Category: Historical Jesus

Book Plunge: Conceived by the Holy Spirit

What do I think of Rhyne Putman’s book on the virgin birth (Which I do affirm)? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Rhyne Putman is a good friend of mine and he was fine with sending me a review copy of his book on the virgin birth (Which I do affirm). If you want to read it, you will be waiting awhile as it comes out next year. Still, I wanted to write on it while it was fresh in my mind.

This book covers most every area of the Gospel narratives on the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) and not just defending the doctrine, which needs to be done, but even more important after that, showing what difference it makes. Is it just a nice add-on to the story but if we lose it, no big deal? Not at all, says Putman. We need to look at the difference it makes to know that Jesus was virgin born. (Which I do affirm.)

Also, if you’re reading this and you’re a layman thinking “Great. Another academic work that will go over my head” then you are also mistaken. This is written for you. This is easily approachable and Putman explains his terms well. Not only that, but it’s perfect Christmas reading seeing as there are 25 chapters in this. Gather the family around and read one chapter a day and you can go through December 1-25 celebrating the virgin birth. (Which I do affirm.)

The first section of the book deals with the birth of the virgin-born king (Which I do affirm) in the narratives. Each part is looked at in detail and also specifies which objections are being answered. Want to look at something on the Lucan census? Go straight there! Want to see if the incarnation goes against pre-existence? You can find it! Want to just look at one particular part of the narratives, say if you’re a minister preparing a sermon? Not a problem! Go to it!

Part two then goes beyond this looking at the practice of the doctrine. Putman will take you through the church fathers to see what they say. (Also, Protestants like myself really do need to read the church fathers. The Reformers pointed to them regularly and it’s a shame that many in our churches don’t even know who they were.) He then goes through church history seeing what so many people said about how the doctrine applies to them. There is definitely a heavy Christmas theme here as many of the chapter headings refer to Christmas carols. Again, you can also go through and see objections that need to be answered, even the one that says Mary should have aborted.

Finally, he does have an appendix for those who are interested, on the Marian dogmas, particularly perpetual virginity. Putman walks a fine line here as he wants to make sure he is charitable to scholars who are of a different persuasion than he is whom he has learned much from. I hope that those who read through such a section, like Roman Catholics and Orthodox, will walk away saying that their position was treated fairly and even though they don’t agree with Putman, that he made his case and respected theirs.

Putman’s book is a delightful tour through the Gospels and through church history. If you want to bless your Christmas celebrations, get this book. Go through it. If children are old enough to understand the terms about virginity and other such ideas, have them join in. If you want to establish a new Christmas tradition, then let it be this one.

And on a side note, Putman is also definitely right about one other thing. Die Hard is indeed a Christmas movie.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Isaiah 9:5-6

Do we have the correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:5-6? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We return now to Campbell’s book and we’re looking at this passage in Isaiah. Campbell argues that the child in the passage is Hezekiah. Does he have a case here?

Not really. Isaiah 7 is the one that starts all of this off with the Syro-Ephraimite war. Judah is being told that they need to join in to resist Assyria and if they don’t, the other nations will destroy Judah. Isaiah tells Ahaz to not worry about the situation. The whole plan will fall apart and Judah will survive.

Ahaz is highly resistant to this and Isaiah tells him to ask for a sign and Ahaz says “No! I will not ask for a sign!” Isaiah then says that he will get a sign anyway. The virgin shall be with child! While this is a prophecy of the virgin birth, which I do affirm, the immediate context is not about the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

The point of this prophecy is that the child will grow up and before he is done being weaned, the whole coalition will fall apart. The virgin in this case is the wife of Isaiah. She would have a child and the prophecy will be initially fulfilled.

Here then is a reason why this cannot be Hezekiah. Hezekiah was of the lineage of Judah and Isaiah would not be giving birth to a king like that. The child is instead Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.

Campbell doesn’t really give much of an argument, but since I have said that this is about the virgin birth, which I do affirm, I should further expand on my position. The child in the case of Isaiah was never named Immanuel. Jesus was said to be Immanuel in the New Testament, meaning God with us. This could be an inclusio with bookends of the Gospel being “God With Us.”

