where Jesus declares to the Jewish religious leaders, “Before Abraham was born, I AM!” Here, Jesus assumes the name God had assigned to himself in Exodus 3:14, “I AM who I AM. This what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” The Jewish religious leaders clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, and it is evidenced by the fact that they attempted to stone him to death for his act of “blasphemy.”

JS: Yes, Jesus frequently referred to himself as the “son of man” across the four Gospels. Also, I am very glad to see HR posit “at least one occasion” where Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus “explicitly claims to be God.” Thus, a close examination of this only “one” Jesus=God proof text is in order, John 8:58.[3][4] If it can be clearly demonstrated that John 8:58 is not a proof text, that Jesus was in-fact not explicitly claiming to be God, then that would mean that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever claim to be God. The stakes are high indeed, so let’s proceed:

Taking for granted that “I AM” (‘ego eimi’) is the divine name in John 8:58, let’s run a simple test. This claim that Jesus is assuming the name of God from Exodus 3:14 can be easily tested by replacing “I AM” with another divine name or designation, like “God,” and observing the results.
[test]
“Before Abraham was, God.”
[end of test]
This declaration as it stands is nonsensical. To make sense, it needs the words “I existed as” or “I was,” or something similar: “Before Abraham was, I was God.”

The same is true with “Before Abraham was, I AM.” It needs more words to be complete, like “Before Abraham was, I was I AM.” But, the Greek text does not say that, for it would have to be emended from πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί to πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἦμην ὁ ἐγὼ εἰμί, where ἦμην means “I was” and ὁ signifies that ἐγὼ εἰμί (‘ego eimi’) is a name.

What John 8:58 says (1) as opposed to how Trinitarianism reads it (2):
  1. πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
  2. πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἦμην ὁ ἐγὼ εἰμί
Therefore the Greek words ‘ego eimi’, translated according to many translations as “I am,” are part of the sentence and should be translated likewise. “I am” is an interlinear translation or a hyper-literal translation, therefore not completing the translation process. If a Bible says something like “I have been,” it shows an attempt to do just that, complete the translation process into a literal translation. In fact, the 1996 edition of the New Living Translation has “Jesus answered, ‘The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!’” It places “I am” in a footnote.[5] Also, the 1960-1973 editions of the NASB have “I have been” as a variant reading in the margin. See Figure 1:

Figure 1
Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

The NASB Editorial Board explained that the reason for the marginal notations are for “assisting the reader's comprehension of the terms used by the original author,” and gave this reason for the above marginal note: “the translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering.”[6]

Therefore, the Trinitarian translation not only has Jesus failing at proper communication, but it also has Jesus not following a simple conversation. True, the Pharisees he was conversing with were being unreasonable, but Jesus was attempting to answer their last question in a sensible way, not changing the subject. Indeed, they were asking him, “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” As Jesus began his reply with Abraham, it is clear that his intent was to answer their question—if he existed before Abraham or not, which he answered affirmatively. But if that is the extent of it, then why did they want to stone him? The answer is in paying close attention to the context. First, John 8:20 provides the setting: the Temple compound in the treasury area which would locate him in the Court of Women where four massive menorah lamps are reported to have stood that illuminated this Temple courtyard,[7] and doubtlessly symbolized spiritual illumination for the world. It was before these sacred lamps then that Jesus declared in verse 12: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (NIV)
Thus, his opponents who had a murderous disposition could judge Jesus as unworthy of being in the Temple based on both blaspheming it (in their view) and existing prior to, and therefore being greater than, Abraham. They also charged him with demon-possession in verses 48 and 52, which would at the very least call for his expulsion from the Temple. (While they did revile him as a Samaritan in verse 48, it is interesting that they did not call him a Gentile violating the Soreg wall, which would have been punishable by death.) Therefore their response in verse 59 of driving him away with stones is compatible with Jesus declaring that he, not he Temple, was the light of the world, and as the final straw, that he existed before Abraham, injuring Abraham’s sacred genealogical prestige. (See Appendix B.) This interpretation takes the context and language into account, unlike the Trinitarian handling.


To recap: at the minimum the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus for:
  • Blaspheming the Temple (saying he’s the “light of the world,” brighter than the Temple lamps)
  • Injuring Abraham’s sacred genealogical prestige for existing prior to him and thus being greater than him.
Accordingly, it is high-time for Trinitarians to terminate their clear and obvious misuse and abuse of John 8:58.

HR: Second, the Old Testament in Jeremiah 23:6 assigns the name YHWH (I AM) to the righteous Branch, the King, who will come from the lineage of David. Jesus in several places in the gospel claims to be this righteous Branch and King.

