Monday, October 28, 2019

My Trinity-rebuttal to AnnoyedPinoy

"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue.  See here.  He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.

I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).

I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:
Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus' confession of ignorance solely to his "human nature".  But since one's "nature" is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something). 
The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged "natures" is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time. 
You probably believe that a person's mind is their "spirit", and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a "real" human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body).  Ok, was Jesus speaking with his "mind" when he confessed this ignorance?  Is Jesus' "mind" the same as his "spirit"?  Was Jesus' speaking from his "spirit" by divulging the ignorant state of his "mind" in Mark 13:32?  What exactly would be "unreasonable" in saying Jesus' was speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32?   
Was Jesus' spirit separate from the Holy Spirit?  Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons...which implies that Jesus' "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser "human spirit" in addition to his "Holy Spirit".  Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says "receive ye the Holy Spirit" powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called "human spirit" in existence here.  
Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his "mind" in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit's ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance. 
Was the day of Christ's return missing from Jesus' "mind"?  Was it missing from his "spirit"?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a "human mind" that was separate from "Holy Spirit", you'll end up with 4 people in the Trinity...at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation. 
Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!
Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn't even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.

So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

I personally prefer  the second.  Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.

Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite  reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. 

This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God. 

45 comments:

  1. To anyone reading this blog, I responded to barry there at my blogpost.

    //Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice...//

    I wrote a blogpost on Markan Christology that shows how GMark portrays Jesus as divine. Though, I need to edit it by deleting the parts in yellow that's mostly clutter.

    Mark 3:29 [which has parallels in GMatt and GLuke] includes the teaching against blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. I addressed how that suggests the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit HERE.

    //... and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.//

    I and many other Trinitarians would agree that there is doctrinal development between the 1st century and 4th century. I would even grant that there's theological development and growth within the NT books themselves. That doesn't necessarily undermine the truth of Christianity. Some forms of development would, while other forms wouldn't.

    //So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.//

    That assumes that GMark was distributed without further discipleship and deeper teaching by the apostles and evangelists who shared it with others. That doesn't follow. In fact, the GMark is specifically written in a way that invites questions regarding who Jesus is without outright revealing it. I would argue it's hidden in plain sight. As my blogpost Markan Christology argues [persuasively IMO], Jesus is divine, even YHVH. IF [big "IF"], it's true that Mark presents Jesus as divine in some way [which even Bart Ehrman admits], and all the more if YHVH, then Jesus does know the day an hour in some sense, even if He doesn't in another sense.

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //...Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

      That's one possibility. But that's consistent with Christianity. The author(s) of GMark need not resolve every tension or conundrum. It was written to be read in a Christian community and interpreted within a believing community. Even today, authors don't tie up all loose ends in their works [fiction or non-fiction] because readers are meant to ponder their meaning and have discussions. That doesn't necessarily imply a contradiction in GMark internally, or with GMark with the rest of the Bible. Paradoxes and antinomies aren't necessarily contradictions.

      //Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.//

      If Mark is a form of Roman biography, then His childhood wouldn't be absolutely necessary as Mike Licona points out HERE.

      //Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. //

      I hold to some form of Inerrancy by faith. But if it turns out that Inerrancy is false, that's fine with me. I'm fairly familiar with the various alleged Bible contradictions out there that are proposed. The truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth of Inerrancy. Christianity can be true even if there are errors in the Bible [i.e. if Inerrancy is false].

      Delete
    2. The author(s) of GMark need not resolve every tension or conundrum.
      -----But when they don't, you cannot blame skeptics for being skeptical.

      It was written to be read in a Christian community and interpreted within a believing community.
      ------Those patristic sources also say the church had to pester Mark repeatedly to get him to write out that account of Peter's preaching, which sounds like Mark was less enthused about his gospel than you are. A gospel author who DOESN'T want to write for the believing community (!?)

      Even today, authors don't tie up all loose ends in their works [fiction or non-fiction] because readers are meant to ponder their meaning and have discussions.
      -----Then you cannot blame skeptics for having skeptical discussions about Mark.

      That doesn't necessarily imply a contradiction in GMark internally, or with GMark with the rest of the Bible.
      -----When dealing with ancient historical documents, whether a statement or omission constitutes "contradiction" isn't judged on the basis of possibility or "necessarily", but on the basis of probability. And since most people don't speak with technical precision, skeptics cannot be required to smackdown every possible harmonization scenario, they will remain reasonable to offer a skeptical interpretation that is equally or more reasonable than a harmonization scenario.

      Paradoxes and antinomies aren't necessarily contradictions.
      -------correct. But skeptics aren't losing the inerrancy debate merely because they cannot show some alleged contradiction is "necessary".

      Delete
    3. If Mark is a form of Roman biography, then His childhood wouldn't be absolutely necessary as Mike Licona points out HERE.
      --------Once again, in evaluating historical testimony, the issue is not whether an author would have found a certain source "absolutely necessary". The question is simply

      Did Mark likely know the nativity stories that Matthew and Luke knew?

      Did those nativity stories contain elements that would have supported Mark's theme that Jesus is the son of God?

      Of course, extremist apologists will try to get rid of the entire problem by suggesting there's no reason to assume Mark knew about the nativity stories. But it is more reasonable to assume that the subject would be a topic of natural curiosity during Jesus' own lifetime given his alleged claims to be "god". In that collectivist culture, the apostles would not have maintained separation from Mary, see Acts 1 where she and her other sons are present with the apostles. The notion that they simply didn't think information about Jesus' childhood was interesting or edifying is total bullshit. So IF the nativity stories are historically literal and true, it is more likely that they DID know such stories, and their edifying nature led them to tell these stories to their followers (Peter telling Mark).

      So it doesn't matter what YOUR theory is, the skeptical theory that says the truth of the nativity stories would have caused Mark to become knowledgable of them before he wrote, is going to continue being reasonable.

      The next move extremist apologists will make is that Mark may have had his reasons for excluding such stories, but that's using a mere possibility, when in fact the debate is about whose theory has greater probability.

      So since Mark likely knew the nativity stories before he wrote, yet chose to exclude them, the skeptical theory that says he excluded them because he thought they were false, is not going to become unreasonable merely because you can cite a host of other possibilities.

      Delete
    4. I and many other Trinitarians would agree that there is doctrinal development between the 1st century and 4th century. I would even grant that there's theological development and growth within the NT books themselves. That doesn't necessarily undermine the truth of Christianity. Some forms of development would, while other forms wouldn't.
      -------one form of such development would be one that even most conservative evangelical scholars recognize...that Matthew often "corrects" Mark, logically implying Mark adopted a lower Christology (i.e., what we typically assume anyway...the earlier story is the one usually less embellished).

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. I hold to some form of Inerrancy by faith.
      ------Which makes it appear that you agree there is some blindness in "faith", which is precisely what would prevent you from dogmatizing that skepticism of Christianity is unreasonable.


      But if it turns out that Inerrancy is false, that's fine with me.
      -------but it wouldn't be fine for extremist inerrantists like Steve Hays and Norman Geisler, who would cry "all is lost!" should that day come. That implicates the question of whether or how long a skeptic must study the differences Christians have with each other about the importance of inerrancy, before we become justified to start drawing ultimate conclusions about it. Since you cannot define that term of study with any definitiude, you leave yourself no basis to get dogmatic, the way Enger and Hays and other Triabloguists do, about how "stupid" or "unreasonable" skeptics are for denying biblical inerrancy.


      I'm fairly familiar with the various alleged Bible contradictions out there that are proposed.
      -------And I'm fairly familiar with the harmonization scenarios inerrantists propose, as well as their own statements between the 70's and 90's about how futile the inerrancy-issue became. I'm also aware of Tim and Lydia McGrew who disagree with Steve Hays and see nothing inconsistent about denying biblical inerrancy. That's so much homework for a skeptic that we'd be reasonable to just ignore it all like we ignore cases of adultery among the Eskimos.

      The truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth of Inerrancy.
      -------Making you wonder whether Steve Hays and other extremists are in the wrong for pretending that inerrancy is the foundation for all things Christian.


      Christianity can be true even if there are errors in the Bible [i.e. if Inerrancy is false].
      -------Agreed...which might mean the true Christian will recognize there are spiritual teachings that will always be more important than "inerrancy", and therefore, sacrificing defenses of inerrancy would probably free up more time to teach about things that really matter. Lord knows it might enable Triablogue to quit violating 2nd Timothy 2:14 as greedily as they do.