The virgin birth, which I do affirm, is a greater fulfillment that was meant to be

for the whole of the House of David. The greater evil to be dealt with is the evil of sin. The prophecy points beyond the immediate situation and goes to a far-distant future.

Jesus is the one that is also truly God with us. Also, keep in mind that the writers of the LXX saw this as referring to a virgin by their usage of the word parthenos. Jesus is the true hope of Israel in the end and the one that is the ultimate sign of the person of God being with us.

The other part of this chapter is a look at Daniel 9. There is a lot that is said I understand in the appendix and I have not got to that point yet so we will get to that at a later date. It is a complex issue.

We will next time be looking at the effect of Paul on Christianity which I have a lot to say about. We’ll deal with that then.

And I affirm the virgin birth.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus – Psalm 110:1

Will Jesus have His enemies made a footstool for His feet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Campbell now goes to Psalm 110:1, which leaves me actually thankful I read the anti-Trinitarian book recently since Campbell has many of the same arguments. He says that the problem with Jesus’s usage of this against the Pharisees has a number of problems. The first is that this is assumed to be a Messianic prophecy. The second is that the second person is known to be God. The third is that everyone would have agreed on this.

The simple counter to this is that these are also assumptions. For one, I have no reason to trust Campbell on his statements on what is and isn’t a Messianic prophecy as he has presented no source whatsoever. Second, there is no interaction with any scholarship on New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. The third is that Jesus could not have presented any new insight whatsoever into the text.

He says the second word for Lord is Ladonee. I have open my Logos and not knowing that word, I have typed in Adonai and brought up the word as well as the Hebrew spelling. I have done this with a number of other Hebrew words. I have done this with Ladonee and nothing has come up. The best guess I have is that there is some form of punctuation that Campbell has translated a different way that no one before has done. If anyone has information otherwise, I am open to it.

He does say this is to a person of higher status, but never YHWH. Even if I granted that, in a sense, that should not surprise me as very rarely are two persons spoken of as YHWH in the same text in the Old Testament, though it is not unheard of. However, if someone is a higher status, it’s easy to say that God would qualify as a higher status than David. It would be a strong problem to the Pharisees to hear Jesus say “Okay. David has a son, but the son of the greatest king of Israel is actually superior to David. How can it be? How could the Messiah be greater than David?”

Again, Campbell also assumes the ignorance of the authors of the Gospels thinking that they just had the Septuagint and then figured the Hebrew must have both words necessarily referring to God. There is no indication that the writers would want to consider what the Hebrew said just because they are trying to convince their audience of something. This is especially the case if they know that there are people who are Jewish who are going to be reading this material.

Thus far, it looks like if anyone is ignorant of the material, it is actually Campbell instead. Campbell likely has simply read some anti-Trinitarian arguments, perhaps from Jewish counter-missionaries, and has not gone and bothered to see what others say. (Remember, there is no interacting with Michael Brown.) I have said many times to beware of the sound of one-hand clapping. It’s easy to sound convincing when you only give your argument.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Bethlehem

Where was Jesus born? Let’s plunge into the Deeper waters and find out.

In this section, John Campbell is going to deal with the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Last time, we pointed out that Campbell nowhere argues with scholarship that tries to look at questions of how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. There’s no looking at how it was done in the Dead Sea Scrolls or Philo or Josephus or anyone else.

He says modern scholars say this refers to the clan of Bethlehem and not the town of Bethlehem. Unfortunately, he doesn’t name any of these scholars. He then goes on to say that the reference is to a clan and not to a town. This is a highly unusual reading historically and Glenn Miller has some great material from the sources showing that that you can read here.

He also states that Matthew and Luke hopelessly contradict one another in their birth narratives and cannot be harmonized. Unfortunately, nowhere does he attempt to show how this is the case nor does he interact with those who have tried to harmonize it. Finally, either way, we still have at that case then two independent sources claiming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

He also says that Jewish ancestry runs through the father and Joseph was not the father. First off, it isn’t so cut and dry as that. Unfortunately, Campbell offers no interaction with any sources for his claim of that sort. There are even some sources that openly dispute that claim.

The Code of Jewish Law clearly states that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, regardless of the father’s lineage (or whatever else may show up in a DNA test), while the child of a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish.1 Matrilineal descent has been a fundamental principle of Torah since the Jewish people came into existence.