JS: Ignoring the “YHWH (I AM)” statement, there are some responses in order. First, in both Exodus 23:21 and Zechariah 3:1-2 the angel of the Exodus and the angel of YHWH (in this case arguably the same person) are called by the divine name YHWH. This is shown in the NET Bible footnotes. The Exodus 23:21 footnote for “name” says in part: “Driver quotes McNeile as saying, ‘The “angel” is Jehovah Himself “in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose.”’” For Zechariah 3:1-2 a footnote informs us that: “The juxtaposition of the messenger of the LORD in v. 1 and the LORD in v. 2 shows that here, at least, they are one and the same.” Thus, there is a scriptural precedent for representing God and bearing his name in a representational sense. So all Jeremiah 23:6 could be saying then is that Jesus represents YHWH, Jehovah God. Regarding Jeremiah 23:6, HR and his colleagues would do well to notice that Jeremiah 33:16 also “assigns the name YHWH” to Jerusalem—the exact phrase in both scriptures being “Jehovah Is Our Righteousness.” Thus Jerusalem would also represent Jehovah, but obviously not be Jehovah. Thus one scripture in Jeremiah helps us to properly understand another scripture in Jeremiah.[8] This is accepted and valid hermeneutic.

HR: Third, Jesus is making a special theological point about his deity in calling himself the son of man in the gospels. This point becomes clear in examining the New Testament. For every New Testament passage referring to Jesus Christ that happened chronologically after the first day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41), Jesus is always referred to as the Son of God and never as the son of man. Conversely, in the gospels, Jesus consistently calls himself the son of man and never the Son of God.

JS: Jesus called himself the “Son of Man” as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, of the enigmatic, messianic and apocalyptic human figure, “someone like a son of man,” who was exalted to God’s throne to rule in his name. This figure was enigmatic until Jesus identified him as himself. Following the Pentecost event as seen in Revelation 1:13 and 14:14, this figure “someone like a son of man” that Jesus identified as himself is seen again as a reigning king. Thus, HR’s first claim that following Pentecost “Jesus is always referred to as the Son of God and never as the son of man” is invalidated. Secondly, regarding HR’s second claim, Jesus called himself “Son of God” in John 10:36 where he said: “I am God’s Son.” Additionally, Jesus on earth was called God’s son by God Himself without any objection by Jesus—at his baptism: Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, see also John 1:34, and at his Transfiguration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7 and Luke 9:35. Thus, HR’s second claim that while on earth he never called himself the Son of God is also invalidated.[9]

HR then uses this invalid dichotomy to base his next point on, that “the same kind of demarcation for the human followers of Jesus Christ,” that prior to Pentecost Christians “are always called sons of men or children of men and never as sons of God,” but following Pentecost Christians “are always called sons of God and never as sons of men.” And while it is true that Daniel was “highly esteemed” (Daniel 10:11, 19) yet was called a “son of man” (Daniel 8:17), this is another way of saying “human” and does not have the messianic, apocalyptic significance of Jesus’ identification based on Daniel 7:13-14. Similarly, the great prophet Ezekiel who had the rare privilege to behold the “visions of God” (Ezekiel 1:1) was himself called “son of man” 93 times. This too is a reference to his humanity and is distinct from the meaning of Daniel 7:13-14.

In closing, I believe that Dr. Hugh Ross has been a powerful witness for God and Christ regarding the validity of creation. However, as he is an Evangelical Trinitarian, I can also identify where God and Christ have been misrepresented, and where authentic witnesses for God and Christ have been denigrated.

To err is easy and takes but a few words. To correct the error though demands wordiness proportionate to the magnitude of damage the error has inflicted.


Footnotes:
[1] Skeptical About Trinitarianism http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/skeptical-about-trinitarianism.html

[2] Found here: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/if-jesus-is-god--why-did-he-call-himself-the-son-of-man

[3] One apologetic Trinitarian explained the great importance of John 8:58 for Trinitarianism this way: “This is a very important verse to Trinitarians because it is one of the places we use to show that Jesus is God. We maintain that Jesus attributed the divine name of God (“I AM” from Exodus 3:14), to Himself.” (Slick, Matt. John 8:58 and 10:30-33, “I am.” http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-858-and-1030-33-i-am)

[4] As seen in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/int/E/1985/43/8#s=58

[5] http://classic.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=John+8%3A58&section=0&translation=nlt&oq=john%25208%3A58&new=1&sr=1&nb=joh&ng=8&ncc=8

