In reading the exchanges between Greg Stafford and Rob Bowman, Al Kidd felt compelled to echo Stafford's efforts to call Bowman to account for his definition of Trinity.
Click: Al Kidd & Bowman
Click: Al Kidd & Bowman
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Online Debate between Greg Stafford and Rob Bowman
The following discussion took place online, through mediums for both Greg Stafford and Robert Bowman, during the month of April, 1998.
Click: Online Trinity Debate
Click: Online Trinity Debate
Monday, December 30, 2013
"John 1:3 and Hebrews1:10" - Example of Agency
Exodus 7:17-20 KJV
17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink of the water of the river.
19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
John Gill
"behold, I will smite with the rod that is in my hand - which though in the hand of Moses, yet he being his ambassador, and representing him, is said to be in the hand of the Lord; and with this he threatens to smite."
Pulpit
"Behold, I will smite - God here speaks of the acts of Moses and Aaron as his own acts, and of their hands as his hand, because they were mere instruments through which he worked."
See: "John 1:3" The Messiah as the Agent and Instrument of the Creation
17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink of the water of the river.
19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
John Gill
"behold, I will smite with the rod that is in my hand - which though in the hand of Moses, yet he being his ambassador, and representing him, is said to be in the hand of the Lord; and with this he threatens to smite."
Pulpit
"Behold, I will smite - God here speaks of the acts of Moses and Aaron as his own acts, and of their hands as his hand, because they were mere instruments through which he worked."
See: "John 1:3" The Messiah as the Agent and Instrument of the Creation
Friday, December 27, 2013
Interacting with Arthur Daniels Jr. on "John 8:58"
David's comments on Trinitarian apologist Arthur Daniels Jr's appearance on the Healing X Outreach podcast, including his call into the show.
Click: Interacting with Arthur Daniels Jr. on John 8:58
Click: Interacting with Arthur Daniels Jr. on John 8:58
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
John 1:18 and the Coptic "p.noute"
One of my Trinitarian friend used this text to show that the writer was equating the Son with God because he was called "p.noute" in the Sahidic Coptic. Did the Coptic writer really believe the Son is God the same as the Father ? Let's find out.
Based on the grammatical rules, the definite article "The" is used to talk about specific or known things. These are usually things that have been mentioned before or that the listener is familiar with. And the indefinite "A" (or "an") is used to talk about things which are not specific. These are usually things that haven't been mentioned before or that the listener is unfamiliar with.
Let's say I tell you: "I went to see a doctor last week."
Explanation: I went to see some doctor. I didn't mention him before, and you are not familiar with him. Another option is that it is not important who he is. So I use the word "a".
Then I say: "The doctor said I should get more rest."
Now you already know which doctor I am referring to. I am referring to the doctor I went to see. So I use the word "the."
Another example:
Luke 2:9-10 (WEB)
9 Behold, an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 The angel said to them, “Don’t be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people.
We know Greek does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become "the" in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with "a" or "an." We are not "adding a word" when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but may say "Snoopy is a dog."
For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is "the word," as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word."[*]
So in Luke we have "an" angel who appeared to them. But why is it in the next verse the writer used the definite article? Obviously, because this is the angel mentioned in v.9. Similarly, at John 1:18, the Coptic has "the G/god, the only Son," i.e. the god previously mentioned at John 1:1c, who is the Son of God.
[The angel who appeared to them is not the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament. Some Christians thought this angel is the malakh of the OT, because this angel was called "the angel." According to them, when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. We know the angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself as God, and exercises the responsibilities of God.]
Based on the grammatical rules, the definite article "The" is used to talk about specific or known things. These are usually things that have been mentioned before or that the listener is familiar with. And the indefinite "A" (or "an") is used to talk about things which are not specific. These are usually things that haven't been mentioned before or that the listener is unfamiliar with.
Let's say I tell you: "I went to see a doctor last week."
Explanation: I went to see some doctor. I didn't mention him before, and you are not familiar with him. Another option is that it is not important who he is. So I use the word "a".
Then I say: "The doctor said I should get more rest."
Now you already know which doctor I am referring to. I am referring to the doctor I went to see. So I use the word "the."
Another example:
Luke 2:9-10 (WEB)
9 Behold, an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 The angel said to them, “Don’t be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people.
We know Greek does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become "the" in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with "a" or "an." We are not "adding a word" when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but may say "Snoopy is a dog."
For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is "the word," as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word."[*]
So in Luke we have "an" angel who appeared to them. But why is it in the next verse the writer used the definite article? Obviously, because this is the angel mentioned in v.9. Similarly, at John 1:18, the Coptic has "the G/god, the only Son," i.e. the god previously mentioned at John 1:1c, who is the Son of God.
[The angel who appeared to them is not the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament. Some Christians thought this angel is the malakh of the OT, because this angel was called "the angel." According to them, when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. We know the angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself as God, and exercises the responsibilities of God.]
* See: BeDuhn's book: Truth In Translation
For more studies: Does Coptic John 1:1 contradict Coptic John1:18 ?
For more studies: Does Coptic John 1:1 contradict Coptic John1:18 ?
