A Unitarian who denies the Trinity
This dialogue occurred in the CARM discussion room with a person who the strongly denies the doctrine of the Trinity.
Amigo: But to claim you
reason it and then claim your conclusion is a mystery is absurd
Matt: Amigo, do not
make the mistake of subjecting God to your understanding. You
must believe what the word of God says.
Amigo: I do believe what
it say, You don't. The reasoning is faulty Matt. Totally.
Matt: What reasoning?
Amigo: The reasoning Trinitarians
use to come up with this farce.
Matt: What reasoning
is that?
Amigo: Pick one of your
reasons and I will illustrate.
Matt: No, you are
the one who said that the reasoning of the Trinity is incorrect.
Amigo: Yes I am
Matt: I'm asking
you to demonstrate to me if you understand how the doctrine of the Trinity
is arrived at.
Amigo: Totally incorrect
Matt: I want to find
out if you are understanding what you're criticizing
Amigo: It is arrived at
by:
Amigo: 1. Observing the
Bible says there is only one God. The Bible says there is only
one God. 2. Observing that three persons are called "god".
3. Concluding that these three persons are therefore the one God
Matt: Which one of
those three points is incorrect?
Amigo: Observation no.
2 is wrong.
Amigo: Also...
Matt: How is it wrong?
Amigo: The logic uses a
fallacy of equivocation. It also Assumes the Hs is a 3rd person.
Matt: Actually, it
doesn't assume it, it concludes it. Which is your third point.
Amigo: No. 2 is wrong because
the Bible never refers to Jesus as God
Matt: The issue is
dealing with point number two
Amigo: No Matt those points
never demonstrate the Hs is a person... it assumes it
Matt: That is incorrect.
The Bible definitely refers to Jesus as God
Amigo: Nowhere Matt.
Nowhere. Pick one.
Matt: Heb. 1:8, But
of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..."
Amigo: And you know the
literal Greek says, "the throne of you the god to the age of the age",
correct?
Matt: Are you able
to read Greek?
Amigo: Please answer my
question
Matt: I will answer
your question after I verify to some extent that you can read Greek.
Could you please parse the verb "ego".
Amigo: Oh please Matt,
let's not play games.
Matt: I'm not playing
again. You made an assertion. I'm trying to verify it. You said
that you can read Greek.
Amigo: Trinitarian scholars
themselves admit Heb 1:8 can be translated differently
Matt: If you can,
then you should be able to parse the verb "ego".
Amigo: And here you are
trying to pretend this is not the case
Matt: This is not
a game at all
Amigo: Ego is not a verb
Matt: I'm pretending
nothing. I am simply trying to establish whether or not you can do that.
Matt: Good.
Testing you... now, can you parse "eimi"?
Amigo: Just so we don't
get bogged down in this silly game, Assume I can't read Greek.
Now get back to Heb 1:8
Matt: I will assume
you can't, since you do not seem to be able to parse "eimi".
Amigo: Do you admit that
scholars confess that this verse can be translated differently (the
grammar allows it). And their conclusion comes from theology not
the grammar
Matt: Are you aware
that the noun "thronos" and "theos" in Heb. 1:8, both end in the omicron
sigma form? That is the masculine singular.
Amigo: Irrelevant
Stick to the question at hand.
Matt: It is extremely
relevant because the vocative and the nominative cases in Greek are
the same. Position is what determines the meaning.
Nevertheless, are you also aware that it is a quote from Psalm 45:6
Amigo: I am aware of that
so you have 2 (two) options to pick from. Why do you choose the
one you do?
Matt: In the Hebrew
it is translated as thy throne "O God" with "O God" being in the vocative.
Amigo: No, no
Matt: Yes.
Amigo: The RSV does not
translate it that way does it? Are you going to now say your Greek is
better than theirs?
Matt: Uh.... it is
the Hebrew..... fyi
Matt: In seminary,
I specifically asked my Hebrew professor about Psalm 45:6 and this issue.
Amigo: Your divine throne
endures for ever and ever RSV.
Matt: He said the
Hebrew is translated properly as, "Thy throne O God is forever and ever."
Amigo: Of course he did...
its the stock Trinitarian answer.
Matt: If you want
to quote the ASV as being authentic, I will quote the NASB
Amigo: So why is he contesting
the RSV translation then? Do you charge they are Wrong?
Matt: Since the great
majority of the English translations translates Psalm 45:6 as "Thy Throne,
O God, is forever and ever," I will conclude that that is the proper
translation
Matt: So why not
the NASB then? That [the RSV] is not the best translation.