      Delete
    7. That assumes that GMark was distributed without further discipleship and deeper teaching by the apostles and evangelists who shared it with others.
      -----where is your historical evidence that the apostles and evangelists shared the gospel of Mark with others? I agree with Markan priority, but that is hardly "sharing it with others", as Matthew and Luke, by changing Mark's text, aren't "sharing" so much as "correcting".


      That doesn't follow. In fact, the GMark is specifically written in a way that invites questions regarding who Jesus is without outright revealing it.
      --------But you cannot show that your theory of this ambiguity is more reasonable than the skeptical theory.


      I would argue it's hidden in plain sight. As my blogpost Markan Christology argues [persuasively IMO], Jesus is divine, even YHVH. IF [big "IF"], it's true that Mark presents Jesus as divine in some way [which even Bart Ehrman admits], and all the more if YHVH, then Jesus does know the day an hour in some sense, even if He doesn't in another sense.
      ------But not in any sense that would make sense. If Jesus had two natures, and if a nature is not something you can genuinely contradict (can you act contrary to your human nature? No. Can God act contrary to his god-nature? No.), then BOTH of his natures would have been equally implicated when he confessed his ignorance in Mark 13:32. So it is the LOGOS confessing that ignorance too, not merely his "human nature".

      The reasonableness of this analysis is not going to disappear merely because you choose to turn exegesis on its head, engage in eisogesis, and read Mark's statements about Jesus through the rose-colored glasses of the Philippian kenosis.

      Delete
    8. If you're going to respond to anything, I'd rather you respond to my comments at my blogpost first [or only if you only have to pick one]. Since, your first challenge/objection had to do with the coherence of Trinitarianism and Mark 13:32. But I'll make quick responses to your comments here too.

      //Those patristic sources also say the church had to pester Mark repeatedly to get him to write out that account of Peter's preaching...//

      I'd be interested to know where in the fathers that's written.

      //...which sounds like Mark was less enthused about his gospel than you are.//

      That might be your spin on it. Maybe Mark was hesitant to do it because he didn't think he was up to the challenge of such an august task. As the saying goes, "As clowns long to play hamlet...". You can want to do something and not want to do it at the same time because you don't feel worthy or capable of doing it.

      //Then you cannot blame skeptics for having skeptical discussions about Mark.//

      But you're not being skeptical. You are dogmatic (or nearly so) that GMark teaches Jesus absolutely was not omniscient in every sense and way possible. But that interpretation would seem to be in tension with Mark's overall theme of Jesus being divine in some sense (maybe even YHVH Himself). IF Jesus is divine in some sense, and all the more if He is YHVH with all of YHVH's attributes, then Jesus might not be non-omniscient in every sense. If you were more consistent with your claimed method of interpretation, then even as a non-Christian, you should be agnostic on what Mark was intending to teach or what Mark may have personally believed (which might not necessarily have matched, given a non-theistic perspective). Nowhere does GMark say/affirm/assert/teach that Jesus is not omniscient in no uncertain terms. If it did, then normative Trinitarianism would be impossible. But, Mark 13:32 is logically consistent with normative Trinitarianism and Jesus' divine omniscience. Therefore, a dogmatic stance of Jesus' non-omniscience from GMark goes beyond the data of that book.

      //When dealing with ancient historical documents, whether a statement or omission constitutes "contradiction" isn't judged on the basis of possibility or "necessarily", but on the basis of probability. And since most people don't speak with technical precision, skeptics cannot be required to smackdown every possible harmonization scenario, they will remain reasonable to offer a skeptical interpretation that is equally or more reasonable than a harmonization scenario.//

      My response at my blogpost applies to this too since you're saying something similar about probability. Also, my statement about whether you're approaching GMark as a cohesive literary work [whether fiction or non], a historical work, or whether you're limiting yourself to authentic Jesus traditions/sayings alone [i.e. doing historical Jesus study]. All have their place, but an objection with the assumption of one approach can be legitimately answered in that same approach [at the very least]. In other words, it's legitmate for me to answer you on your own grounds [or method/approach of attack/criticism].

      // But skeptics aren't losing the inerrancy debate merely because they cannot show some alleged contradiction is "necessary".//

      And something that's not a contradiction is...[wait for it].........not a contradiction. Though, admittedly, some things seem more probable than others as contradictory.

      Delete
    9. //Did Mark likely know the nativity stories that Matthew and Luke knew?//

      We don't know. He might have known and choose to exclude them because they weren't necessary for the purposes of his book. Or, he didn't know. Either way doesn't affect my theology or faith, or the case for Christianity.

      //But it is more reasonable to assume that the subject would be a topic of natural curiosity during Jesus' own lifetime given his alleged claims to be "god". In that collectivist culture, the apostles would not have maintained separation from Mary...//

      You answered your own question. Mark wasn't written to answer all curious questions because they were a collectivist culture. Such questions would have been answered verbally in the community of believers. Mark may have been written at a time when Jesus' soon return was still [fallibly] expected or hoped for in their lifetimes. In which case, there would not be a need to answer questions people would have 20 centuries down the line. Questions that would more easily be answered verbally because more technical. It would be more urgent to get the basics of Jesus' history and sayings down on paper in a quick and short book in order to distribute it as quickly and widely as possible for the salvation of souls before the Day of Judgment arrived. I date Mark fairly early given the reasoning in Jones' video HERE.

      //The next move extremist apologists will make is that Mark may have had his reasons for excluding such stories, but that's using a mere possibility, when in fact the debate is about whose theory has greater probability.//

      What probable reasons do you have that if Mark DID know nativity stories that he likely/probably or even certainly WOULD have included them? I've already given some reasons why he possibly would exclude them (i.e. the nearness of the day of judgment and the need to distribute the message as quickly and efficiently as possible). The larger a book is, the longer it takes to copy and the more difficult to distribute. I also already linked to Mike Licona's video on Roman biography and how they would often omit things like early life for the reasons Licona mentioned [e.g. focus on character of the person &c.]. You haven't addressed that. So, what are you reasons why Mark would/should have included them?

      //... the skeptical theory that says he excluded them because he thought they were false, is not going to become unreasonable merely because you can cite a host of other possibilities. //

      What positive, non-speculative reasons do you have to think that Mark thought they were false? That seems to be pulled out of thin air. All four gospels mention the feeding of the 5,000. Only Matthew and Mark also mention the feeding of the 4,000. Does the fact that Luke and John omit the feeding of the 4,000 necessarily or probably imply they [in your words] "excluded [it] because [they] thought [it was] false"? Of course not.

      //one form of such development would be one that even most conservative evangelical scholars recognize...that Matthew often "corrects" Mark, logically implying Mark adopted a lower Christology (i.e., what we typically assume anyway...the earlier story is the one usually less embellished).//

      I too once thought that Mark had a low Christology. But now I see it as having a very high Christology [again see my blogpost Markan Christology]. I now think that Luke has the lowest Christology among the 4 Gospels. See also Jones' video: Did the Story of Jesus Develop over Time?

      Delete
    10. //Which makes it appear that you agree there is some blindness in "faith", which is precisely what would prevent you from dogmatizing that skepticism of Christianity is unreasonable.//

      I'm simply saying that a reading of the Bible would lend itself to a belief in Inerrancy. Even though I don't think that's a necessary inference from the Bible itself. It just seems more consistent, but not an absolute and necessary deduction. In fact, some Christians argue that Inerrancy, as it is usually defined, is a relatively new doctrine in the history of the Christian church. Some even claim that some of the early church fathers, and least one of the Protestant Reformers [i.e. Calvin] denied Inerrancy as defined in the modern era. The modern understanding of "infallibility" among some Catholics might be the more historical view of the church. But there's no point in going into that here.

      //That implicates the question of whether or how long a skeptic must study the differences Christians have with each other about the importance of inerrancy, before we become justified to start drawing ultimate conclusions about it.//

      That takes focus off the more important issue of whether Christianity is true. I get the sense that often (not always) non-Christians focus on the issue inerrancy because they want to justify their continued unbelief.

      // Since you cannot define that term of study with any definitiude,//

      Not sure what you mean there.