[6] First graphic presented in “A Reply to Matt Slick/CARM and the use of EGW EIMI at John 8:58.” http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com:80/egweimi.htm. Second graphic and correspondence presented in “The New American Standard Version and its alternative rendering in its marginal note to John 8:58’s “EGW EIMI,” 1963-1971. The implications.” http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/newamericanstandard_john8.58.htm

[7] Mishnah Sukkah 5:2. This says regarding the “women’s court”: “four golden candelabras were there, and four golden basins at their heads, and four ladders to each one, and [upon them were] four of the rising youth of the priesthood, and in their hands were jars of oil holding one hundred and twenty logim [a liquid measure], which they would pour into each of the basins.” www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sukkah.5.2. See also: The Treasury of the Temple in Jerusalem by Leen Ritmeyer. www.ritmeyer.com/2015/05/15/the-treasury-of-the-temple-in-jerusalem

[8] This is a known interpretation and I have elaborated on this further under the Excursus here: Trinitarian Samples http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/04/trinitarian-samples.html

[9] See also Matthew 14:33, 27:43, Luke 1:35 and John 19:7. Matthew 27:43 and John 19:7 appear to be recollections from Jesus’ enemies of his statement at John 10:36.




Related blog entries:


From Dr. Edgar Foster:
Related articles by Solomon Landers (1942-2013) on Coptic John 8:58:
YouTube videos from Ask an Apologist:
  • Hugh Ross accuses the NWT of changing the text at John 8:58
    youtu.be/7WB3kI8D0_Y
  • Hugh Ross accuses the NWT of changing the text at John 8:58 and Jeremiah 23:6
    youtu.be/H5mUhDjjft8
    The last video gives a more detailed explanation for Jeremiah 23:6.

From Insights on the Bible:

Credits:
Pictures are from the book Jesus: The Way, The Truth, The Life (seen here https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/): Transfiguration scene is from chapter 60. Jesus teaching before the menorah lamp scene is from chapter 68. The John 8:59 scene is from chapter 69.


Appendix
  1. Podcast with Rabbi Tovia Singer
  2. More background regarding John 8:58-59 and blasphemy

Podcast with Rabbi Tovia Singer
If the Trinitarian handling of John 8:58 is correct, then all Jewish rabbis should wholeheartedly agree. But this is not the case. One such rabbi is Tovia Singer, who expressed himself on the following podcast:
Torah Pearls – Season 2 – Shemot
Why do Christian bibles translate and capitalize Exodus 3:14 as “I AM”? Find out the answer to this and many other questions in this week’s Torah Pearls!
http://www.truth2u.org/2015/01/08/torah-pearls-season-2-shemot/
When downloaded, the minute marker is specifically 58:40-1:04:50. Rabbi Tovia Singer humorously says he needs “Dramamine” when listening to the Trinitarian explanation for Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, which he caustically adds gives him “acid reflux.” He outright says that it “doesn’t match at all,” and uses this to lampoon Christianity!

See also: Does The Trinity Make Sense? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html



More background regarding John 8:58-59 and blasphemy
One source[B1] provides the following background information to help us have greater insight into the thematic mechanics involved with Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees in John 8. After comparing the adversarial scene in John 8 with the one in Mark 14:60-64,[B2] where Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer by the high priest for stating that he was the Christ, and after noting that Jesus stated that he was a witness to Abraham rejoicing at seeing his arrival as the Christ (John 8:56),[B3] he writes:

[Quote]
When they realized the implications of Jesus’ claim to have existed before Abraham, as the Christ whose “day” Abraham “saw,” the Jews took up stones to stone him. They rejected his claim to be the Christ, as well as any suggestion that he was superior to their “father,” Abraham.133

Several references to “blasphemy” in the writings of Josephus help further illustrate how the Jews of Jesus’ day could have interpreted his words as blasphemous without associating them in any sense with a claim to be God. For example, in his Antiquities of the Jews 3.180 Josephus refers to “blasphemous charges” that are made against the Jews which are “really seen as an attack against the lawgiver Moses, who is seen as speaking for God.”134 In Antiquities 12.406 a connection is made “between blasphemy and attacking the people of God, especially the leadership.”135 Finally, in Antiquities 20.115 a soldier “seized the Laws of Moses, that lay in one of those villages, and brought them out before the eyes of all present, and tore them to pieces; and this was done with reproachful language [Greek: epiblasphemon, ‘blasphemies’], and much scurrility” (Whiston’s translation). It is clear, then, that disrespect for God’s law and for his leadership was, for the Jews, tantamount to disrespecting God himself.