Amigo: Well of course
Matt.... the majority are Trinitarian
translations... ask the fox who should be in the henhouse why don't
you?
Matt: Bibles do not
always translate things perfectly. But it will not help your case to
go find a Bible translation that suits your theological prejudices.
It is not a matter of bias. That is what they Hebrew says. The fact
is that you don't like it and so you look for translation to fit your
position.
Amigo: Theological prejudice?
ridiculous... I was a happy Trinitarian. Sorry Matt but you are
just insisting for what you want it to say.
Matt: The Bible clearly
teaches that Jesus Christ is God in Hebrews 1:8. Let me ask a
question. Do you deny that Jesus Christ is God in flesh?
Amigo: The text says, "the
throne of you the God to the age of the age" signifying Jesus has ascended
to the authority of the throne of God. Of course I deny it
Matt: Didn't the
Pharisees also deny that Jesus was God in flesh?
Amigo: The Pharisees nowhere
thought he claimed to be God, including John 10:30 and 8:58
Matt: Yes they did.
John 10:30-34. "The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus
answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for
which of these do you stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, It is not
for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being
a man, make yourself God."
Amigo: And that's why Jesus
responded by discussing other gods right? Sorry but it says, "make
yourself a god".
Matt: So you can
see that the Jews thought that Jesus was claiming to be God
Amigo: No they didn't.
Matt: That is what
the text says.
Amigo: Jesus tells you
how He understood them... why do you ignore that fact?
Matt: John 10:33,
"The Jews answered him, 'It is
not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because
you, being a man, make yourself God.'
Amigo: Nope
Matt: You mean the
text is wrong?
Amigo: "make yourself a
god"
Matt: You mean the
Jews did not think that Jesus was making himself God?
Amigo: No your Trinitarian
translation is wrong. No they didn't.
Matt: You mean that
verse is wrong?
Amigo: No I mean your translation
of that verse is wrong.
Amigo: Why do you say "A
man" but not "A god?" Hmm?
Matt: The ASV,
which you quoted earlier as being valid, says, John 10:33,
"The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a
good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a
man, make yourself God.'
Amigo: Inconsistent translation
practices.
Matt: Ah, so when
they disagree with you, they are wrong.... I see.
Amigo: No definite article
here Matt, "A god". Just as they said "A man".
Matt: You mean Jesus
was making himself "a god"?
Amigo: You ask that I accept
your doctored up evidence? No thanks. No I mean that's what the
Jews charged him with.
Matt: So, you admit
that the Jews were saying that Jesus was claiming to be "a" god?
Amigo: Did you notice they
said "You are blaspheming Because..." No that's not what I said.
I said that is what the Jews charged him with.
Matt: Then please
tell me what it is you are saying. You aren't making any sense.
Amigo: How Jesus understood
their charge, "You are blaspheming,' because I said, "I am the Son of
God'".
Matt: I just checked
the Greek. John 10:33 Is translated accurately as "The Jews answered
him, It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy;
because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Amigo: Your insistence
will not make it so.
Matt: It's not a
matter of insistence. It's simply a matter of reading the Greek.
I just did.
Amigo: Tell me why you
inconsistently do not place an indefinite article in front of God as
you do in front of "man". Tell me.
Matt: The Greeks
says su anthropos hon poieis seaouton theon
Amigo: What is your excuse?
Matt: "you being
a man make your self God"
Amigo: See no definite
article there is there?
Matt: That's what
the literal Greek says.
Amigo: Why do you avoid
this issue? God = The god.
Matt: There is no
definite article. It simply says
"you being a man make yourself God".
Amigo: And there isn't
one for "man" either is there?
Matt: That is the
literal translation.
Amigo: So why do you place
an indefinite article in front of "man"? Why?
Matt: But, the word
"man" in Greek is in the nominative singular implying the definite article.
Amigo: What?
Matt: The word "god"
is in the accusative and does not require a definite article.
Amigo: Notice how Jesus
responded.
Matt: It is the subject
and doesn't need a definite article.
Amigo: "make yourself a
god"..... "You are called gods" Notice how Jesus responded.
And also notice how Jesus understood their charge.
Matt: So, then you're
telling me that the Jews did not say that Jesus was claiming to be God,
right?
Amigo: He understood it
to be a charge of being "the Son of God".
Matt: If not, then
why did they think he was claiming to be?
Amigo: That's what I am
telling you Matt. Jesus Tells You Right Here.