      //you leave yourself no basis to get dogmatic, the way Enger and Hays and other Triabloguists do, about how "stupid" or "unreasonable" skeptics are for denying biblical inerrancy. //

      I don't see Hays or Engwer doing that. I see them talking about specific cases of alleged Biblical problems which non-Christians often mention without addressing what Christians have already said about the topic. As if Christians have no responses. That's because non-Christians are often completely ignorant about apologetics and only parrot what they hear or read from atheist popularizers.

      // That's so much homework for a skeptic that we'd be reasonable to just ignore it all like we ignore cases of adultery among the Eskimos.//

      Again, missing the forest forest for the trees. For all you know God allowed errors into Scripture to test people. As Pascal said:

      //Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//

      And

      //The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. //

      I delved into these topics in two of my blogs:
      1. "Unveiling" The Hiddenness of God
      2. Detecting and Finding God

      Delete
    11. //where is your historical evidence that the apostles and evangelists shared the gospel of Mark with others?//

      No historian doubts that the Gospels were distributed by Christians. That would obviously include evangelists. But I don't recall saying that the Apostles distributed (some or all of) them personally. Maybe some did, maybe none did. Maybe they gave instructions to others to do so. This would depend on the dating of the Gospels. Mark might have been popularly distributed when many of the Apostles were still alive. Whereas only John (Zebedee) would likely have been alive when he likely penned his Gospel (though there are other authorial candidates).

      //...then BOTH of his natures would have been equally implicated when he confessed his ignorance in Mark 13:32.//

      Not at all. Statements need to be understood in their context and not be broaded beyond their intent or purpose. For example, I already cited Rev. 19:12.

      His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that NO ONE KNOWS BUT HIMSELF.- Rev. 19:12

      Taken literally and at face value, this verse would mean that God the Father didn't know Jesus' secret name. Are we really to believe that the author of the Apocalypse believed that? Similarly, if Mark [ad arguendo] wrote his Gospel teaching Jesus is YHVH, then we shouldn't automatically and quickly interpret him to be teaching contradictory claims. Namely, that Jesus is YHVH AND that Jesus doesn't have the attributes of YHVH [which includes omniscience]. That's inconsistent and wouldn't make sense given how often and strongly he implies Jesus is YHVH. Another approach is to take Mark to be teaching Jesus isn't YHVH and is a lower deity, having lower divine status. That has more traction as an objection. That's consistent with non-omniscience. But it doesn't require it. Certain versions of Semi-Arianism could potentially affirm or reject Jesus' omniscience. Maybe even some unorthodox formulations of Trinitarianism could affirm His non-omniscience.

      //The reasonableness of this analysis is not going to disappear merely because you choose to turn exegesis on its head, engage in eisogesis, and read Mark's statements about Jesus through the rose-colored glasses of the Philippian kenosis.//

      Well, I personally see Mark teaching Jesus is both human and YHVH [as I argued in my blogpost Markan Christology]. If true, then he would more naturally believe that Jesus has YHVH's attribute of omniscience. Therefore, it would make more sense that he would relegate Jesus' non-omniscience somehow and in some way to Jesus' humanity (even if he himself didn't know exactly how to understand/express that). The truth of Christianity is consistent with mystery, paradox and with doing philosophical theology. See Paul Manata's book review of Paradox in Christian Theology

      Delete
    12. //... the skeptical theory that says he excluded them because he thought they were false, is not going to become unreasonable merely because you can cite a host of other possibilities. //

      I wrote:
      //What positive, non-speculative reasons do you have to think that Mark thought they were false?//

      That's because that theory borders on an argument from silence. See Jones' video: Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence

      //...is not going to become unreasonable merely because you can cite a host of other possibilities.//

      But which possibilities are more reasonable/unreasonable, probable/improbable? You yourself said that probabilities have more weight than possibilities. If you can speculate, so can I. My speculations seem more probable.

      Maybe the reason why Matthew and Luke include nativities is because people were complaining that Mark didn't have one. Also, Mark might have excluded it because his target audience were Romans [primarily Gentiles, but also Romanized or Hellenized diaspora Jews], and therefore lined up with the usual structure of Roman biographies. Matthew might have included it because his target audience were Palestinian Jews and they would want a genealogy for proof of Jesus' messiahship. While Luke included it because he had an opportunity to interview Mary. Regarding the contradictory genealogies of Matthew and Luke, I recommend two videos I linked to HERE. While John excluded a nativity because he wanted to focus on Christ's deity and so began his gospel affirming Christ's beginningless eternality which is implied in the Greek [without denying Jesus real humanity in the rest of the Gospel]. Interestingly John 8:41b might allude to rumors of Jesus' having been conceived by fornication because his conception seemed to have been before Mary and Joseph were married. Which is consistent with the virgin conception of Jesus as recorded in GMatt and GLuke. Those are plausible reasons why GMatt & GLuke did, while GMark and GJohn didn't include nativities. Those seem more plausible IMO than the idea that Mark excluded it because he thought they were false.

      If Mark thought they were false, then he would likely have thought that Jesus was a mere human being, or was conceived like a mere human being even though he was divine. Yet, how does Mark begin his Gospel? By quoting Isaiah and Malachi that teach that YHVH would appear.

      So, maybe like John he [Mark] skipped a nativity to emphasize Jesus' Deity.

      Delete
    13. Here's what I wrote on that passage in my blogpost Markan Christology:

      //Regarding Mark 1:3-4ff., compare it with Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1

      Here the author of Mark cites two Old Testament passage that applied originally to the one true God (Yahweh/Jehovah) and surprisingly applies it to Jesus. Isaiah 40:3 actually uses the tetragrammaton (YHWH). In Mal. 3:1 the Hebrew phrase "ha adon" is used, meaning "the Lord" or "the [TRUE] Lord." It's the singular word for Lord with the definite article "the." In the Old Testament that phrase is used only in reference to the true God [i.e. Almighty God] as even an appendix acknowledges in older versions of the New World Translation of the Bible. That's a translation by an organization that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. So, it was in the interests of the Jehovah's Witnesses to remove that appendix in later editions of their translation. Since it's not too difficult to connect Malachi 3:1 and Mark 1:3. The other six places in the Tanach in which "ha adon" is used are Ex. 23:17; Ex. 34:23; Isa 1:24; Isa. 3:1; Isa. 10:16; Isa. 10 33. All of them refer only to Almighty God.

      By connecting the three passages of Mark 1:3-4ff.; Isa. 40:3; and Mal. 3:1 the logical inference is that John the Baptist is the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah and is the voice in the wilderness crying out "Prepare the way of Jehovah/Yahweh." With Jesus being the Jehovah who was prophesied to arrive. What other more plausible inference can one draw from the fact that Mark begins by quoting an OT passage of preparing the way for YHVH, and then goes on to describe John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus?

      [[Update: Apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.

      Tony Costa made the above claim in the following debate at 1:18:05 into the debate.
      https://youtu.be/9km_KBw81DQ?t=1h18m5s ]]//

      Christians, of course, argue that the Angel/Malak of YHVH was YHVH Himself. See for example this great debate between Anthony Rogers [Trinitarian Christian] vs. Ijaz Ahmad [Muslim]:
      Does the Old Testament Teach that the Angel of YHVH is a Distinct Divine Person in the Godhead?

      Delete
    14. Often (not always) the same skeptics who think Mark 13:32 teaches Christ as merely scient also believe Mark made things up in his Gospel. If so, and if a nativity origin story was to be expected or usual for Roman "Lives"/biographies [contrary to what Licona claims], then Mark could have made up a nativity story. But he didn't.

      In addition to what I said in previous comments, Matthew and [especially] Luke include a nativity possibly because by that late time, with the delay of Christ's 2nd Advent, they began to realize that the Lord's return might not be soon or even in their lifetimes. And so decided that for the sake of future generations it was best to record a nativity then when people who knew some of the details could pass it down. Again, these hypotheticals make more plausible sense than that Mark actually believed the nativity stories were false. Assuming there were competing and contradictory nativity stories floating around during the time Mark wrote his Gospel, wouldn't he want to know which story was correct? So even on that hypothesis, it's more likely that Mark just didn't know which of the conflicting stories was true, and left a nativity story out rather than your near dogmatic claim that Mark believed all 777 nativity stories were false. Or he could have investigated the issue more thoroughly and wrote down the nativity story he thought was most likely to be true. All of these possibilities, including the possibility that Mark just didn't know about any nativity story, are (IMO) MUCH more plausible than that Mark thought all of them, or at least all of the supernatural ones, were false. Since presumably there might have also been competing non-supernatural nativity stories circulating around too [along with or to the non-existence of the supernatural ones at the time prior to GMatt & GLuke].

