trinities 375 - The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Best Craig - Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 02. 2024
- trinities.org/blog/podcast-37... In this episode I first explain what I mean by “the best Craig” and why in my view we’re not getting that in some recent responses to my arguments. I then respond to some recent podcast episodes by Dr. William Lane Craig here and here, where Craig is not engaging with my arguments, instead dismissing me as a fringe kook who can be safely ignored.
I note how quickly he jumps from the Trinity to the Incarnation, and I challenge him to explain why, on biblical grounds, a doctrine of the Trinity is essential for Christianity. I also point out some mistakes and misunderstandings, as well as his failure to engage with my published critique of his Neo-Apollinarian christology and my views on the fourth gospel.
We again revisit what Craig calls “the modern relation of identity” (really: a modern understanding of identity) and I point out what is now an area of agreement about the concept of identity. Yet based on his recent remarks, Craig doesn’t understand what I think about the identity of God and the Father in the New Testament.
I refute his recent allegation that no New Testament scholar thinks that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus taught to be fully divine; my counterexample is the famous and influential James Dunn. I then offer a few thoughts on his fallback objection that the vast majority of New Testament scholars would disagree.
Lastly, I respond to his brief argument from divine providence and the fourth gospel. Am I committed to God failing in his promised post-resurrection revelation?
Links for this episode @ trinities.org/blog/podcast-37...
podcast 374 - Book Session Identity Crisis - Part 3
podcast 373 - Book Session Identity Crisis - Part 2
podcast 372 - Book Session Identity Crisis - Part 1
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part One
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part Two
Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration
Craig and van Inwagen, Do Numbers Exist?
4 views on the Trinity - William Lane Craig, Dale Tuggy, Beau Branson, William Hasker
the arguments Dr. Craig didn’t want his podcast audience to hear
UCA CZcams channel
podcast 270 - Origen’s “one God”
Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate
Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
Restitutio Podcast 528 Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology (Thomas Gaston)
podcast 176 - Photinus of Sirmium
podcast 286 - Is the Trinity Essential? - Three Views
podcast 291 - From one God to two gods to three “Gods” - John 1 and early Christian theologies
podcast 338 - What John 1 Meant
“Craig’s Contradictory Christ”
podcast 344 - Craig’s Contradictory Christ - Part 2
podcast 343 - Craig’s Contradictory Christ - Part 1
the pythagorean theorem
How much did Aristotle understand about numerical sameness (identity)?
Debating Dale Starter Pack
James Dunn
Dunn, Christology in the Making
Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?
SEP “Trinity” 1.4 The Trinity as Incoherent
Molinism, a.k.a. Middle Knowledge
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
This week's thinking music is "Lan Voon" by Van Loon. freemusicarchive.org/music/va...
Chapters:
00:00:22 Introduction
00:02:31 The Best Dale, The Best Craig
00:05:39 Disappointments and Misrepresentations
00:21:54 "The Modern Relation of Identity"
00:32:01 Scholarly Consensus on New Testament
00:34:21 Scholarly Ignorance of Alternate Views
00:40:57 Worship of Jesus in New Testament
00:47:51 Divine Providence and Unitarianism
00:51:34 Fulfillment of Jesus' Promise
I am a classical Reformed Christian, however, al my favorite Theologians and podcasters are not in my camp. I enjoy the interactions and engagement with the arguments. Tips to Mullins, Tuggy, and others for their good works.
The REV, but I don’t know that you can get it in print yet. There’s an app for it though.
I usually read from the ESV, but no matter what translation, it’s always important to read within the historical culture and context, and within the context of the Bible as a whole.
I think it’s very Christian and gentlemanly that Dr. Tuggy chose to criticize himself before mentioning any criticisms of his interlocutor. More scholars serious about their faith ought to conduct themselves in this manner…
You brought up an excellent point. That being "why are people not Christian unless they believe in a trinitarian God theory" ??
This notion struck me and I've been trying to make sense of it since. There are three doctrinal beliefs that must be adhered to In order to be considered mainstream Christianity.
There is a lot of variance among smaller doctrinal positions allowed, so long you adhere to the Trinity doctrine - Eternal hellfire & Immortality of the soul.......... in that case you are apparently in the Christian club.
For instance, You can be the Lutheran church, which allows openly homosexual pastors to teach the congregation And that doesn't kick you out of the club, But if you don't believe in the trinity you're out !
You can believe in something as insane as purgatory, But you are still in the club. You're totally not a cult.... nor are you heretical.
You can be the presbyterian church Which literally plasters LGBT Flags Directly onto its churchs and THAT doesn't kick you out.
So basically any behavior that very obviously violates christian ethic is allowed.
It's just THESE 3 doctrines!!
Look into this......... You'll see that it's true.