Matt: If the Jews
did not say that Jesus was claiming to be God, then what did they think
he was claiming to be?
Amigo: Ok Listen.
1. They said he blasphemed for making himself a god. 2. Jesus
responds by discussing God calling others gods. 3. Jesus concludes
by asking why then would they say he was blaspheming for claiming to
be "the Son of God". Jesus tells you how he understood the charge...
why do you ignore this?
Matt: I'm not ignoring
anything. please don't accuse me of that.
Amigo: Well then explain
yourself... repeated self reaffirmations do not make a case for you
Matt: Explain myself
for what??
Amigo: Jesus tells you
how he understood the charge... heed it.
Amigo: For ignoring how
Jesus understood the charge
Matt: Jesus was quoting
Psalm 82:6. That Psalm dealt with the judges of Israel who were unrighteous.
He was mocking them because in Psalm 82:7, the very next verse, it says
"nevertheless, you will die like men."
Amigo: Oh brother
Matt: Jesus was condemning
the Jewish leadership by comparing them to the unrighteous judges of
Psalm 82.
Amigo: Jesus mocking?
Matt: If you were
unaware of this, perhaps you should go study some more and then come
back later.
Amigo: I don't think so
Matt: The religious
leaders of Jesus time were behaving as unrighteous judges.
Amigo: Jesus liked to mock
people did he?
Matt: Jesus condemned
them by quoting scripture. They were clearly accusing him of claiming
to be divine.
Amigo: Yes and here was
his point... if God called you gods what is the problem with me being
a Son of God?
Matt: And, they denied
that he was divine, just like you do. You agree with them.
Amigo: He was showing them
to be hypocrites.
Matt: He would showing
them to be unrighteous judges. Now, let's see if you understand
something.
Amigo: Not here Matt.
Ok let's see if You understand Matt.
Matt: Please tell
me where it is in the Scriptures where Jesus said what he did, that
caused the Jews to misunderstand what he was claiming. What was
it that Jesus said that caused the Jews to think that he was claiming
some sort of divinity? Obviously, they were reacting to something he
said. What was it?
Amigo: They were reacting
to his claim to be the Son of God. And that's what they charged
him with in the end.
Matt: You mean the
Jews thought that the claim "son of God" meant that he was divine?
Amigo: No.
Matt: Does the term
"son of God" mean that Jesus is God?
Amigo: They thought that
meant he was claiming to be greater than them. No son of God does
not mean one is God anymore than son of Adam means one is Adam
Matt: If the term
"son of God" means that Jesus Christ is not God, then what does the
term "Son of Man" mean?
Amigo: The term son of
man means that one is a descendent of the first man Adam. The
term son of God means one is a son of that person God. It means God
was his father and conceived him.
Matt: John 5:18,
"For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was
calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
Amigo: And I should also
ask you who Jesus' father is... the Spirit or the Father?
Matt: As you can
see, contextually, the term some of God, calling God his own father,
meant to make one's self equal with God.
Amigo: Did you ever notice
Matt that "god" in this passage is not Jesus? I am equal with
other people in many senses... it does not therefore mean I am those
people does it?
Matt: Are you equal
with God?
Amigo: Even If you were
granted that Jesus share his divine nature that still would not amount
to Jesus being identified as God. No.
Matt: Jesus claimed
to be equal with God.
Amigo: Identity is one
thing, nature another
Matt: God knows all
things, correct? Jesus knows all things.
Amigo: How was he equal
Matt? Where is your proof? Or do you just imagine what you want it to
be?
Matt: God is in all
places, correct?
Amigo: Jesus did not know
the day or hour, Matt.
Matt: Jesus is in
all places.
Amigo: The person did not
know.
Matt: John 21:17,
peter says that Jesus knew all things.
Amigo: Jesus Can Be in
many places... he is risen life-giving Spirit
Matt: You mean Jesus
is not a man right now?
Amigo: Well then Matt,
I guess John contradicts Jesus right?
Matt: No, they don't
contradict each other. Your understanding does. So, are you telling
me that Jesus is not a man right now?
Amigo: Never said any such
thing Matt.. why do you misrepresent me?
Matt: It's a question.
Are you telling me that Jesus is not a man right now? Please learn
the difference between a question and a statement.
Amigo: Never said any such
thing.
Matt: Let me ask
you again. Are you saying that Jesus is not a man right now?
Amigo: You need to learn
how to not misrepresent. No.
Matt: Okay. Is he
a man right now?