      //We are discussing the meaning of ancient religious texts. You don't win a debate on such a subject by merely pointing out that your view is "possible", or that your opponent's view "doesn't necessarily follow".//

      Your possibility that Jesus was not omniscient in every possible way is less plausible precisely because, as you admit, Mark is an "ancient RELIGIOUS text", and Mark presents Jesus as divine [likely even YHVH Himself]. Divine AND Human. So, He exhibits seemingly contradictory attributes. For example (among many I could cite), on the one hand He seems to have human frailties in that He needs to sleep on a cushion (Mark 4:38), yet in the very next verse Jesus uses His voice (like God in Genesis 1) and commands the wind to stop blowing and the seas to become stilled. Meaning, He exercises superhuman power (compatible with, but not necessarily an exercise of, omnipotence). Then verse 41 has the disciples in the boat say, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" Exactly. Who is this person when in the Old Testament only YHVH stills and controls the seas [ Ps. 65:7; Ps. 107:29; Ps. 89:8-9; Job 38:9-11; Job 26:11-13; Jonah 1:15]? In other words, Mark is hinting as Jesus' Full Deity. If Jesus can display seemingly contradictory attributes in terms of weakness and power without explaining how that's possible, then Mark can also portray Jesus as both merely scient and omniscient without explaining how that's possible. Remember too, that Mark 13:32 comes on the heels of Jesus giving a prolonged prophecy of preternatural knowledge [again compatible with omniscience, though not necessarily a demonstration of it since even OT prophets prophesied]. But if it is a case of displayed omniscience, then that coupled with Mark 13:32 is another case of the author presenting Jesus' paradoxical attributes stemming from His humanity and Deity.

      Delete
    15. i will ask that you narrow your future posts to narrowly defined issues or subjects. I suggest that you pick the one argument you made here, that you feel renders my skepticism "unreasonable".
      Barry

      Delete
  2. "(Mark 4:38), yet in the very next verse Jesus uses His voice (like God in Genesis 1) and commands the wind to stop blowing and the seas to become stilled. Meaning, He exercises superhuman power (compatible with, but not necessarily an exercise of, omnipotence)."

    your god is an intermittent god?
    you also seem to have a pagan view of god where a god is held by a location and is trying to get control of something which is rocking him about in his boat.

    i will like to ask, was yhwh power over the creation and control over the creation identical to yhwh who is being rocked in a boat?


    if the two are not identical in person or in action, then we have two different beings here, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trinitarian will trifle that 'being' and "person" are two different things, but the real question is whether the OT presented god as a single "person". If it did, welcome to a biblical rebuttal to the Trinity doctrine. Trinitarians trifle that the first person nouns from God in the OT (i.e., "I", "me", "mine") only show god is a single "being", but they have no compelling reason to pretend these words cannot imply personhood too. They will insist on god revealing more about himself in the NT, but that's precisely where they lose the skeptic, and the skeptic maintains reasonableness. The originally intended addressees of the OT books would likely have concluded god is a "person", not merely a "being" (i.e., it is "god" who walks in their camp and can be prevented from seeing feces if it is buried, Deut. 23:14). So actually, interpreting the OT divine pronouns without the help of the NT is the ore objective method of exegesis. We want to know how the originally intended audience woudl likely have undertsood these pronouns...not whether jailhouse lawyers for Christ can come up with semantic games to reconcile their three-headed god with YHWH.

      Delete
  3. "Divine AND Human"

    how does the divine bring into an existence of himself which is human? does that make any sense?


    divine transforms into human and gets human properties?
    divine always has human properties in him?
    divine created something other than him ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "
    We don't know. He might have known and choose to exclude them because they weren't necessary for the purposes of his book."

    what kind of a response is this? why marks "purpose" excluded the story that yhwh was born of a virgin ? what was the difference between marks unknown and anonymous audience vurses lukes and matthews?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon, you've asked a lot of basic questions about the Trinity that even many atheists know the answer to. It's not my job nor my calling before God to inform, or educate or spoonfeed people about basic information they can get by reading introductory material on the topic. It's not like Christianity and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a secret kept from the public. Christianity has been a major and visible option in the marketplace of ideas in the Western world (and beyond) for 2,000 years. Ignorance is not necessarily a vice. Willingly remaining ignorant on a topic one persists on opining on is a vice. So, I recommend you do some basic study on the topics you wish to share you option on.

      Having said that, I will graciously indulge you with brief (non-exhaustive) answers, and then end my interactions with your questions on the Trinity.

      //your god is an intermittent god? //

      Historic Trinitarian denies any person of the Trinity has intermittent powers. Each of Jesus' two natures retains its own attributes as the definition of the council of Chalcedon states. Reformed folk [i.e. Cavinists] like myself are more consistent on that than (say) Lutherans and Catholics who hold to something like the communicatio idiomatum where the natures' attributes kind of blend. So for example, Lutherans can strangely affirm the unbiquity of Christ's human body.

      //you also seem to have a pagan view of god where a god is held by a location and is trying to get control of something which is rocking him about in his boat.//

      No I don't. You're again displaying your ignorance on the topic. I've already addressed that briefly above. Look up the phrase extra calvinisticum vs. communicatio idiomatum.

      //i will like to ask, was yhwh power over the creation and control over the creation identical to yhwh who is being rocked in a boat?//

      Yes.

      //if the two are not identical in person or in action, then we have two different beings here, right? //

      Christ's power in His divine nature is omnipotent. Christ's power in His human nature was as limited as any human being's. Think of the movie Avatar (2009). Jake Sully (the main character) had two natures. In his human nature he was a cripple who couldn't walk. In his Na'vi nature he could run faster than any human could.

      //how does the divine bring into an existence of himself which is human? does that make any sense? //

      By divine fiat. There's no logical contradiction to this at all. Even in the movie Avatar they were able to create an Na'vi body for Jake to inhabit and control.

      CONTINUED

      Delete
    2. //divine transforms into human and gets human properties?//

      The divine nature of Christ doesn't change. The second person of the Trinity additionally takes on a human nature without losing, or changing or transforming His divine nature. The divine nature is immutable (i.e. unchanging).

      //divine always has human properties in him? //

      Jesus didn't have human properties until He took on human nature at the incarnation.

      //divine created something other than him ? //

      Jesus' body was partly made up of Mary's body (i.e. her DNA) and what the creative power of the Holy Spirit made at Jesus' physical conception.

      //what kind of a response is this? why marks "purpose" excluded the story that yhwh was born of a virgin ? what was the difference between marks unknown and anonymous audience vurses lukes and matthews? //

      I answered those two questions already. Scroll up and re-read my comments. Also read my comments to barry at my blogpost where he initially posed his questions/objections HERE. Regarding the second question, there's a general consensus on that issue by scholars from every point of view (e.g. atheists, conservative Christians, liberal Christians, agnostics, Jews, etc.) Do some basic research. Even Wikipedia has many articles that address all of the topics you've brought up. With that, I'll end my conversation with you on the topic of the Trinity. I might interact with you on some other topics, though. But I won't spoonfeed people on the basics of things they can look up for themselves. I don't like encouraging intellectual laziness.

      Delete
    3. //divine transforms into human and gets human properties?//

      "The divine nature of Christ doesn't change."

      so what in god DOES change?

      so you have this thing identified as "god"

      what in this thing called "god" CHANGES and experiences NEW form of existence?




      " The second person of the Trinity additionally takes on a human nature without losing"

      thats like me ADDING on an arm without losing my original arm
      so does my original arm EXPERIENCE the battered and bruised arm which i "ADDED on" ?

      ", or changing or transforming His divine nature. The divine nature is immutable (i.e. unchanging)."

      so the "son" is SEPARATE from his "divine nature" ?

      is the "divine nature" another powerful god by itself since it can't change but the son can?




      //divine always has human properties in him? //

      "Jesus didn't have human properties "

      so jesus was experiencing "divine nature," then one day that same person started experiencing "human nature"
      does that mean the person of jesus went through changes ?
      was the person of jesus created or uncreated and if uncreated then did the uncreated person CREATE himself when he "added on" to himself?

      "until He took on human nature at the incarnation."


      so the person of jesus changed , but the divine nature did not change? jesus is changeable but the divine nature is not? does that mean persons of the trinity ARE changeable?