Hypothetically, it could be that these sources are wrong, but the problem is Campbell doesn’t give any for his position and if you have some sources that are Jewish saying that Jewish Law clearly states the contrary, who am I to believe? If I can’t trust Campbell on this basic point in just a quick web search, why should i trust him on any? What kind of research has he really done?

So let’s put in a bonus section. Right after this, he looks at Hosea 11:1 that says “Out of Egypt, I called my Son.” Campbell wants to remind us that the passage is about Ephraim coming out of Egypt and it is not messianic at all. Well, so much for Matthew. Right?

Matthew knows that it is not a Messianic prophecy, but he is saying this to show Jesus fulfilled the type of Israel here. Israel went down to Egypt and came out. Jesus did the same. Israel passes through the waters. Jesus is baptized by John. Israel goes to the mountain and receives the Law. Jesus climbs the mountain and ends up giving the Law. Don’t expect Campbell to interact with any of this. While I had hoping his book would be more substantial when I started since at least he accepts Jesus existed, the more I have gone through it, the more it is incredibly weak.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Messiah Proof Texts

Are there proof texts that Jesus is the Messiah? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One statement early on in this from Campbell that is right is that new religions were looked at in the ancient world with skepticism. However, he says religions associated with an old religion like Judaism, would have credibility. He gives no evidence of this claim. It certainly wouldn’t help when it was seen by the Jews themselves that Christianity was outside of them and that they opposed it.

He also says Paul and the Gospel writers should have been taken known Messianic prophecies. Which ones are these? He doesn’t say. I’m not saying there weren’t any, but Campbell has made the claim and he has not backed it.

I will be speaking on passages that I am highly familiar with. For others, I will defer to others. Isaiah 53 is an obvious starting place. Michael Brown (Someone who is the leading defender in Jewish apologetics and who Campbell does not interact with once) has spoken on this here. I also recommend the work of my friend Eric Chabot.

I find Campbell’s claims on Psalm 22 to be strange since the text I understand is difficult to translate and verse 16 is normally read to talk about hands and feet being pierced. He talks about the lions approaching David’s hands and feet except this is not what lions do. This is what is done when someone is crucified. Again, I refer again to Brown and Chabot.

He also says something about the Messianic Age not having come in 2,000 years. This is assuming a certain ideal of a Messianic Age, likely a dispensationalist one. I contend that the Messianic age has been here for around 2,000 years. Jesus is king right now.

He also says God’s system was a true prophet would be recognized by the leading sages of the generation, which would explain why so many prophets were killed. Campbell says that this is what was set up to be the case in Deuteronomy 17. Well, let’s see what it has to say.

Well, the first section is about claims that someone is enticing Israel to worship false gods and that is to be investigated. Nothing there about how to tell if a prophet is true or that the leading sages of the age will be able to tell if a prophet is true. What’s next?

Next is about legal courts. The idea is that if a case is too difficult for the court, go to the priest and the priest will inquire of God. Everyone must then listen to the ruling of the priest. Nothing in there about prophecy.

Finally, the last section in the chapter is about the king. These are good rules for the king to have, but there’s no reason to think the king was one of the leading sages of the day. I am puzzled then as to where in Deuteronomy 17 this passage is.

Next time we come to this book, we will be talking about the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) and the infancy of Jesus.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I do affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Messiah Part 1

So what does it mean to be the Messiah? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Campbell starts off with listing what the Messiah is. He tells us matters that are uncontroversial at first, such as the Messiah being a king of Israel and a deliverer of the people. Then, he gets to some prophecies that he says everyone, Jew and Christian, agree the Messiah fulfills.

I am confused by #2 as he says everyone will speak one language when Messiah comes, but the text he references is Zech. 3:9. I went to look that up and saw:

“See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.”

Yeah. I’m having a hard time finding it there.

I also wonder about some of the others. Yes. One day knowledge of the Lord will cover the Earth as the waters do the sea, but what does this mean? I could argue that since Jesus came, to a large extent this has happened. What about Jews returning to Israel? A lot of your dispensationalists would agree. A number of us can’t sign on that dotted line. The same applies to a third temple being built. Actually, when Julian the Apostate became an emperor, he tried to build a third temple to DISPROVE Christianity. (For some strange reason, he died before it could take place. Odd thing that.)