Amigo: Yes.
Matt: Then you're
not a Jehovah's Witness
Amigo: No.
Matt: Are you aware
of the phrase in the Old Testament "call upon the name of Jehovah"?
Amigo: Of course.
Amigo: Gonna play an association
game now are we?
Matt: Are you also
aware that that phrase is used of Jehovah and means prayer, worship,
etc.? And, are you also aware that it is applied only to God, The God?
Amigo: Matt, YHVH made
Jesus Lord in his resurrection. Do you know How he did that?
See John 17:5.
Matt: Are you also
aware that that phrase is used of Jehovah and means prayer, worship,
etc.? and, are you also aware that it is applied only to God, The God?
Amigo: No, that is not
quite correct Matt. The phrase implies the authority of YHVH
Matt: Yes, it is
correct.
Matt: That phrase
is used of God repeatedly. Since it contains the divine name of God,
it is applied only to God himself.
Amigo: In Jesus' resurrection,
he was made Lord by being glorified with the Father himself
Matt: Can we please
stay on-topic?
Amigo: We are on topic
Matt.
Amigo: Perhaps you don't
want to listen? And instead flog your creed?
Matt: I am talking
about the phrase "Call upon the name of Jehovah".
Amigo: I know that.
I am completely aware of this game.
Matt: That phrase
is what I'm talking about. Okay?
Amigo: I was a Trinitarian
remember?
Matt: I remember.
That phrase is a very important phrase.
Amigo: Absolutely.
All the Bible is important/
Matt: It is used
in various contexts in the Old Testament. It is always and only in reference
to the Almighty God. Never anyone or anything else. The phrase
is used in different contexts and means to worship God, to pray to God,
to seek his face and his will, etc.
Amigo: In the OT it is
Always (note the always) used in reference to YHVH. Always. Always.
Matt: Do you know
how the Jews translated that phrase into the Greek?
Amigo: Kyrios
Matt: Ho Kurios
Amigo: Whatever
Matt: The phrase
in Greek, in the Septuagint, is "Call upon the name of the Lord".
Right?
Amigo: Correct
Matt: Please hold
for a second.
Amigo: Its Php 2:11 you
are looking for Matt.
Matt:
"Unto the church
of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus,
called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name
of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours," (1 Cor. 1:2).
Amigo: And Acts 2.
Yes.
Matt: Note: In the
Greek, it is literally, "call upon the name of the Lord Of Us, Jesus
Christ. This is why the English says, "call upon the name of Our Lord."
Therefore, the phrase is the same.
Amigo: Yes
Matt: The exact same
phrase used only of God in the Septuagint, which means warship, adoration,
prayer, etc., is also applied to Jesus by the apostle Paul.
Amigo: Yes.
Matt: Why is the
phrase "call upon the name of the Lord" (Hebrew, Yhwh, i.e., Psalm 116:4)
used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX
as "call upon the name of the Lord (greek, Kurios)," applied to Jesus
in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?
Amigo: Because YHVH made
Jesus Lord by glorifying Jesus with his own essence. That's also
what Heb 1:8 is about. See also Acts 2:36.
Matt: Let me see
if I understand you properly. Are you telling me that Jesus became a
God?
Amigo: No.
Amigo: Jesus did not become
another person.
Matt: What do you
mean by "Yahweh made Jesus Lord of by glorifying Jesus with his own
essence"?
Amigo: The risen Jesus
shares the Father's divine nature.
Matt: God's divine
nature belongs to God alone.
Amigo: That would be Holy
Spirit to be specific.
Matt: That is the
nature of God's divinity, to be what he is. The first law of logic is
the law of identity. Something is what it is.
Amigo: Your own insistences
do not make things so Matt.
Matt: God is divine
by nature. That is what he is.
Amigo: Nature is one thing,
identity another... you should know this.
Matt: How does God
share his divine nature with a created thing? Does he make the
created thing divine?
Amigo: Eve shared Adam's
nature... didn't make her Adam did it?
Matt: Both were of
human nature. Does God extend his divine nature into the essence of
the created thing and change its nature?
Amigo: Please clarify your
question
Matt: Both were by
nature human. How is it that you can claim that Jesus is not God in
flesh, but shares the divine nature of God the Father?
Amigo: And both the risen
Jesus and the Father are by nature divine
Matt: So both Jesus
and the Father share the same divine nature?
Amigo: Because sharing
nature is not sharing identity Matt. Ask Eve.