      //divine created something other than him ? //

      "Jesus' body was partly made up of Mary's body (i.e. her DNA) and what the creative power of the Holy Spirit made at Jesus' physical conception."

      all in all it was something brought into existence which did not exist before?

      Delete
    4. "anon, you've asked a lot of basic questions about the Trinity that even many atheists know the answer to. It's not my job nor my calling before God to inform, or educate or spoonfeed people about basic information they can get by reading introductory material on the topic. It's not like Christianity and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a secret kept from the public."
      ----------Then you aren't obeying Paul's command to Christian teachers. One of those commands is that his followers "correct" those who are in error (i.e, the "spoonfeeding" you say God didn't "call" you to engage in):

      24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
      25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
      26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Tim. 2:24-26 NAU)

      This trifle you have that certain errors are too simpleminded to deserve your Christian attention, does not uphold this plain requirement that you "correct" whatever errant person you choose to reply to.

      Your denial that god wanted you to "spoonfeed" anybody is also inconsistent with the biblical mandate that you exhibit "patience" as a fruit of the holy spirit:

      22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
      23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Gal. 5:22-23 NAU)

      We would be reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that your hatred of "spoonfeeding" does not draw from anything god wants you to do, but more likely draws from your purely naturalistic genetics (i.e., some people just don't have as much patience as other people do).

      Delete

  5. //your god is an intermittent god? //

    "Historic Trinitarian denies any person of the Trinity has intermittent powers. Each of Jesus' two natures retains its own attributes as the definition of the council of Chalcedon states."

    i didn't ask about the "two natures"
    i am asking about the "divine person"
    and the "human person"

    so does the "divine person" identify as the "human person" while being in a boat ? what is the "divine person" doing while the "human person" was sleeping?

    if the son was sleeping and he needed someone else to wake him up, then what was the divine person doing inside the son? was he like a disconnected thing?

    "Reformed folk [i.e. Cavinists] like myself are more consistent on that than (say) Lutherans and Catholics who hold to something like the communicatio idiomatum where the natures' attributes kind of blend."

    so the divine person has experience of being a human person in a blending way?


    "So for example, Lutherans can strangely affirm the unbiquity of Christ's human body."


    what does this mean?

    //you also seem to have a pagan view of god where a god is held by a location and is trying to get control of something which is rocking him about in his boat.//

    "No I don't. You're again displaying your ignorance on the topic. I've already addressed that briefly above. Look up the phrase extra calvinisticum vs. communicatio idiomatum."


    no idea what this means.

    //i will like to ask, was yhwh power over the creation and control over the creation identical to yhwh who is being rocked in a boat?//

    "Yes."


    so yhwh and the son were IDENTICAL? in other words it was yhwh in a body being rocked in a storm?



    //if the two are not identical in person or in action, then we have two different beings here, right? //

    "Christ's power in His divine nature is omnipotent."

    " Christ's power in His human nature was as limited as any human being's. "

    does "christ the divine person" have experience of "christ the human person" ? do they experience each other? when "christ the human" is being controlled by the sea and storm, what is "christ the divine person " doing? and can you tell me if "christ the divine person" IS IDENTICAL to "christ the human and fully god person" on EARTH?




    "Think of the movie Avatar (2009). Jake Sully (the main character) had two natures. In his human nature he was a cripple who couldn't walk. In his Na'vi nature he could run faster than any human could."

    this means your god is NOT identical . if you use this example, then your "god the son" who is "enabled" is not identical to "god the son" who is "disabled"




    .....but the walking and running faster person LACKED properties the disabled person had, was christ on earth disabled in his powers , how is that the same person with the divine person?


    think about you being a fish in a pond. you tell everyone you are a fish, but you as a human have absolutely no experience of being a fish, then how are you two both human and non-human at the same time?




    if you as a human have experience of being a fish and feeling as a fish, then my point is that christ was in his "powers" experiencing the experiences of being a human.







    //how does the divine bring into an existence of himself which is human? does that make any sense? //

    "By divine fiat. There's no logical contradiction to this at all. Even in the movie Avatar they were able to create an Na'vi body for Jake to inhabit and control."

    your god created a body or your god in his being was experiencing being a body? was your god experiencing BEING a human being or was he CONTROLLING a body he had no experience of ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon, I'm going to indulge you one last time on this. That's it. For the rest you'll need to do some basic reading. Things anyone can easily look up on google. Don't expect me to teach you basis Christian doctrine that children learn in Sunday school.

      //so what in god DOES change?//

      That would depend on whether God is 1. timelessly eternal, 2. temporally eternal or 3. timeless sans creation, but temporal since creation. All three options are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy and have some relation to the philosophical issues regarding the A-theory of Time and the B-theory of Time. Regardless of which view of God's eternality a Christian holds, most Christians believe God is immutable/unchanging intrinsically. However, that doesn't deny that God might be changing extrinsically (e.g. William Lane Craig holds this view because he subscribes to number 3 above that talks about God's eternality sans and since creation). Some Open Theists believe that God does change intrinsically. But it's questionable whether Open Theists are even Christian to begin with. If, they are, it's by God's grace despite their very faulty theology.

      Also, when it comes to Jesus, I already explained that He has two natures. The divine nature does not change (i.e. immutable), while the human nature changes (mutable). What you see in the Gospels is Jesus' nature changing, developing etc.

      //thats like me ADDING on an arm without losing my original arm
      so does my original arm EXPERIENCE the battered and bruised arm which i "ADDED on" ? //

      You're confusing two modes of existence. Christ's human nature experiences things within time. If the divine nature is timelessly eternal [#1 above], then Christ's divine nature doesn't experience things in time. You've also not accounted for the possibility of Christ having two minds, one divine the other human.

      //so the "son" is SEPARATE from his "divine nature" ? //

      No. Traditional Trinitarian theology affirms the eternality of the Son [i.e. Eternal Sonship], usually grounded in the doctrine of the Eternal Generation/Filiation of the Son. Though, nowadays some Trinitarians [mostly from the Evangelical camp] deny eternal generation, and some even deny Christ's eternal sonship (but that's an even smaller minority). The definition of the council of Chalcedon affirms that the two natures of christ are united in his personal being without mixture, confusion, separation, or division; and that each nature retains its own attributes.

      //is the "divine nature" another powerful god by itself since it can't change but the son can? //

      We [rightly or wrongly] claim to be monotheists. So, of course we will deny that there's another God. Since we believe there's only one God.

      //so jesus was experiencing "divine nature," then one day that same person started experiencing "human nature"
      does that mean the person of jesus went through changes ?//

      Again, you're not taking into account the distinction between intrinsic change and extrinsic change regarding God [which some Christians affirm, while others deny], as well as Christ's possible two minds, divine and human.

      //was the person of jesus created or uncreated and if uncreated then did the uncreated person CREATE himself when he "added on" to himself?//

      You're confusing the category of person with the category of being. The person of Jesus is eternal. But His human nature was created and had a beginning. All three persons are involved in creation. In the case of the conception of Jesus human body, the Holy Spirit is especially associated with that creative act [though, again all three persons were involved].

      Delete
    2. //so the person of jesus changed , but the divine nature did not change? jesus is changeable but the divine nature is not? does that mean persons of the trinity ARE changeable?//

      I answered that above in this post.

      //all in all it was something brought into existence which did not exist before? //

      Not sure what you're referring to by "it". You mean Jesus? Jesus the person was never created. If you mean by "it" Jesus human body, then the answer is "yes". Jesus human body didn't exist before it was created.

      //i didn't ask about the "two natures"
      i am asking about the "divine person"
      and the "human person"//

      The person of Jesus doesn't have intermittent powers. Though, each nature has it's own attributes which Jesus can express or manifest in a way appropriate and possible for that nature.

      //so does the "divine person" identify as the "human person" while being in a boat ? what is the "divine person" doing while the "human person" was sleeping? if the son was sleeping and he needed someone else to wake him up, then what was the divine person doing inside the son? was he like a disconnected thing?//

      That question assumes Jesus is two persons. Historic Trinitarianism identifies that as the heresy of Nestorianism. We believe that Jesus is one person with two nature, and two wills. We reject Nestorianism, monophysitism and monothelitism. W.L. Craig's unorthodox Neo-Apollonarian view would say that the divine Logos takes the place of the human soul. I don't hold to that view, but I haven't completely discounted it. To answer your question, the divine person identifies as both divine and human [since He has two natures]. If Christ has two mind, then the divine mind was active while the human mind was sleeping.

