Category: Book Plunge

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: 101 Reasons for Non-Belief 11-20

Have we come across a valid reason yet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have said I’m not going to go over every reason likely. I might touch here and there. For the 11th, the author is saying there are too many positions on religion so it’s too confusing. With all this, it’s impossible to make the right decision and be informed in doing so.

So naturally, the right decision is to say everyone else is wrong.

Sounds legit.

12 is that you can be a good person without God. This is again, something no one is arguing against. It’s also not the claim that morality is rooted in one religion, but that morality is rooted in one God. That God has shown Himself in general revelation so that all know about goodness.

14 has a section worth quoting.

Any text written or dictated by a Cosmic Über-entity should be unambiguous, understandable in any language, and without peer. In 2021, I adopted the short phrase, Cosmic Über-Entity as my replacement for God or deity. Any Entity that could create or is responsible for the four constants would have zero need for mere humans to worship it. The concept is absurd.

Which pretty much seems to mean God will do your thinking for you. These are the same people who want to live by their own freedom and reason. If something is absurd, it is the concept that the author has expressed in this section.

16 tells us that religion preys on people who are poor, uneducated, sick, etc. Pretty much, the dregs of society. Of course, this can apply to anything else out there. There are people of every social status and intellectual status in most every movement.

19 has this saying in it.

Outside of terrorism there is less murder and other crimes in non-Christian countries.

Outside of terrorism. Well, that’s nice to know. There’s also the claim that America is the mass-murder capital of the world. None of this is backed, but the author blames this on American evangelicalism and proof that God is not the source of our morality.

First off, none of this is cited. I am not saying it is all wrong, but some citation needs to be made for a claim like this. Second, the author needs to show that there is a correlation here. The reason that we have this problem is because of American Evangelicalism. Color me skeptical that evangelicalism really has much impact today on our culture. If anything, it is the lack of Christianity in our culture that I contend leads to our moral difficulties.

Finally, there’s a swipe at Calvinism and other beliefs where the victim is blamed. I do agree that this does work though for positions like the prosperity gospel and for The Secret. Either way, none of this really counts as a reason for non-belief. So far, our author is still not making any valid arguments whatsoever. I can’t say that I have been surprised by any of this.

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

 

Book Plunge: Passport to Heaven

What do I think of Micah Wilder’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I like the Wilders. I got to know them when I read Lynn Wilder’s book Unveiling Grace and I ended up feeling like I knew her family well at the end of the book. It is an excellent look at what goes on in the Mormon Church and it all started with her son Micah going on his mission trip and becoming a Christian when he was challenged to just read the New Testament like a child. Now, Micah has released his story. Normally, one refers to writers by their last name, but since this concerns a family, I will be calling him Micah.

Micah is certainly an amusing writer to read at times. Consider one part where he notices the walls closing in on him of Christianity and having to leave behind Mormonism. At that point, we get the description that goes as follows:

My head was pounding and my throat was so dry that my pitiful wails came out sounding like the distant honks of a lonely Canadian goose.

That’s a word picture for you.

Why is this so difficult? Isn’t it just changing a religion? Don’t Christians change denominations all the time? As Micah says

The mere thought of the high cost I had to pay frightened me and made me feel guilty. After all, every facet of my life was so deeply entrenched in my religious identity: my family, friends, school, career path, relationships, reputation, hopes, dreams, earthly aspirations, culture, respect, and more. I couldn’t even fathom a life outside of that which I knew. Was I willing to walk away from everything the world had to offer?

Mormonism essentially becomes someone’s life and society. The closest parallel I could think of to this book was reading Nabeel Qureshi’s Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus and how after he became a Christian, wished God would kill him then so he wouldn’t have to tell his parents and disgrace them. There are a lot of similarities though between Islam and Mormonism, so this isn’t too much of a shock.

HIs story starts with him going on his mission and he has been assigned to Mexico, but then while playing a sport in the training facility, an injury occurs out of nowhere. Micah’s writing at this point when the doctor comes to him to tell him what it is is quite amusing.

“Hmmm…” the trainer said. “It sounds like you might have a broken rib.” The look on his face betrayed him, however. We both knew I was a dead man. There was no way I had broken a rib; I hadn’t had any physical contact with anyone. Whatever had happened came out of thin air, as if God Himself had poked me in the back with His almighty finger.

And

He turned toward me (while conveniently avoiding eye contact) and proceeded to serve up my death sentence rather coldly: “It’s a primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”

concluding with

Dear Lord no! I thought to myself. I’m going to die! I had had no idea what his prognosis meant, but it sure sounded hopeless. As the doctor was nonchalantly exiting the room, he glanced over at me and, in a rather routine style, declared, “Oh. Your lung collapsed.” “Oh?” I said sheepishly. His heart may have been in the right place, but his bedside manner needed a little polishing.

To all ladies reading this, think “Man-cold.” Whatever sickness or injury a man has, it’s a death sentence. Unfortunately, Micah got stuck with Dr. House delivering the news. What are you going to do?

Anyway, because of this, he is sent instead to Florida. (Suffering missionary, eh?) As he describes his journey as a zealous Mormon, one statement he made stood out to me. We need to do better.

Unfortunately, the benevolence demonstrated by these few godly individuals was not commonplace in my experiences as a missionary. In the thousands upon thousands of people I had engaged with, I could count— perhaps only on one hand— the number of Christians who not only displayed to me a genuine Christlike love, but also proclaimed the gospel as revealed in God’s Word.