Matt: I'm not talking
about identity. I'm talking about nature. Adam and Eve shared the same
nature. They were both human in nature.
Amigo: And it didn't mean
Eve was Adam does it?
Matt: Of course not
Amigo. If you say that Jesus is a man right now, and if you say that
he is divine in nature, then how is he not God and Man at the same time?
Matt: Can you please
answer my question?
Amigo: Let me illustrate
something right here Matt. You use the term "god" in two ways
and commit the fallacy of equivocation.. look up at your statement...
there "god" is not an identity but a nature.
Matt: If you say
that Jesus is a man right now, and as you say that he has a divine in
nature, then how is he not God and Man at the same time?
Amigo: The risen Jesus
is divine (same nature as the Father) and is also man.... he now has
One nature.
Matt: Amigo, you'll
notice that just a few lines earlier, I used the term "divine nature"
Amigo: Divinized humanity.
Matt: Wait a minute.
A human nature is not a divine nature. That would be two separate natures.
By definition they are different.
Amigo: That would be a
sort of Gnostic way to think Matt
Matt: I agree that
you are thinking in a Gnostic manner. If Jesus is the possessor of a
divine nature and a human nature, then he has two natures.
Amigo: Jesus is a New kind
of humanity... divinized flesh.
Matt: I see.... so
Jesus is now a new third thing?
Amigo: The Gnostics couldn't
handle that... seems neither can you.
Matt: Jesus is kind
of a human-man/divinized being? You are being illogical. You're
violating the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.
Amigo: No, the Man Jesus
was divinized in his resurrection... glorified in the Spirit of God
Matt: A divine nature
is not the same as a human nature. They are by definition different.
You cannot have one nature become the other nature.
Amigo: That was true at
one time Matt... not anymore.
Matt: That would
be a change in natures. "You saying it so, doesn't make it so."
Amigo: Jesus human nature
was divinized by God... have a problem with that?
Matt: You have violated
the first and second laws of logic, of law of identity and the law of
non-contradiction.
Amigo: That's why he is
"life-giving Spirit".
Matt: You said that
Jesus was a man.
Amigo: His physical body
is swallowed up by Spirit, death swallowed up in victory. He was and
is.
Matt: That means
he has a human nature. So let me ask you. Does Jesus have a human
nature right now?
Amigo: He does, a new kind
of human nature, a divinized one. The same one he had before made
immortal. The Spirit is life.
Matt: I ask again.
Does Jesus have a human nature right now?
Amigo: Yes, a divinized
one. Same body, glorified.
Matt: What exactly
is a divinized human nature?
Amigo: Even your champion
of the Trinity Athanasius believed this. Do you not know this?
Matt: What exactly
is a divinized human nature?
Amigo: He went even further...
"God became man so men might become gods".
Matt: What exactly
is a divinized human nature?
Amigo: That's your Trinity
champion speaking there.
Matt: What exactly
is a divinized human nature?
Amigo: A divinized human
nature is a resurrected body.... a body glorified in Spirit. Read
your Bible.
Matt: I see. so you
are now inventing definitions.
Amigo: All the early church
knew this Matt. Including Athanasius.
Matt: A resurrected
body is still a material body.
Amigo: Of course it is.
Gnostics can't comprehend this.
Matt: First Corinthians
15 tells us that the body that is sown is also the body that is raised.
Amigo: Yes it is
Matt: It is a glorified
body. It is not made divine since divinity is the quality of God's nature.
Amigo: Same body, glorified,
divinized.
Matt: What you have
done is redefined what it means to be glorified in bodily form, and
then attached the vague term "divinized" to it.
Amigo: No I haven't.
God is Spirit... and it is raised life-giving Spirit
Matt: Your position
is not founded in Scripture nor logic.
Amigo: Ok You explain what
a spiritual body is Matt.. and also what "life-giving Sprit" means
Matt: You have violated,
as I said before, the law of logic known as the law of identity, and
also the second law, the law of non-contradiction.
Matt: A spiritual
body is a body that has been resurrected, is no longer subject to pain,
suffering, and death.
Amigo: No violation here
Matt... just God's supernatural power. Why is it "spiritual" Matt?
Matt: Jesus, the
life-giving spirit, is described in that aspect of his perfected and
glorified state, as God in flesh, in which he is the author of our salvation
and the one who gives life, eternal life.
Amigo: Let;'s see who invents.
Lol
Matt: You're the
one who's been inventing things.
Amigo: The text is about
the resurrected body not a treatise on salvation.