      //so the divine person has experience of being a human person in a blending way?//

      If Jesus has two minds, then each mind has experiences appropriate to the nature to which it is attached or from which it springs [depending on how the minds are related to the natures].

      //what does this mean?//

      Learn to google or use a dictionary.

      //so yhwh and the son were IDENTICAL? in other words it was yhwh in a body being rocked in a storm? //

      No. See this video [that I've already cued up] by Craig where he explains "identity" and "predication", HERE. To be philosophically precise, Jesus is predicated as YHVH, but He isn't identified as YHVH. Since the Father and the Holy Spirit are also YHVH. To identify Jesus as YHVH, philosophically speaking, would amount to Modalism. Because it would then mean that God is one person, contrary to the Trinity which says God is three persons.

      //does "christ the divine person" have experience of "christ the human person" ? do they experience each other? when "christ the human" is being controlled by the sea and storm, what is "christ the divine person " doing?//

      Interesting question. It seems to me that the human mind of Christ would experience God as any human would. Which usually doesn't distinguish between the persons of the Trinity. There's also the proposed option that I mentioned above where the human mind is a subset of the divine mind. That would seem to make room for parallels or (at least) analogies to our dream states as I mentioned in my comments at my blogpost where I responded to barry. Go read my comments there.

      Delete
    3. //and can you tell me if "christ the divine person" IS IDENTICAL to "christ the human and fully god person" on EARTH? //

      Historic Trinitarians believe Christ is one person. Also, while many Christians say Jesus is "fully God and fully man", that's technically incorrect. I understand what they're trying to affirm and agree. But the way to more precisely state it is that Christ is "truly God and truly man". Using the word "fully" would technically lead to a contradiction since one can't be 100% God and 100% man.

      //this means your god is NOT identical . if you use this example, then your "god the son" who is "enabled" is not identical to "god the son" who is "disabled"//

      So many confusions here. First off, technically, we don't identify Jesus as God, we predicate Him as God. Though, for ordinary communication, we often say it in the informal and less technical way. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "enabled". There are different senses in which that could be interpreted. Enabled by the Father [say on account of generation], by the divine person of the Son, or in the sense in which the Holy Spirit enabled the Messiah to perform many of His miracles. Also, your question presupposes two persons. There's only one "God the Son". He isn't disabled. His human nature retains its attributes and finite limitations. Is Jake Sully not identical to his Avatar?

      //.....but the walking and running faster person LACKED properties the disabled person had, was christ on earth disabled in his powers , how is that the same person with the divine person? //

      Here uou're repeating your category mistakes and misunderstandings. My previous comments apply here.

      //...then how are you two both human and non-human at the same time? //

      Again, that doesn't take into account a two minds view of Christ and/or a view of the human mind being a subset of the divine mind.

      //...was your god experiencing BEING a human being or was he CONTROLLING a body he had no experience of ?//

      Like many of the questions you asked, there need not be one specific answer to these questions. Orthodox Trinitarian and incarnational views and definitions set the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable. Within those boundaries there is room for speculation. Trinitarians have written many books on those speculations. Depending on the speculation, there will be different answers to some of the questions you posed. Some of my answers are clear expressions or applications of the orthodox Trinitarian view, while some of the other answers I gave were based on speculations that I myself tend towards and hold tentatively/provisionally. That ends my discussion with you on this topic. Though, I'm beginning to suspect that you might really be barry in disguise. And you used bad grammar, spelling and phrasing on purpose to hide your identity.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Typo corrections:

      Sometimes I typed "Jesus" when I meant to type "Jesus' ". Meaning, when I meant to use the possessive with an apostrophe.

      I also typed the following:
      //The definition of the council of Chalcedon affirms that the two natures of christ are united in his personal being without mixture, confusion, separation, or division; and that each nature retains its own attributes. //

      It would be more accurate for me to have typed:

      //The definition of the council of Chalcedon affirms that the two natures of Christ are united such that they are without mixture, confusion, separation, or division; and that each nature retains its own attributes.//

      Delete
    6. "hough, I'm beginning to suspect that you might really be barry in disguise. And you used bad grammar, spelling and phrasing on purpose to hide your identity."


      hello barry, this guy is conspiracy theorist. lol barry, english isn't my first language.

      Delete
    7. "Historic Trinitarians believe Christ is one person. Also, while many Christians say Jesus is "fully God and fully man", that's technically incorrect. I understand what they're trying to affirm and agree. But the way to more precisely state it is that Christ is "truly God and truly man". Using the word "fully" would technically lead to a contradiction since one can't be 100% God and 100% man."


      so you are a heretic then? i have been trying to ask you all this time how can FULLY human EXPERIENCES exist in the ONE "divine person" and you come out and say that you do not believe this?

      Delete
    8. "So many confusions here. First off, technically, we don't identify Jesus as God,"

      so jesus is LESS than god lol ? he must be some kind of being.





      " we predicate Him as God."

      but you are a heretic.
      " Enabled by the Father [say on account of generation], by the divine person of the Son, or in the sense in which the Holy Spirit enabled the Messiah to perform many of His miracles."


      so jesus is getting his stuff not from something he has, but from other beings ?


      " Also, your question presupposes two persons."

      when one person is sleeping and another is WATCHING the person sleep, that means non-identical EXPERIENCES in both persons.

      how is the one WATCHING the person sleep the same as the one sleeping when their experiences don't mix/merge ?



      "There's only one "God the Son". He isn't disabled."


      is god the son IDENTICAL to god on earth?

      is god the son identical to his subsets?


      " His human nature retains its attributes and finite limitations. "



      but its A DIVINE person EXPERIENCING them, right?


      "Is Jake Sully not identical to his Avatar?"

      if both are having DIFFERENT properties and EXPERIENCES HOW ARE THEY IDENTICAL or the same person?


      if i DIE in my dream, how am i identical to the one who dies....?


      Delete
  6. 1. All the different threads are starting to get confusing. Let's stick with this thread. I'll only answer comments in this thread.
    2. I gave my reasons above why I'm no longer going to discuss the topic of the Trinity with anon. I think I've been more than gracious in addressing his confused and ignorant concerns/questions.

    //but the real question is whether the OT presented god as a single "person"//

    It doesn't. See my blogpost HERE, or the written and A/V materials on Youtube by Anthony Rogers, Tony Costa, Jonathan McLatchie, Sam Shamoun on the topic of the Trinity. You seem to be ignorant of the evidences for God being multiple personal in the OT. It's not limited to the "Let Us" passages in Genesis. I've linked to many of these resources on my Trinity Notes blog.

    //They will insist on god revealing more about himself in the NT, but that's precisely where they lose the skeptic, and the skeptic maintains reasonableness. //

    Confirming my suspicion that you're ignorant of the OT evidence. Regarding Deut. 23:14, you're limiting sight to empirical vision. Neither the OT, NT or we moderns do so. When the Bible says "taste and see that YHVH is good", it's not talking about tasting and seeing with our physical mouths and eyes. Or when we say, "With that explanation, I now "see" what you mean."

    //So actually, interpreting the OT divine pronouns without the help of the NT is the ore objective method of exegesis.//

    The Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs and plural adjectives for God.

    //Then you aren't obeying Paul's command to Christian teachers....//

    You're ignoring other verses like: 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 6:3-5, 20; Titus 3:9. Or from the same book you quoted from: 2 Tim. 2:14, 16-17; 23.

    The term "teacher" in the NT is a specific office in the church. I'm not a teacher in the church. I'm a layman Christian. And as all laymen, we are to do evangelism and apologetics. But that doesn't mean we're to waste our time endlessly addressing willingly ignorant objections. Especially if they are hostile questions (Matt. 7:6). I'm not saying anon was hostile. There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. God will judge us for our intellectual laziness too. The internet affords us an opportunity to inform ourselves before we pontificate on topics we know nothing about.

    //...the biblical mandate that you exhibit "patience" as a fruit of the holy spirit...//

    Patience doesn't mean endless endurance. In God's grace, God's patience has a limit even though He's infinite, how much more will our patience have limits. God's justice should have no limits because justice is obligatory. But God's grace is non-obligatory, and therefore isn't required to be infinite. Grace & mercy, by definition, are unobliged.