Campbell wants to say all Jews and Christians agree, but he doesn’t cite any.

He also says the Messiah couldn’t be the greatest king because Israel already had one, Hezekiah. One would think that if anyone was considered the greatest king by most Jews, it would be David. But what about 2 Kings 18:5 that says about Hezekiah:

“He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.”

The problem is Campbell doesn’t realize this is Hebrew exaggeration. Look at 2 Chron. 30:26 describing the Passover of Hezekiah.

“So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem.”

Wow. That must have been some Passover. Nothing like it from the time of Solomon to the present.

But then when we get to Josiah in 35:18 of the same book.

“And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a Passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

The same kind of thing shows up when God tells Solomon that no king will rival him in wisdom before or after. This is just the way Hebrews spoke to exalt a person or event. Campbell sadly reads the text like a fundamentalist, which isn’t a shock.

He also says that according to Christian theology, Jesus could not have been a dedicated lover of the Torah because He came to replace the Torah and the Temple. Which Christian theologians say this? We don’t know. He doesn’t tell us. I contend that Jesus did not come to replace the Torah but to fulfill it. He did replace the temple, but that doesn’t mean He’s not a great lover of the Torah. All Christians should be. Jesus loved the Torah. So should we.

He says also that Jesus being divine would negate His human nature. Why? He doesn’t say. He tosses this out there like it’s an uncontroversial statement. Never mind 2,000 years or so of Christian thinkers writing on this topic. Campbell just needs to make the assertion.

He says God is one alone and solitary in the Torah. We went through a lot of this looking at Anthony Buzzard and it’s not any more convincing. All Trinitarians agree that God is one.

He also says to deify or worship anything besides God would be idolatry. That’s the point of the Trinity. No one is being worshipped but God alone.

He says that Pauline Christians looked for any passage that might in some context speak about Jesus. They had no understanding of the context and no problem ignoring it. No. There is no interaction with the church fathers to see what they said. There is no interaction with communities like the Essene community to see how they interpreted the Old Testament. There is no mention of different styles of interpretation like midrash or pesher. There is no interaction with scholarship on the New Testament’s usage of the Old Testament, like Richard Longenecker. Just an assertion.

He points to the creed in 1 Cor. 15 and says Paul says according to the Scriptures and gives no citation. Of course not. Paul is talking about the whole of the Scriptural message. Considering how timely and expensive letter writing was, do we expect him to list out every single reference he has in mind?

He also points to Luke having Jesus say similar to the disciples about the Scriptures in the end of his Gospel. Obviously, the only conclusion is Luke got this from Paul. Campbell has a habit of thinking his way of reading is the only way to read the text. It could be that, oh, I don’t know, this is what Jesus actually said.

Next time, we’ll start looking at the proof texts.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus

How shall we begin this one? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Rather than continue going through the 101 reasons book, we’ll go through this one seeing as it seems a bit meatier. As I started reading through, I was pleased to see the topic seemed to be taken seriously. It’s sad that I was relieved that nothing was said about Jesus existing at the start of the work. Too many atheists out there think that is some hot debate in the academic world. (Spoiler alert. It isn’t.)

The book is by a guy named John Campbell who I think says he is a lawyer, which got me thinking this could probably be a bit more rigorous. In some ways, it is. In others, I do find myself being disappointed again.

Today, we’re just going to look at the introduction. First, one noteworthy point is that he says Christians have their view of Jesus too colored by Paul. In some ways, there can be a sense in which we ignore the Gospels and go to the epistles where we think the doctrine is. However, the main point to establish is that Campbell says never met Jesus or heard His teachings.

To begin with, this is just an argument from silence. We don’t have any record of Paul encountering Jesus, to be sure, but that is a far cry from saying it never happened. Arguments from silence like this are just weak. Not only that, we have Paul’s work in Galatians that no one disputes that says that he met with the disciples for a prolonged period and as has been said, we can be sure that they weren’t talking about the weather. Paul would have known the teachings of Jesus.

Not only that, Clement of Rome was the disciple of Peter and Polycarp that of John. Both of them praised Paul. Hard to think they would praise someone who got the teachings of Jesus that their main mentors had taught them wrong.