Matt: So, do you
pray to Jesus?
Amigo: Of course
Matt: Do you worship
Jesus?
Amigo: He is my Lord and
Savior
Amigo: Of course
Matt: Is Jesus a
created thing?
Amigo: I've been down all
these roads Matt
Matt: Is Jesus a
created thing?
Amigo: No the Word is Not
created. Begotten out of God at Genesis 1:3
Matt: I asked if
Jesus is a created thing.
Amigo: Not a point in time
but the place where time began. I told you No. Listen and
pay attention please.
Matt: Are you telling
me then that Jesus is eternal? .... that Jesus never had a beginning?
Amigo: The Word of God
is eternal, the Son is not.
Matt: Is Jesus the
son of God?
Amigo: Just as I once was
not a father. Yes.
Matt: So Jesus the
Son of God was not eternal?
Amigo: There was no son
in "eternity past" no, no father either, just God. Tertullian could
help you on this one.
Matt: Again, so Jesus
the son of God was not eternal?
Amigo: The Word was eternal,
the same Word that became flesh and dwelt among us
Matt: The word was
God, right?
Amigo: Wrong
Amigo: The Word was god.
The word was Not God? Divine No. My words are not
me either, they are an expression of me.
Matt: The Bible says
that the Word was God, John 1:1
Amigo: Wrong again
Matt: I guess you
don't believe the Bible.
Amigo: Oh I believe it....
how you love to misrepresent people eh?
Amigo: I can say the same
about you Matt.
Matt: Well, the Bible
says "In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the
word was God."
Amigo: No it doesn't...
your mistranslation does
Matt: That's what
it says, that the Word was God. I believe that.
Amigo: You believe what
tickles your ears
Matt: Let me translate
it for you literally.
Amigo: Sure you go ahead
Matt. And I will illustrate your error for you.
Matt: "In beginning
was the word and the word was with/toward the God and God was the word."
That is the literal translation.
Amigo: That's not literal
Matt.
Matt: Yes it is.
Amigo: Nope. Even
Trinitarian scholars confess there is no definite article for a reason.
The leading ones in fact.
Matt: On the contrary.
I just performed a translation from the Greek into the English literally.
Amigo: If that's what you
want Matt... but stamping your feet won't make it so.
Matt: Let me do it
again: "In the beginning was the word and the word was with/toward the
God and God was the word."
It is you who was stamping your feet.
I'm just telling you what the literal Greek is. John 1:1 is very very easy Greek.
This is not difficult to translate.
Amigo: Leading Trinitarian
scholars admit that the second instance of theos is Not a reference
to identity but to nature... do you realize that Matt? It is not
tell you Who the word was but What the word was
Matt: All I was doing
was telling you what the literal translation was. Do you have a problem
with that? Why do you have a problem with that?
Amigo: Well jump up and
down and stamp your feet then. Your first clue.
Matt: You want me
to put on my web cam so you can see that I'm not jumping up and down
and stamping my feet?
Amigo: There was no such
thing as capitalization conventions in John's day. None
Matt: Okay, How about
this then. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with/toward
the god and god was the word."
Amigo: In the beginning
was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word
Matt: Is that good
enough?
Amigo: Yes that would be
fine.
Matt: I see, so then
contrary to what you said earlier, my translation is correct, since
you agree with it.
Amigo: Your translation
was wrong.
Matt: You are stumbling
over yourself now.
Amigo: Obviously the term
sentences "It is Sandy" and "it is sandy" mean two different things
don't they Matt? You try to change the meaning of the text by
adding a capitalization convention that John did not use. John
intend, "and the word was god (divine)" Trinitarian scholars agree.
Matt: My inclusion
of the capitalization was nothing more than a habit when referring to
God. My apologies for capitalizing the word "god".
Amigo: It misleads people
into thinking you are identifying the word as God.. something Trinitarian
scholars admit John did not intend to do. He was not telling us
Who the word was but What. The proper way to write such a thing
would be "and the word was god". That is, divine. In the
same sense the Father was divine.
Matt: Well, I suppose
we could do a scholar's war and say that my scholar can beat up your
scholar. I've spoken with many cultists who have referred to vague references
of the majority of scholars who agree with them. The funny thing is
that when they often quote the Trinitarian scholars about John 1:1,
they forget that the scholars are indeed Trinitarian.
Matt: So anyway,
I was right about the translation of John 1:1
Amigo: Just about All your
scholars confess this Matt.