Today I was in an urge to hear smart people talking. The 2 that came into my mind were Craig and Tuggy., so I needed to chose which. Ended up choosing Tuggy .Funny that I managed to hear both at the same time. Unfortunately Craig was not saying smart things here, but elsewhere he is brilliant, especially on Molinism
It seems to me, that using the word 'heretical', early on in a discussion, is a tactic to try and warn off the listener. So that they've had their judgement coloured, before they get a proper chance to honestly evaluate the view. The word, for many, will conjure up ideas of being rejected by friends, and family, and becoming an anathema at their local church. Not to mention, fear of losing their salvation. So, once someone's view is branded heretical, is it even safe to listen to that person? Craig and others, possibly hope that peoples fear of being one will be enough to poison the well, before any water gets drawn out.
If this is the case, it perhaps betrays a certain lack of confidence in their chosen doctrine. That they have to use some psychological manipulation first. That is, by using the word 'heretical', it manipulates the mind to think negatively about the view, or to avoid it entirely.
I am looking for Unitarian Type Bible, Any suggestions?
Any bible is Unitarian. Trinitarians pretend it's supports their views. It's make believe land
17:19 - _"So if someone's going to affirm the deity of Christ, they are going to need some sort of two natures theory..."_
I affirm "the deity of Christ", and I reject any "two natures" theory. (And no, that doesn't make me a "docetist".)
There is one unipersonal God who is, in essence, a Spirit. This unipersonal God "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and manifested _himself_ on earth *in genuine human form,* as _his own_ Son, "the man Christ Jesus".
The man Christ Jesus is not, in essence, a human who was created by God. The man Christ Jesus is the genuinely human manifestation of the unipersonal God himself.
Hi. That's interesting. Does 'your' Jesus have a human spirit and a human mind? if so, you surely need a two natures doctrine. If not, then he is not 'genuinely human', but only the appearance of a human being (which is docetism).
@@davidkemball-cook559
Do·ce·tism
/dōˈsēdizəm/
noun
the doctrine, important in Gnosticism, that Christ's body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent.
I don't believe that. Nor do I have to believe that if I reject the "two natures" theory while also affirming "the deity of Christ".
The man Christ Jesus, God's genuinely human manifestation, had all the constituent elements of a human, minus the capacity to sin. God doesn't have to unite "two natures" in order to manifest himself on earth in genuine human form, and genuinely experience what created human beings experience.
@@euston2216 Thx. I am corrected about the meaning of 'docetism'. Sorry about that silly mistake. But anyway, you say 'your' Jesus had all the constituent elements of a human (minus capacity to sin). So he had a human mind and a human spirit, according to you. But I presume that he also had the divine Mind and the divine Spirit, or perhaps better stated as the divine Mind and Spirit dwelling in him. So it seems that according to you Jesus has a human mind and the divine Mind , and a human spirit and the divine Spirit, together side by side as it were.
Obvious questions then arise, for instance about Jesus' knowledge and death.
Here are three (but there are many more!):
1) Was he omniscient?
2) Were his earliest memories of his infancy or of being there before the foundation of the world?
3) Did he really die on the cross, or did part of him die and part carry on living?
Trinitarians and oneness people try to answer these using a doctrine of two natures.
Personally I think that the doctrine makes no sense, but it is what people use.
How do you answer these questions?
@@davidkemball-cook559
No apology necessary. And you're right, the "two natures" doctrine makes no sense.
I start with the unipersonal God, an omnipotent Spirit being whom we humans cannot begin to comprehend, and who dwells eternally *far beyond our space-time continuum.* Just over 2,000 years ago (from our perspective), this unipersonal God "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and manifested himself on earth in genuine human form *_within_** our space-time continuum.*
So over the course of 33-plus years, we have the unipersonal God dwelling simultaneously in two incomprehensibly different levels of existence: (1) his eternal level of existence _far beyond_ our space-time continuum, in which he is omniscient, in which he cannot be tempted, in which he cannot die, etc., and (2) a genuinely human level of existence _within_ our space-time continuum, in which he genuinely did not know certain things, in which he could genuinely experience what it's like to be tempted, and in which he could genuinely die (and be raised from the dead by his own eternal self, just as he promised - John 2:19).
*1 TIMOTHY 3:16 (KJV)*
And without controversy *great* is the *mystery* of godliness: *GOD was manifest in the flesh,* justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
@@euston2216 Thanks Euston. So then, my questions remain unanswered don't they?
NB I am assuming that for you Jesus was a person. Indeed the NT portrays him as such, and describes him as knowing certain things and ignorant of others, and calls him a man. It tells us that this man died on the cross. (If that is not your understanding, please say so.)
Does your Christology enable you to answer my three questions?
Well, Craig is a good debater but in his debates with Shelly kagan, Sean Carrol, Scott Cliffton, etc, he was literally flogged.
He only dialogued with Clifton. It wasn't a debate. And he definitely wasn't flogged. It was more a stalemate with Sean Carroll and Shelly Kagan.
Hey look everyone, the person I disagree with already was "flogged"!