(P. 298)
Additionally, in the Qumran scrolls “blasphemy” is used for how God’s servants are treated (1QpHab 10.13) and of those who ‘open their mouth against the statutes of God’s covenant by saying, “They are not right”’ (CD-A 5.12; compare 5.21).136 In the OT Apocrypha, “blasphemy” is used to characterize actions against God’s name, against his people, and against their holy places, such as the temple and its sanctuary (1 Maccabees 2:6-14; 2 Maccabees 8:2-4; compare 2 Maccabees 12:14; 15:24). In Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 3:16 the one who forsakes his father is “like a blasphemer” (hos blasphemos). This understanding is perhaps because of the position and the responsibility God is said to have given fathers according to Sirach 3:2.

When I consider the high priest’s declaration of “blasphemy” against Jesus upon hearing him affirm that he is the “Christ,” “the Son of the Blessed,” and the “Son of man,” [Mark 14:60-64] together with the general understanding of blasphemy found in Jewish literature during this time, it is easy to understand why the Jews attempted to stone Jesus according to John 8:59: He claimed to be the Christ whose “day” Abraham “saw.” He also claimed to have “seen Abraham” by existing “before” him, showing his superiority137 to the one whom the Jews believed Jesus was ‘not greater than.’—John 8:39, 53.138

Footnotes:
133 Consider, too, this Midrash (a rabbinical investigation into the meaning of a particular text completed sometime after 200 CE) on the book of Psalms:
R. Yudan said in the name of R. Hama: In the time-to-come, when the Holy One, blessed be He, seats the lord Messiah at His right hand, as is said The Lord saith unto my lord: “Sit at my right hand” (Ps. 110:1), and seats Abraham at His left. Abraham’s face will pale, and he will say to the Lord: “My son’s son sits at the right, and I at the left!” [The Midrash on Psalms, William G. Braude, trans. (New Haven: Yale, 1959), page 261.]
Here Abraham is presented as upset over the Messiah’s place at God’s right hand! It should be no surprise, then, that those who viewed Abraham as their “father” (Joh 8:39) were also upset when Jesus claimed to have existed “before Abraham was born.”

134 Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1998), page 54.

135 Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, page 57.

136 James Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 2, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), page 21.

137 Interesting in this connection is Satan’s statement to Michael the Archangel in the Life of Adam and Eve 14.3. After being told to “worship the image of God” (namely, “Adam”), Satan responds (with underlining added): “I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me” (M.D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, James H. Charlesworth, ed. [New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985], page 262). This shows that there was a definite sense of superiority associated with one who existed before another. Johnson (“Life of Adam and Eve,” page 252) dates the original composition of this work from between 100 BCE to 200 CE, most probably “toward the end of the first Christian century,” with the Greek and Latin texts produced between that time and 400 CE.

138 Other ancient Jewish references that speak of Abraham in exalted or elevated terms can be found in Philo (see Allegorical Interpretation 3.9, 83, 203 [compare 244]; On the Cheribum 18; Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 5; The Worse Attacks the Better 159; Posterity and Exile of Cain 27, 174; On the Giants 62, 64; On Sobriety 17; On the Change of Names 69, 88, 152; On Dreams 1.70; 2.244; On the Life of Moses 1.76), in the Apocalypse of Abraham (10.5-17; 14.2), and in the Testament of Abraham ([Recension A] 1.2, 5-6; 2.3; 4.6; 10.5-11, 13; 15.14-15; 16.9; 17.7; [Recension B] 13.9-10). Compare also Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 1.225, 256.

[End of quotation.]

What I found particularly noteworthy was this:
  1. How it was possible to blaspheme the Temple.
  2. The Midrash on Psalms that preserved the ancient Jewish concern to protect Abraham from the notion that the Messiah should enjoy priority over him.
  3. The similar complaint voiced in Life of Adam and Eve which preserves “that there was a definite sense of superiority associated with one who existed before another.”
Thus, regarding the last two points, for Jesus to have declared that he existed prior to Abraham would have hit both nerves, and stresses the severity of injuring Abraham’s sacred genealogical prestige.

Appendix endnotes:
[B1] Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, third edition by Greg Stafford, chapter 3 “Jesus of Nazareth—The Christ from Heaven” pages 297-8. (Elihu Books. 2009, digital version 2012)

[B2] Pages 296-7.

[B3] Pages 223-5.

Labels: , ,

posted by JimSpace at 1:00 PM

Friday, August 05, 2016

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:
See also:

Presentations by Professor Dale Tuggy:

Labels: , , ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:35 PM