Matt: Even though
you said I was wrong, you admitted that was right. That is a good step
Amigo: I admitted nothing
Matt. Please don't be childish.
Matt: If you notice,
I have not made a statement at all about the nature of the word "logos"
or "god" in the sentence...yet... I was only trying to get through to
what the translation was. It is you who kept inserting all sorts of
accusations.
Amigo: John is telling
us that the Word that became flesh was with God in the beginning and
in the beginning that Word was divine
Matt: Was Jesus the
word?
Amigo: No that Word became
Jesus. Jesus is a word for a human being born in Nazareth
Matt: Is the word,
divine?
Amigo: Yes. In the
beginning. And now.
Matt: Is the word
God
Amigo: No. Being human
doesn't make you Adam either. Same thing.
Matt: So the Greek
"and the word was god" does not mean that the Word was God??? right?
Amigo: Right
Matt: I see....
Amigo: The English word
"god" means "the Creator". John was not telling you Jesus was
another identity. The English word "god" is a reference to a Who.
The English word god is a qualitative reference to a What. The
English term "a god" is something else again. Jw's. Wrong
Matt: So then, Jesus
is a created thing who became a God?
Amigo: Here is another
thing... Trinitarian scholars confess this so they don't get caught
in Modalism. Jesus' body was a created thing. The Word that
became that created thing was eternal by identity.
Matt: So Jesus has
two natures: Divine and human?
Amigo: No. Never
had or has two natures. Never.
Matt: How many natures
does Jesus have?
Amigo: One and always and
only One.
Matt: A divine nature
and a human nature are different natures.
Amigo: The new Adam, the
new kind of humanity, an immortal kind.
Matt: A divine nature is
not a human nature and a human nature is not a divine nature. By definition,
they are different.
Amigo: Yes they are Matt,
a divine humanity is another one again.
Matt: This is where
you violate logic again.
Amigo: No violation here.
Matt: Sorry, But
you are violating the basic laws of logic. A human nature is not
a divine nature. If you say that Jesus only has one nature, then
it must either be divine or human. A human nature is not a divine
nature. If you say that Jesus only has one nature, then it must
either be divine or human.
Amigo: Wrong again Matt
Matt: There is no
third option unless you want to step in to the ancient error of monophysitism
Amigo: Ever heard the word
"new creation" or "new humanity"
Matt: You are very
confused. That is obvious.
Amigo: What is the new
humanity Matt? Verses "the old man".
Matt: You have invented
a third "thing" a new "divine/human" kind of nature.
Amigo: I invented nothing.
God did this.
Matt: And this is
the heir of the monophysitists
Amigo: Its all there in
your bible plain to see. Monophysitism is an entirely different
thing
Matt: The correct
teaching is that Jesus has two natures. He is both divine and human.
Matt: Jesus exemplifies
attributes of divinity as well as humanity.
Amigo: Incorrect Matt
Matt: Jesus knows
all things and is everywhere all the time.
Matt: Jesus also
walks and talks and has a body of flesh and bones.
Amigo: Didn't know the
day or hour did he Matt?
Matt: We can discover
the attributes of each nature by observing what is recorded in the Gospels.
Amigo: Yes he does have
a body of flesh and bone
Amigo: Then and now
Matt: Since we observe
that Jesus as attributes both of the divine and human natures, we conclude
that Jesus has two natures. This is perfectly logical.
Amigo: Lol. Oh my.
Matt: Your position,
however, is illogical because it violates the law of identity.
Amigo: Doesn't violate
anything Matt.
Matt: It states that
Jesus as a new third kind of thing, a divine human nature.
Amigo: Matt is one person,
Amigo another and God is another.
Matt: But this is
equivalent to saying that a square circle exists.
Amigo: Why Matt?
Matt: A square is
not a circle by definition and a circle is not a square by definition
Matt: By definition,
they exclude each other descriptively.
Amigo: Why can God not
divinize humanity?
Matt: You can have
a square and a circle, but not a square circle
Amigo: That is what glorification
means Matt.
Matt: Likewise, you
can have a human and divine nature, but not a human/divine nature.
Amigo: Well if you think
your own insistences will make it so what can one do?
Matt: What you have
done is denied the word of God, denied Jesus Christ, violated the laws
of logic, invented the illogical presuppositions (in contradiction with
the Scriptures), and even redefined terms to suit your preconceived
ideas.
Amigo: I can demand you
are a pumpkin too... won't make it so.
Matt: Please feel
free to make all the demands that you want.