    //We would be reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that your hatred of "spoonfeeding" does not draw from anything god wants you to do...//

    In MY PATIENCE, love and desire for non-Christians to be saved from their deserved place in hell, I created and wrote many multiple blogposts on the very topic of the Trinity. My blog Trinity Notes. If people refuse to avail themselves of the vast amount of information on the web on this topic, that's their fault. I think I've done more than my share of defending the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither Jesus or the Apostles held people's hands on every theological and philosophic topic. If they did, they'd never leave the first village or city they entered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be within Biblical parameters to end my interactions now. I've answered the most salient objections presented by you and anon, and they've gone unanswered. In fact, instead of having most of my comments addressed [which I did in both of your cases, with your comments, for your benefit], I'm being asked to highlight just one of my comments for you to respond to. That's hardly fair. So, I'll combine two responses in answer to your request.

      //i will ask that you narrow your future posts to narrowly defined issues or subjects. I suggest that you pick the one argument you made here, that you feel renders my skepticism "unreasonable".//

      If you ask a string of complex questions about a complex subject that erroneously assumes things such that it confuses the issues all the more; it's only fair, and you shouldn't be surprised, if you receive a string of complex answers. When it comes to picking one argument, it's like trying to pick the single argument that refutes a flat Earth. There are so many arguments that do so and each has their own unique way of undermining the claim. Similarly, all of my comments have their purposes in undermining your objections. They build on each other, and when combined have a commulative effect that neutralizes your objections. But if I had to pick just one, the most fundamental issue (though not necessarily the strongest) is the last paragraph of the last comment I posted at my blogpost. Let me repost it here:

      //Mark 13:32 is in the same passage/context/subject as verse 26 where Jesus talks about Himself as the coming eschatological [I should have typed "Apocalyptic" instead] "Son of man" which clearly alludes to Dan. 7:13-14. The phrase "son of man" was a common Jewish way of saying "human being". Commonly used that way in Ezekiel, for example. However, the phrase took on a new meaning in the history of progressive revelation when Dan. 7:13-14 was written. In that passage we have [I should have added "apparently"] a human being (i.e. one like a son of man) who paradoxically also rides the clouds (something which only the gods did). So, by the time Jesus came on the scene, the phrase "son of man" had two meanings. The ordinary meaning, and the cryptic Danielic meaning. By the mere fact that the original context of Daniel implies something like a hypostatic union where an entity or person is in some sense both human and divine, by that mere fact, we cannot/ought not to infer a dogmatic stance on Jesus' non-omniscience. Since, the term itself implies two natures. In which case, that opens up the possibility that it might be in Jesus' humanity that He doesn't know the day or hour.// END QUOTE

      CONT.

      Delete
    2. See HERE why Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" coupled with "cloud riding" has divine implications.

      That paragraph should be coupled with the paragraph I wrote above:

      //Your possibility that Jesus was not omniscient in every possible way is less plausible precisely because, as you admit, Mark is an "ancient RELIGIOUS text", and Mark presents Jesus as divine [likely even YHVH Himself]. Divine AND Human. So, He exhibits seemingly contradictory attributes. For example (among many I could cite), on the one hand He seems to have human frailties in that He needs to sleep on a cushion (Mark 4:38), yet in the very next verse Jesus uses His voice (like God in Genesis 1) and commands the wind to stop blowing and the seas to become stilled. Meaning, He exercises superhuman power (compatible with, but not necessarily an exercise of, omnipotence). Then verse 41 has the disciples in the boat say, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" Exactly. Who is this person when in the Old Testament only YHVH stills and controls the seas [ Ps. 65:7; Ps. 107:29; Ps. 89:8-9; Job 38:9-11; Job 26:11-13; Jonah 1:15]? In other words, Mark is hinting as Jesus' Full Deity. If Jesus can display seemingly contradictory attributes in terms of weakness and power without explaining how that's possible, then Mark can also portray Jesus as both merely scient and omniscient without explaining how that's possible. Remember too, that Mark 13:32 comes on the heels of Jesus giving a prolonged prophecy of preternatural knowledge [again compatible with omniscience, though not necessarily a demonstration of it since even OT prophets prophesied]. But if it is a case of displayed omniscience, then that coupled with Mark 13:32 is another case of the author presenting Jesus' paradoxical attributes stemming from His humanity and Deity.//

      Delete
    3. //So actually, interpreting the OT divine pronouns without the help of the NT is the ore objective method of exegesis.//

      The Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs and plural adjectives for God.

      Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:

      1. Plural Verbs

      o Genesis 20:13
      English Translation: God caused me to wander
      Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
      Literally: They caused me to wander

      o Genesis 35:7
      English Translation: God appeared
      Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
      Literally: They appeared

      o 2Samuel 7:23
      English Translation: God went
      Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
      Literally: They went

      o Psalms 58:12
      English Translation: God that judges
      Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
      Literally: Gods that judge

      2. Plural Adjectives

      o Deuteronomy 5:26
      English Translation: living God
      Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
      Literally: Living Gods8

      o Joshua 24:19
      English Translation: holy God
      Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
      Literally: Holy Gods

      3. Plural Nouns

      o Ecclesiastes 12:1
      English Translation: thy Creator
      Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
      Literally: Creators

      o Isaiah 54:5
      English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
      Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
      Literally: Makers, Husbands9

      o Malachi 1:6
      English Translation: Master
      Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
      Literally: Masters10

      o Daniel 7:18
      English Translation: Most High
      Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
      Literally: Most High Ones

      footnotes:
      8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
      9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
      10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.

      Delete
    4. Typo corrections:

      commulative effect = cumulative effect

      //In other words, Mark is hinting as ["at" not "as"] Jesus' Full Deity.//

      There are other typos I made, but those seem to be the more important to correct so far as I can tell.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. //so what in god DOES change?//

    "That would depend on whether God is 1. timelessly eternal, 2. temporally eternal or 3. timeless sans creation, but temporal since creation. All three options are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy and have some relation to the philosophical issues regarding the A-theory of Time and the B-theory of Time."

    so what type is your god?


    "Regardless of which view of God's eternality a Christian holds, most Christians believe God is immutable/unchanging intrinsically. However, that doesn't deny that God might be changing extrinsically (e.g. William Lane Craig holds this view because he subscribes to number 3 above that talks about God's eternality sans and since creation)."

    what does "extrinsically" mean when it applies to immutable being ?





    "Also, when it comes to Jesus, I already explained that He has two natures. "

    how does an immortal being who is experiencing his immortality one day start experiencing in his person human life?

    "The divine nature does not change (i.e. immutable), while the human nature changes (mutable). "

    thats like saying that your gods CONSCIOUSNESS does change, but how does that make sense?





    "What you see in the Gospels is Jesus' nature changing, developing etc."


    but it is the one conscious being EXPERIENCING this stuff. how does that exist in the one conscious immortal being ?

    //thats like me ADDING on an arm without losing my original arm
    so does my original arm EXPERIENCE the battered and bruised arm which i "ADDED on" ? //

    "You're confusing two modes of existence. Christ's human nature experiences things within time. "


    so yhwh in time is not IMMORTAL , but created? so yhwh = created. his movements created. his miracles in time created?

    so you have TWO yhwhs? one yhwh in time = CREATED

    and one yhhw outside of time UNCREATED

    = two yhwhs


    "If the divine nature is timelessly eternal [#1 above], "

    so now you SEPARATE timeless from timed.


    "
    then Christ's divine nature doesn't experience things in time."


    yes, you have two NON-IDENTICAL yhwhs. one created. one uncreated. the one outside has NO EXPERIENCE of the one inside. two yhwhs

    ReplyDelete

  9. " You've also not accounted for the possibility of Christ having two minds, one divine the other human."

    so you have timeless yhwh who CREATED a yhwh INSIDE time and both have NO experiences of each other?




    //so the "son" is SEPARATE from his "divine nature" ? //

    "No."

    so how many yhwhs are there? you have son who is FULLY with his divine nature vurses son who is fully with his human nature.

    you have two beings here.



    " Traditional Trinitarian theology affirms the eternality of the Son [i.e. Eternal Sonship], usually grounded in the doctrine of the Eternal Generation/Filiation of the Son. Though, nowadays some Trinitarians [mostly from the Evangelical camp] deny eternal generation, and some even deny Christ's eternal sonship (but that's an even smaller minority). The definition of the council of Chalcedon affirms that the two natures of christ are united in his personal being without mixture, confusion, separation, or division; and that each nature retains its own attributes."


    like two different christs ?