Of course, there is a statement against miracles.

This is the primary reason historians reject miracle claims–miracles have no demonstrable analogy in the present. They don’t reflect the way we currently understand the world to work. They violate natural laws for which scientists have never demonstrated a violation. Because historians work in probabilities, the principle of analogy requires that miracle claims be assigned very low probabilities.

To begin with, this book came out this year. Keener’s work has been out for some time on miracles and yet, there is no interaction with either of his books on the topic. Second, one can say they don’t reflect the way we understand the world to work. I shall blow Campbell’s mind and say they don’t reflect the way ancient people knew the world to work either. They recognized miracles as exceptions for a reason.

Finally, it is question-begging to say we have never observed a violation of natural laws. If anyone does say they have seen a miracle, their testimony is discounted. Why? We know that’s not how the world works. How do we know that? Because it’s never been seen. One would think that Hume would be evoked so at least he wasn’t. It’s not a shock that Earman’s work on Hume was not referenced either.

We are also told Jesus did not write anything down. Indeed! Most great teachers didn’t as Sandy and Walton show in The Lost World of Scripture. Then we are told that the writings in the Gospels are anonymous, despite the church fathers practically agreeing universally on who wrote them. As to why they are anonymous, E.P. Sanders wrote that

The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written ‘this is my version’ instead of ‘this is what Jesus said and did.’  – The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.

He also says the Gospels contain fiction since even Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, and Bill Craig all say the resurrection of the saints didn’t happen in Matthew 27. That doesn’t mean first that those people are interpreting it as if it was a fictional account made up. They all say there is a reason for it being there. However, even more concerning is that Gary Habermas has never said it’s a fiction at all. I even emailed him to ask him if he had ever said that and received a reply of no, he had never said the resurrection of the saints is a fiction.

He does say that after Jesus’s crucifixion, Jesus’s brother James took up the movement. There is no interaction with N.T. Wright pointing out that James was never said to be the Messiah, which would be an easy claim to make if one Messiah figure falls. Perhaps that is addressed later, but here, it is not. He does go further though and say that James established a movement called the Nazarites, or the Way, or the Ebionites. No evidence is given for any of this.

He says Mark presents Jesus as entirely human. No effort to interact with the scholarship that disagrees. After all, there are plenty of ways for Jesus to show His deity besides getting up on a mountain and saying “Hi, everyone! I’m Jesus, but you may also know me as God!”

He also says Jesus’s family being shocked at what He was doing doesn’t make sense in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke since they mention a virgin birth (Which I do affirm), but he gives no reason for this. Was the family to have perfect theology and know entirely the plan of the Messiah from the get-go? The oldest son anyway was to provide for the family and Jesus wasn’t doing that. He also wasn’t acting the way the Messiah was supposed to act.

He does say that we can be sure Jesus taught the Kingdom of God since it would be embarrassing to put it in since that Kingdom didn’t come. As an orthodox Preterist, I contend that that Kingdom did come. Jesus is king right now. We will see if this is dealt with any more when we get deeper into the book.

Again, this book is better than most, but considering the most, that might not be saying a lot. We shall see more as we go on through and see how it holds up in the end.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian: Appendix on John 20:28

What about John 20:28? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is handed off to a Ph.D. candidate named Clifford Hubert Durousseau. As I read that part, I thought it curious. I have nothing against PhD candidates as I plan to be one myself someday, but I was thinking that if this is really such a strong position with more and more people coming to it, why didn’t Buzzard get a PhD already to make the case here? Could he find no Greek experts to make such a case? One wonders.

So at the start, Durousseau says that John 20:28 is often seen as the strongest Trinitarian argument. I wouldn’t go that far. One could I think hold to it and be a Oneness Pentecostal. I base Trinitarianism not on one verse, but on a plethora of different verses. Durousseau also makes an interesting comment that saying “Jesus is God” constitutes monophysitism. Unfortunately, he leaves the readers, such as myself, confused as to show this is entirely. Again, if he wants to read the statement in the worst possible light just as Buzzard does, that’s his problem.