Thursday, December 19, 2013
"Colossians 2:9" and the CARM
I found that Matt Slick used Colossians 2:9 to support the doctrine that Jesus was God in flesh because it states that the fullness of the "deity" dwells in him, (B.B. Warfield) “that which makes God, God.” According to him Jesus was God in the flesh and this term(i.e. theotes) is proving he is the second person of the Tri-unity.[1] According to Thayer's Lexicon, the Greek word θεότης means "deity, i.e. the state of being God." The BAGD Lexicon defines this term "divine nature, deity, divinity" (pg. 358). And Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon also defines the·o′tes in basically the same way it does thei·o′tes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” p. 792 [2]
In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all the fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father.
Scholar A. T. Robertson says:
All the fulness (pan to pleroma). The same idea as in Col 2:9 pan to pleroma tes theotetos(all the fulness of the Godhead). “A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes” (Lightfoot)
1. Matt Slick is a President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988. He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet. See: Colossians 2:9 and the CARM
2. Thayer's Lexicon and Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
3. Bible Translation and Study pages 69-70; Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pages 158-60.
4. Milton entitled his book, A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone. In its preface, he wrote: “Most authors who have dealt with this subject . . . have relegated to the margin, with brief reference to chapter and verse, the scriptural texts upon which all that they teach is utterly dependent. I, on the other hand, have striven to cram my pages even to overflowing, with quotations drawn from all parts of the Bible.” True to Milton’s word, On Christian Doctrine alludes to or quotes the Scriptures over 9,000 times.
In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all the fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father.
Is the "fullness" in this verse the same "fullness" mentioned in Colossians 2:9? Methodist commentator Adam Clarke believes so. Commenting on Colossians 1:19, he remarks:
"The πληρωμα, or fullness, must refer here to the divine nature dwelling in Jesus Christ."
"The πληρωμα, or fullness, must refer here to the divine nature dwelling in Jesus Christ."
All the fulness (pan to pleroma). The same idea as in Col 2:9 pan to pleroma tes theotetos(all the fulness of the Godhead). “A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes” (Lightfoot)
Greg Stafford makes a point:
The Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty God's powers and attributes are something contingent upon the "will" or "decree" of another. Such is the case, however, with the fullness belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. God "chose" (Goodspeed),"decided" (Beck), "willed" (Moffatt) to have all His attributes displayed in the person of His Son.
Stafford continues:
However, it is actually uncommon in reading through different commentaries and articles that discuss issues connected with 1:19 and 2:9 to find a scholar who tries to disconnect what is said in the two passages. This is likely because they do not see the problem involved in the use of eudokeo (the verb translated 'to please'). [3]
If Christ were God the same as the Father, he would have all the fullness of deity of his own right, not because of a decision taken by someone else. It would make no sense to say that Jesus is God, but it was the Father's decision that all the fullness of deity dwelt in him. And if he never ceased being God, he would always have the fullness of deity. Of course, regardless of whether we understand Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 to be talking about the same thing, Colossians 1:19 presents great difficulties for Trinitarians. Whatever the plerotes mentioned in that verse is, how come Christ received it? And what was his position before receiving it? How does that affect his supposed equality with God?
Milton makes this comment:
"These passages most clearly evince that Christ has received his fullness from God, in the sense in which we shall receive our fullness from Christ. It is of no weight in proving that Christ is of the same essence with God." —John Milton, On Christian Doctrine. [4]
_______________________________________________________________If Christ were God the same as the Father, he would have all the fullness of deity of his own right, not because of a decision taken by someone else. It would make no sense to say that Jesus is God, but it was the Father's decision that all the fullness of deity dwelt in him. And if he never ceased being God, he would always have the fullness of deity. Of course, regardless of whether we understand Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 to be talking about the same thing, Colossians 1:19 presents great difficulties for Trinitarians. Whatever the plerotes mentioned in that verse is, how come Christ received it? And what was his position before receiving it? How does that affect his supposed equality with God?
Milton makes this comment:
"These passages most clearly evince that Christ has received his fullness from God, in the sense in which we shall receive our fullness from Christ. It is of no weight in proving that Christ is of the same essence with God." —John Milton, On Christian Doctrine. [4]
1. Matt Slick is a President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988. He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet. See: Colossians 2:9 and the CARM
2. Thayer's Lexicon and Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
3. Bible Translation and Study pages 69-70; Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pages 158-60.
4. Milton entitled his book, A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone. In its preface, he wrote: “Most authors who have dealt with this subject . . . have relegated to the margin, with brief reference to chapter and verse, the scriptural texts upon which all that they teach is utterly dependent. I, on the other hand, have striven to cram my pages even to overflowing, with quotations drawn from all parts of the Bible.” True to Milton’s word, On Christian Doctrine alludes to or quotes the Scriptures over 9,000 times.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
Israel’s view of God and his relationship to other divine beings in the He- brew Bible has long been the subject of scholarly debate. The dominant critical consensus since the late nineteenth century holds that Israel’s faith evolved from polytheism or henotheism to monotheism. Passages in the Hebrew Bible that assume the existence of other gods are compared to other passages that put forth the declaration that “there are no other gods besides” the God of Israel as proof of this view. Other scholars who reject this evolutionary paradigm tend to assume passages evincing divine plu- rality actually speak of human beings, or that the other gods are merely idols. This view insists that “monotheism” must mean that the existence of other gods is denied. Both views are problematic and fall short of doing justice to the full description of Israel’s view of God and the heavenly host in the Hebrew Bible. This article overviews the difficulties of each view and offers a coherent alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)