Too many might turn Mormons away because they don’t know how to answer them. That itself shows we need to do better. Most of our Christians are no match for the Mormons that come to their door. There’s a reason for that.

He contrasts this also with how he sees himself as a Christian now and how he would interact with Mormons today. This is a statement our church needs to hear.

Contrary to what the world seems to preach, true love is not affirming others in their sinful and lost state, it is proclaiming the Christ who can liberate them from captivity. Therefore, my greatest calling as a Christian is to be a conduit of God’s love to unbelievers by proclaiming to them the grace and truth found only in Jesus of Nazareth.

I also quite loved this simple statement he has later on

I’m not saved because of a church; I’m part of the church because I am saved.

But the long and the short of it is he did meet a pastor who challenged him and urged him to read the New Testament. He also was regularly going to a place Mormons seemed to hang out with for some time called the Edgewater Hotel. There, he would meet a man named Erik who would become a sort of mentor for him.

As you can tell from the description I have given, Micah does become a Christian. This led to his family and his girlfriend who he eventually married becoming Christians. Not only that, his sister married one of the missionaries he had been on his mission with who also became a Christian.

Micah’s book is a delightful read and there are so many quotes I highlighted that I won’t share, but get to the point of what a difference Jesus makes in your life. I won’t share them because they do come up in places where he is having interactions with the leaders in his church that could spoil plot points. One statement I will tell you is that he says to not make Jesus part of your testimony. Make Jesus your testimony.

If there was anything I would change in this book, I have just two criticisms.

It can be hard to follow the timeline since he goes from when the events happened, which can make sense, but they can be hard to follow for the person who wasn’t there. That could lead to confusion at times. I also know one chapter was on a hurricane and yet I was wondering what the whole chapter was about with the title until the end as the hurricane was never named and if you didn’t live there, you might not know about it.

The other is that I would like to have heard something about how Micah was doing his day-to-day duties. While he was wrestling with this, was he still also going around telling people about Joseph Smith and believing in him and giving a testimony? What kinds of things was he saying on his mission to people he visited?

Despite those critiques, I still see this as a great story about a young man being changed by Jesus on his mission, something we should all consider should happen. It also lets people in and see what the world of Mormonism is really like. I also don’t know any book that is an account of a missionary becoming a Christian besides this one, so if you want to understand Mormonism more, give this one a try.

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

 

 

Book Plunge: 101 Reasons for Non-Belief 1-10

What do I think of this….er…..work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m a spendthrift. I usually only buy a Kindle book if it’s necessary for class or if it’s on sale. When I finished reading Buzzard’s book arguing against the Trinity, I wanted something else I disagreed with. What did I see browsing through? 101 reasons for non-belief. Alright. Let’s see that.

None of them are good.

Yet some of them might be something someone wonders about so I think I will answer it here.

This does not mean every reason will be covered, but I do plan on hitting some that I’m particularly interested in.

So let’s go.

First, one theme regularly given is that the faithful should be bothered because so many people will spend eternity in torment and torture because they lacked belief or chose the wrong religion.

In response, I note that we have a very fundamentalist view of Hell as a torture chamber. I see it as a place of shame. Those more interested in my view of Heaven and Hell can look here.

Also, the Scripture doesn’t tell us anything about what happens to those who have never heard. I have my own view, but the main point to keep in mind is we still have the Great Commission to do.

Finally, this is just an emotional argument saying “I don’t like this viewpoint.” It doesn’t argue against theistic arguments or against the resurrection of Jesus. Disliking a doctrine is not a reason to think it’s wrong.

Our writer also says that he dismissed the Bible after the first four books of Genesis because first off, Adam and Eve didn’t exist, and then how could Eve know good from evil or death and of course, a snake doesn’t talk.

It’s sad that atheists are so quickly dismissive instead of trying to understand what is going on. I recommend him to read John Walton with The Lost World of Adam and Eve. I also hold that Adam and Eve were not created perfect in a world that is absolutely perfect. They knew what was good and what was evil, but the language is the use of a Merism in Hebrew giving two opposites to say everything in between them. This was being asked if they wanted to be the source of wisdom or not.

Not a shock that we have the usual canard of what faith is. I have argued before that faith is not believing without evidence. It’s amazing that atheists who make a big deal of condemning believing without evidence accept their doctrine of faith this same way.

We also have the argument of “I reject your God for the same reason you reject other beliefs.” Ah. So you reject these other beliefs because Jesus rose from the dead and everything that contradicts that is false? Once again, what happens consistently is an atheist is not really prepared for an informed Christian. The author rides on the assumption that Christians believe without evidence and there is no evidence for any of those other positions.

He also talks about bad things happening to people and prayers being “answered” and marriages working or failing are all probabilities. As someone who has gone through a failed marriage, no. Marriage is built on work as well. If you work at it, you can make marriage work, but that does take two to do that. One person can’t do it alone.

The last one for today is that there is no evidence that God is answering prayers. Of course, there’s no interaction with someone like Craig Keener and his works on miracles such as here. There are plenty of other similar works out there.

I had to inwardly laugh at least with the idea that Christians believe God listens and talks to them every day. I have argued against this idea multiple times. It is a problem I find with pop-evangelicalism.

We will continue next time.

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)