Unfortunately, throughout this chapter, Durousseau uses much of the same kind of argumentation that Buzzard does throughout. One would hope a different playbook would surface, but it does not. Durousseau does have some different questions at least. One is that when Jesus is called Lord in numerous times in John 20, it doesn’t mean YHWH. Why does it mean that in John 20:28?

Let me take a shot at this one. Maybe it has something to do with Thomas saying “My Lord and my God.” I realize that could be a stretch, but maybe when Lord is juxtaposed next to God, then we see it as a term of deity.

He also says that Thomas is not given a blessing for identifying who Jesus is as Peter did. Why should He? Peter had already identified who Jesus was and the resurrection was more than enough to certify His divine identity. Durousseau says that Thomas is instead rebuked. Right. He had spent years with these guys and knew the claims of Jesus and had more than enough evidence that Jesus was alive again without seeing Him and yet that was not enough.

He also says the author doesn’t comment on that, but the author doesn’t comment on many statements as well. He comments on some, but not all. Durousseau says the book was written to show Jesus was the Son of God, but Durousseau makes no attempt to show what this term means. My Mormon friends will say “Yes. Jesus is the Son of God. God the Father literally had sexual intercourse with Mary. Jesus is the Son of God.” Is that what it means? (And to any Mormons reading this, this is what your past prophets have said.)

He also says Jesus says He is returning to my God and your God. (Notice He never says our God like that.) Would this be contradicted verses later? Again, this just assumes the unipersonalism. I as a Trinitarian have no problem with Jesus referring to the Father as His Lord and His God.

Durousseau also points to statements of Jesus with the Father being in Him and of Paul saying that God was in Christ and that Trinitarians ignore these. How? We agree with them. They don’t go against us and that Durousseau thinks that they do shows that he doesn’t understand what he is arguing against.

One part is worth quoting in full:

Does this mean that Jesus was claiming to be God? No, it means exactly what it says: Jesus was claiming to represent his Father and God. The fourth Gospel (12:49; 14:9) expands the teaching of Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4 that Jesus is “the image of God.” And in Colossians 1:15, Jesus is called “the image of the invisible God.” The author of Hebrews says of him, as the New Jerusalem Bible puts it, “He is the reflection of God’s glory [764] and bears the impress of God’s own being [hypostasis]” ( Heb. 1:3; compare Wisdom of Solomon 7:26: “For she [Wisdom] is a reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God’s active power, and image of his goodness.”)

It is mind-boggling that Durousseau looks at these statements and doesn’t really think about what they mean apparently. Jesus is not made in the image of God as we are. He IS the image of God. What God is invisibly, Jesus is visibly. He is theJesu reflection of God’s glory, the idea being that of taking a stamp and putting it on Jesus such that what God is, Jesus is. If Jesus is a reflection of eternal light, then He Himself is eternal.

Something else incredible in this is that Durousseau actually quotes the Qur’an to back his point. Why not just go to the Book of Mormon as well? I wish I was joking about this, but I’m not.

He also uses the Acts 2:36 argument we have dealt with in earlier posts here.

He then asks that if Jesus can be called God, why can’t Thomas or anyone else be called the brother of God? Frankly, if you wanted to refer to the actual brothers and sisters of Jesus as that, I really wouldn’t have a problem. Mary got the title she got in church history because of debates over her nature and her role in the incarnation. (Seeing as she kind of played a more pivotal role in it than any other human.)

He also references Julian saying that John was the first to call Jesus God. I have repeatedly shown on my blog that this is false, but it’s worth pointing out that Durousseau says nothing about Julian being an apostate, an enemy of Christianity, and wanting to return the Roman Empire to the pagan worldview. It’s okay to say anything bad about Constantine, but keep secret about who you yourself are quoting. The same applies when Durousseau later cites Ehrman.

He also asks why if Jesus is God He was given a revelation to give to John by God on the Isle of Patmos. Oh, I don’t know. Because the Son submits to the Father and gives a message to John that the Father wants Him to give? He references Rev. 5:14 but says nothing about how Revelation 5 ends with all creation worshipping Him who sits on the throne and the Lamb, which differentiates between the Lamb and creation.

Overall, there is really not much here to comment on.