Amigo: I have denied nothing
Matt... as usual you misrepresent people for the sake of grandstanding.
Matt: Furthermore,
I have not attacked your character or committed the ad hominem attack
as you have just done.
Amigo: So then you also
must insist Athanasius was wrong too right Matt?
Matt: A motive is
not grandstanding. My motive is to bring glory to Jesus Christ.
Amigo: Ad hominems?
Get serious Matt... look in the mirror
Matt: Amigo, it is
difficult, as I said earlier, to continue in a conversation with someone
who violates the laws of logic repeatedly.
Amigo: Well you don't seem
to have much.
Matt: The effect
of sin is also upon the mind.
Amigo: Just your own self
reaffirmations.
Amigo: Pick another favorite
verse so I can illustrate your error on that one too. I have the
truth and that's why I reject the doctrine of the Trinity... it has
so many errors I can hardly believe I ever believed it myself
Matt: 1 John
2:19, "They went out from us,
but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they
would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it
might be shown that they all are not of us."
Amigo: So you can embrace
your creedal god right? Here we go.. the mutual admiration self reaffirmation
society rides again.
[At this point, I basically gave up since it was getting now where. Others began to comment and then Amigo began to address my motives, to which I replied.]Amigo: Seeking approval among one another. Approval among men rather than God.
Matt: Amigo, perhaps you might want to refrain from imposing your opinions about our motives
Amigo: Your motives are plain Matt. Your words betray you.
Matt: Amigo, and what are my motives?
Amigo: If anyone would listen you would find out your error on that one
Matt: Amigo, could you please tell me what my motives are?
Amigo: Your only motive is to paint and color.
Matt: Paint and color? Painting and coloring our actions, not motives.
Amigo: Paint and color others they way you like
Matt: Amigo, could you please tell me what my motives are?
Amigo: Just did.
Matt: So my motives are to paint and to color? Amigo, could you please be more specific when explaining what my motives are? I'm really curious to know.
Amigo: It is all over your website Matt, you wish to color and paint others they way you like in order to advance you own pleasures.
Matt: What "pleasures" are those?
Amigo: Its all over this conversation as well. To serve your creedal god. I rest my case. My motives are to show other people the serious problem with the Trinity... truth is more important to me than serving a creed. Many people adopt a creedal belief that "sounds good" to them and then they put their own stamp "truth" upon it and then lives as if it is so. Truth is not like this... it must be found, not made. The Trinity has many, many, many, many errors. I would think people would like to know about this kind of thing... but some do not... it does not please their itching ears
Matt: Amigo, I was waiting for you to explain to me what my motives were, you know, coloring and painting. Could you please to be more specific?
Amigo: Oh my you just never quit do you Matt
Matt: Yes I do. I have to do something on CARM. I just wanted this last little bit of information.
Amigo: Yeah you want a reason to remove me from the equation... here's some information about that Matt... I don't care.
Matt: Amigo, I was waiting for you to explain to me what my motives were, you know, coloring and painting. Could you please to be more specific?
Amigo: I already have been specific
Amigo: I can play this game too..... please sign into chat Matt.
Matt: Amigo, please excuse me, but I missed it where you were specific. Could you be so kind as to repeat to me what my motives are in plain language?
Amigo: You are not here. I said your only motive is to paint and color other people (who don't agree with you) to suit your own itching ears.
Matt: Amigo, I'd just having difficulty understanding what that means. Could you be more specific?
Amigo: Same reason anyone does that. Is this all your idea of Apologetics?
Matt: Amigo, I guess I'll have to give up after this, but about my motives, could you please explain to me what my motives are again?
Amigo: You didn't understand the first three times?
Matt: No. I need it in more clear language.
Amigo: Your only motives are to paint and color others in order to advance your own creedal agenda despite the truth. I have said it several different ways now, perhaps you will understand this time
Matt: Again, I don't know what it means to paint and color other people.... unless I have a coloring book.... so I'm still confused
Amigo: Really? Well you can choose different colors when you paint can't you Matt?
Matt: Yes
Amigo: You choose whatever pleases you, not the color they are. Painting is an action, the reason for choosing the color is plainly stated. And I can hardly believe you people want to argue about such a ridiculous thing. Perhaps we could argue about the sinfulness of the font size in this box or something.
Matt: Well, thank you for the dialog Amigo. I will put this up on CARM in the apologetics discussion section. It was most interesting.
Amigo: Sure thing Matt. Get out your scissors.
Matt: And I'm sure it will be interesting to others as well.... to see your illogic.