    //is the "divine nature" another powerful god by itself since it can't change but the son can? //

    "We [rightly or wrongly] claim to be monotheists. So, of course we will deny that there's another God. Since we believe there's only one God."

    but the divine nature is identified as the one god.



    //so jesus was experiencing "divine nature," then one day that same person started experiencing "human nature"
    does that mean the person of jesus went through changes ?//

    "Again, you're not taking into account the distinction between intrinsic change and extrinsic change regarding God [which some Christians affirm, while others deny], as well as Christ's possible two minds, divine and human."


    what is extrinsic change and how does it apply to an IMMUTABLE god?
    you said christ has two minds , so how many christs are there?


    you have christ the son. christ the human. each have its own experience of what it is. how many christs here?


    //was the person of jesus created or uncreated and if uncreated then did the uncreated person CREATE himself when he "added on" to himself?//

    "You're confusing the category of person with the category of being. The person of Jesus is eternal. But His human nature was created and had a beginning."

    the person of jesus WITH his divine attributes or just the person ? is it

    person MINUS attributes in human nature

    or person with attributes in human nature?




    " All three persons are involved in creation. In the case of the conception of Jesus human body, the Holy Spirit is especially associated with that creative act [though, again all three persons were involved]."


    i am lost as to what you believe

    do you believe that jesus was two persons or one person and was jesus with his attributes in his human body?

    ReplyDelete
  10. //so the person of jesus changed , but the divine nature did not change? jesus is changeable but the divine nature is not? does that mean persons of the trinity ARE changeable?//

    I answered that above in this post.

    ////

    your answer is confusing . you went into extrinsic and intrinsic without informing how extrinsic applies to immutable.

    //all in all it was something brought into existence which did not exist before? //

    "Not sure what you're referring to by "it". You mean Jesus? Jesus the person was never created."


    jesus the person is a BEING or beingless?


    " If you mean by "it" Jesus human body, then the answer is "yes". Jesus human body didn't exist before it was created."


    so jesus the person EXPERIENCES a human person in his uncreated person?

    //i didn't ask about the "two natures"
    i am asking about the "divine person"
    and the "human person"//

    "The person of Jesus doesn't have intermittent powers. Though, each nature has it's own attributes which Jesus can express or manifest in a way appropriate and possible for that nature."

    so you have

    x(person) = uncreated - divine nature EXPERIENCING human NATURE

    uncreated mixes with created

    do you agree?

    the person (uncreated) in his human nature does have intermittant powers which are not identical to the person who is always with divine nature


    //so does the "divine person" identify as the "human person" while being in a boat ? what is the "divine person" doing while the "human person" was sleeping? if the son was sleeping and he needed someone else to wake him up, then what was the divine person doing inside the son? was he like a disconnected thing?//



    ReplyDelete

  11. " We believe that Jesus is one person with two nature, and two wills.


    so x = human consciousness and divine consciousness

    but x = person = uncreated so x is mutable like all humans.


    "
    We reject Nestorianism, monophysitism and monothelitism. W.L. Craig's unorthodox Neo-Apollonarian view would say that the divine Logos takes the place of the human soul. I don't hold to that view, but I haven't completely discounted it. To answer your question, the divine person identifies as both divine and human [since He has two natures]."

    how does DIVINE person IDENTIFY as human when he knows in his person he isnt ?

    x = divine person

    human nature CREATED . x knows he is not CREATED . so what do you mean?


    "
    If Christ has two mind, then the divine mind was active while the human mind was sleeping."

    now i am CONFUSED .

    EVERY thing in a person which is IDENTIFIED as IMMORTAL = uncreated.

    you said that in that person EXIST human MIND. so christ the divine person EXPERIENCES human mind/created mind. divine mix with created.

    plus, divine mind was ACTIVE and watching christ the human SLEEPING WHILE that same divine mind EXPERIENCING sleeping , unless BOTH are two SEPARATE non-identical christs.


    //so the divine person has experience of being a human person in a blending way?//

    "If Jesus has two minds, then each mind has experiences appropriate to the nature to which it is attached or from which it springs [depending on how the minds are related to the natures]."

    but "jesus" here is identified as uncreated . i am confused with your responses.



    //what does this mean?//

    "Learn to google or use a dictionary."

    english is not my first language



    //so yhwh and the son were IDENTICAL? in other words it was yhwh in a body being rocked in a storm? //

    "No. See this video [that I've already cued up] by Craig where he explains "identity" and "predication", HERE."


    so a non-identical thing which HAS attributes of divinity was being rocked in a boat, not FULLY yhwh?

    "To be philosophically precise, Jesus is predicated as YHVH, but He isn't identified as YHVH. "

    if jesus identified as yhwh, then jesus is a BEING which is not IDENTICAL to yhwh. so then is "yhwh" here a list of attributes ?
    jesus has yhwh/list of attributes ?




    "Since the Father and the Holy Spirit are also YHVH. To identify Jesus as YHVH, philosophically speaking, would amount to Modalism."

    so the father has divine attributes so does the spirit and so does the son. so then we have yhwh identified as a LIST of attributes.

    in other words we have THREE NON-IDENTICAL gods.

    and do you believe that the son is part of yhwh like craig does? do you believe that the son , father and ghost like 3 headed dog?

    ReplyDelete




  12. "Because it would then mean that God is one person, contrary to the Trinity which says God is three persons."

    then what is "yhwh" meaning here? you mentioned the word "god" (one thing) and then u said god = 3. thats like saying ONE is three. how does that work?
    one ISN'T three.

    //does "christ the divine person" have experience of "christ the human person" ? do they experience each other? when "christ the human" is being controlled by the sea and storm, what is "christ the divine person " doing?//

    "Interesting question. It seems to me that the human mind of Christ would experience God as any human would."

    but i thought it was the SAME divine person ?


    " Which usually doesn't distinguish between the persons of the Trinity. There's also the proposed option that I mentioned above where the human mind is a subset of the divine mind. "

    how does a divine mind experience a subset of human experiences in human mind and does that mean the divine mind while experiencing subset really does not know in its divine mind the hour ?



    "That would seem to make room for parallels or (at least) analogies to our dream states "

    i see my self in my dream. i see that i die. but then i am alive. how is the "alive person" the SAME as the person who DIES IN A DREAM? we both have DIFFERENT properties.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think what annoyedpinoy needs to acknowledge is that none of his trifles of theology, and none of his sin of "word-wrangling" (2nd Timothy 2:14) are showing the "unreasonableness" of my attack on the Trinitarian "explanation" of Mark 13:32.

    This whole business of a single person having more than one mind is at variance with everything we know about personhood and mental activity.
    Yet Trinitarians want us to believe the 2nd ccentury gnostic theology was full of absurdities!

    That's quite enough to render the naturalistic attack here reasonable, even if not infallible. Yet AP would likely conclude that non-Trinitarians are "unreasonable" to use Mark 13:32 and demand that one person have only one mind. I assume this unrelenting dogmatism about how wrong the other guy is, stems from AP's attempt to imitate apostle Paul's and Jesus's unflinching dogmatism. This is always good at impressing other Christians of less knowledge, but it doesn't place intellectual obligation upon the other party.

    The proofs that the mind is nothing but the functioning of the physical brain take care of AP's "dream" issues and other attempts to pretend that one person can have two different minds.

    Furthermore, the single solitary reason a Trinitarian fights to the death to avoid the obvious implications of Mark 13:32 is because they worship bible inerrancy: other parts of the bible declare that Jesus is god or that he has two natures, therefore, they use these rose-colored theological glasses in order interpret Mark 13:32.

    But non-inerrantists have excellent reasons for denying the doctrine of inerrancy and, as a result, are reasonable in refusing to think that other parts of the bible must be read into this verse. Most Christian scholars are not inerrantists. Those who are inerrantist disagree with each other, they have been for decades in theological journals, and on top of this, the presumption of biblical inerrancy obviously doesn't do anything to protect against heresy. The Jevhovah's Witnesses are forever "comparing scripture with scripture", yet AP and most Trinitarians would characterize JWs as heretics. So its not like denial of biblical inerrancy constitutes denial of anything too important or too obvious.

    We are thus very reasonable to reject biblical inerrancy, to find it worthless to the goal of hermenuetics even if true, and to therefore evaluate the meaning of Mark 13:32 within its own context without consideration of anything else in the bible. That is "reasonable" even if by the sin of word-wrangling you can trifle about this or that.

    ReplyDelete

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...