And with that, I conclude my look at this book. I walk away sadly seeing the author as being more dishonest in his presentation than anything else. I take no delight in saying that, but I have made my case why. I leave it to the reader to decide if he thinks I have been wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian Chapter 12

Does the church really believe in the Trinity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is asking if everyone believes in the Trinity? Well, no. I can’t think of a single statement that you would find EVERYONE agrees with or believes. There are always differences. However, let’s look at the “arguments” Buzzard puts forward this time.

One statement he makes is about your average churchgoer who he says believes that:

1) “Jesus Christ is God”; 2) “God is our Heavenly Father”; 3) “Jesus Christ is not our Heavenly Father”;4) “There are not two Gods.” Yet he has never considered how to reconcile these four separate opinions of his together; it probably has not occurred to him that they are inconsistent with one another…The average Englishman has not troubled himself with the matter.

Unfortunately, he’s correct in that the average church member hasn’t thought about this and will get flummoxed by it, which makes sense. Unfortunately, this is again something I consider dishonest on Buzzard’s part for he should know that no one believes this and if you think a simple set of statements can make a position look absurd, you’re probably wrong. So what is the answer?

Saying “Jesus is God” is theological shorthand. It does not mean that Jesus is the entirety of the Godhead. It means Jesus fully possesses all the attributes of deity. When we then say that God is our Heavenly Father, that’s because we normally think of God as the source of deity who begets the Father and the Son and the Spirit are subsumed under Him in the divine identity while still maintaining being their own persons.  Difficult to think about? Yep. Still, it resolves the problem and again, Buzzard should know this.

Buzzard goes on to say that some famous New Testament scholars grant that the Trinity is not a New Testament doctrine by quoting one saying:

No responsible New Testament scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus, or preached by the earliest Christians, or consciously held by any writer in the New Testament.”

But this is NOT saying the Trinity is not a New Testament doctrine. It’s saying that for the first part, Jesus was not walking around Palestine talking about the doctrine of the Trinity. Correct. The early Christians were not going around quoting the Chalcedonian Creed. Right. The writers of the New Testament did not have fully laid out in front of them the Trinity. Yes. All the seeds were there and the view is being formed in the New Testament. Again, statements like this are just dishonest on Buzzard’s part.

He does go to the question of the rich young ruler saying Jesus differentiated between Himself and God and saying that only God is absolutely good.

Well, there you have it.

For Buzzard, Jesus is NOT absolutely good.

I cannot see any way around that. If Buzzard wants to have that differentiation, he has to have all of it. To defend Unitarianism, he not only has to deny the deity of Jesus, but He has to say this sinless man who lived a perfect life among men is NOT absolutely good.

Yep. This position sure is honoring the savior.

He also looks at Genesis 1:26 and Isaiah 6:8 where God uses the “us” language. Now some people have said that this is a hint at the Trinity. All Buzzard says is that the address is obviously to attendant angelic beings.

Obviously?

He doesn’t have an endnote to make his case. He just says it’s obvious and moves on. When he thinks a Trinitarian in interpreting a passage is throwing his ideas onto the text, that’s bad! Buzzard gets a free pass though!

Keep in mind, I’m not saying he’s wrong in his interpretation. I’m saying that he doesn’t get to just say what it is and move on. He needs to make a case. There are a number of positions one could take.

It could be the Trinity.
It could be the Divine Council as someone like Michael Heiser argued.
It could be the royal we.
It could be angels.

There could even be possible other interpretations. These are the ones I know. If there are at least four, you should make the case.

Imagine if we read the Olivet Discourse and in arguing for my position of orthodox Preterism I just said “The text is obviously referring to events within the first century.”

I would hope my fellow Preterists would call me out on that if I did that. I need to make an argument for it. The same applies here.

He says also to see veiled signs of the Trinity in the Old Testament is to go beyond the intent of the sacred writers. Does the same apply to any idea of Jesus in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 1 tells us that the prophets themselves didn’t understand what they were necessarily referring to.

If so, then therefore, to read Jesus into Old Testament prophecy is to go beyond the intent of the sacred writers. Right? Again, Buzzard cannot have it both ways.

He returns to John 1 saying that in verses 3-4, many translations say “through him all things were made” when it should be through it. Buzzard really is going against the largest number of translators on all sides. Technically, the word from my reading could be translated masculine or neuter. Why does Buzzard assume it has to be the neuter without an argument? Again, rules for thee, but not for me.

He also quotes someone saying that “a person is created by his relationships with other people and especially by his interaction with his parents and family.” First off, this is going by a modern idea of personhood. Even going past that, there is a much bigger problem here.

What makes God the Father a person?

If Unitarianism is true, it was just God alone at the beginning and no one else so thus, no relationships and definitely no parents or family. Was God not a person then? If God had to create to have a relationship, then in some way, God is dependent on His creation to be a person.

If these are the rules Buzzard wants to live with, he gets to pay the price.

Not only that, we could ask about angels. Do angels have parents and family? Angels don’t reproduce and metaphysically, it can be argued that each angel is his own species. How does this work?

Buzzard doesn’t tell us.

He goes back to Ehrman reminding us to see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium. I have responded to that book here. No word on Ehrman’s position is given. Buzzard knows it, but he doesn’t care to share it. He also references Tom Harpur again later on, nowhere letting the reader know the even more bizarre stances that Harpur holds.

Well, we’re almost done with this book. Thank the Trinity for that!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian Chapter 11

Does having more support change a position? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Buzzard lists several people who he says support his cause. Sadly, they all use pretty much the same kinds of arguments. There is really less and less to comment on, but let’s go on with what one of these people says about the history of the doctrine of the Trinity:

Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching…It developed against constant unitarian opposition and was never wholly victorious. The dogma of the Trinity owes its existence to abstract speculation on the part of a small minority of scholars.

In response, here’s at least one good thing that came out of the later Star Wars movies.

Indeed. For one thing, this was not a fourth century doctrine as much as it was one started in the second century and further refined up to that point and is still being refined. We have made plenty of arguments against Buzzard’s idea that Trinitarianism is a deviation, but also there was not constant Unitarian opposition and finally, it was hardly a minority. I would expect to find this more in the Da Vinci Code!

Buzzard also writes about the Angel of the Lord and how that was accepted to be a theophany without proof. As to why Stephen who talked about the Angel in his speech before the Sanhedrin never said that, why should he? For one thing, Buzzard assumes that statement would be controversial to say that the Angel of the Lord was an appearance of deity. This assumes they held to Buzzard’s strict unitarianism. Second, if they don’t accept Jesus, what good would it do to say “This Angel was Jesus all along!” Not a bit.

Those interested in seeing the Angel of the Lord can search through my blog where I have stated that He is an appearance of deity. Go to the verses under question and look for them here or just search for Angel of the Lord. Either way, Buzzard is begging the question.

Finally, he says that Hebrews not only says that Jesus is greater than the angels, but if Jesus was the Angel of the Lord, what about how Hebrews also says in these last days God has spoken by His Son? The first one is quite easy in that the angel of the Lord is the messenger of the Lord and not an angel in the same sense as all the other angels. In the second, these appearances are also definitely not the same as a full incarnation taking on human nature. It’s sad Buzzard thinks these are great objections when one can come up with an answer easily with a moment’s thought.

Buzzard also says:

It is encouraging to hear scholars say that the Trinitarian dogma “was determined neither by scripture nor by experience but by the Arian controversy on the doctrine of the Trinity.”

Why does he consider this encouraging? Error has always led to the refining of truth. It was Marcion’s false canon that led Christians to establish the true canon. It is failure in modern fields that leads to success.

Finally, I want to bring out this closing remark of his:

Unitarianism has of course continued since the early twentieth century when the Schaff-Herzog article was penned. In general Unitarians have become less “biblical,” meaning that they lost a grip on central biblical teachings such as the virgin birth, the resurrection and the Second Coming. The loss of these central truths is hardly likely to make unitarianism attractive to evangelicals and the fault lies in this respect with the Unitarianism which has lost its biblical basis, other than its rejection of creeds which superseded the creed of Jesus.

I highlight this as I found it revealing of Buzzard’s character. Any time any Trinitarian has done something he despises, he has pointed to how dreadful the doctrine is and what it does. However, when Unitarians consistently start denying other essential biblical doctrines, including the virgin birth, which I do affirm, well that’s just that these people have lost their Biblical Basis. It has nothing to do with rejecting the Trinity!

It must be nice to live in Buzzard’s world where the rules are always different for you than they are for the other side.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)