My Other Blogs:

Apologetics Lane
Bible Difficulties Answered
Charismata Matters
Gospel Crumbs

Gospel Meals

Quotes and References

Remembered Music

My Comments on other Blogs

• Page Two
• Page One

[or here: Page Two; Page One]

The Most Important Blogposts in This Blog

This blogpost lists what I (subjectively) believe to be the most important blogposts in this blog. There are three sections. The first section is on the Deity of Christ. The second section is on the Trinity or the Plurality of God. The third section is on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Each section has links to blogposts where the most important links (as I perceive it) are above, and with the lesser links below. For example, in the section on The Deity of Christ my blog "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah" (which is nearer the top) is much more important than my blogpost "The Spirit of Jesus" (which is near the bottom of the section).

Here's my main Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism

Here's a link to my blogpost where I've collected links to outside blogs where I've commented and interacted with others on the topic of the Trinity: Blog Comments on the Trinity

The Deity of Christ

Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Son by John Gill

Markan Christology

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources

The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg

The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18

Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity

Jesus as God by Murray J. Harris

The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

The Requirement to Love Jesus Is Evidence of Jesus' Divinity

The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity

The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity

Concerning 1 John 5:20 ( from The Trinity: Evidences and Issues)

Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity

Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds

Doxologies to Christ

The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings

Jesus the True and Proper SON of God

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father

Jesus Lord of the Sabbath

John 20:28 And Its Proximity To John 20:30-31 

God in the Midst

Lord [Jesus Christ] Willing? God's Will and Christ's Will

The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah

Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah 

The Spirit of Jesus

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

Matthew 1:23 and "ho theos"

Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill

Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ

Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted

God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39

Is the "Oneness" of John 10:30 a "Oneness" of Purpose or Being?

Jesus' Omniscience

Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"? 

Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics

Melchizedek Resembles the Son of God, Not the Other Way Around

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy 

Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?

Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58

 

The Trinity or Plurality of God

The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill 

Links to John Gill's Chapters on the Trinity in His Work "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God

Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead

Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill

Edward Henry Bickersteth's Books In Defense of the Trinity

All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)

Omniscience of the Persons of the Trinity

The Aaronic Blessing Is Highly Suggestive of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity

Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]

Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity

Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner

F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel

The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint

Speculative Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation

Why Do Trinitarian Prooftexts Have "So Many Problems"?

 Interactions with Mike Gantt

Part One:  F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel

Part Two:  Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner

 

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit

Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Holy Spirit by John Gill

Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality

The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament 

The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns

Do the Father and Son Love the Holy Spirit?

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

 

---

 

 Some eye opening articles from the Jews for Jesus website:

Jewishness and the Trinity

The Trinity: Questions and Answers

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?

 

 

Did Jesus Claim to be God? A Conversation Between Atheist Alex O'Connor and Catholic Scholar Brant Pitre

 
Even though I'm a Protestant and not a Catholic, I highly recommend this video where Brant Pitre presents very good reasons to think Jesus claimed to be God from the Synoptic Gospels.

Jesus DID Claim to be God - Brant Pitre   
https://youtu.be/CNZkadmhjWo

 

 

 

 

A Pauline Affirmation of Christ As the Angel of the LORD?

 

The following is a quotation from Skeptic scholar Bart Ehrman:

Did Paul believe that Christ was an angel before he was born as a human being?

By: Bart D. Ehrman

[...] I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians literally hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what Paul says in Galatians 4:14 simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago. In this verse Paul indicates that Christ was an angel. The reason it never registered with me is because the statement is a bit obscure, and I had always interpreted it in an alternative way. Thanks to the work of other scholars, I now see the error of my ways.

In the context of the verse Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst, and they helped restore him to health. This is what the verse in question says:

Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.

I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. In fact the grammar of the Greek suggests something quite different. As the Charles Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.

As I indicated, the reason for reading the verse this way has to do with the Greek grammar. When Paul uses the construction “but as … as” he is not contrasting two things; he is stating that the two things are the same thing. We know this because Paul uses this grammatical construction in a couple of other places in his writings, and the meaning in these cases is unambiguous. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:1 Paul says: “Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.” The last bit “but as…as” indicates two identifying features of the recipients of Paul’s letter: they are fleshly people and they are infants in Christ. These are not two contrasting statements; they modify each other. The same can be said of Paul’s comments in 2 Cor. 2:17, which also has this grammatical feature.

But this means that in Galatians 4:14 Paul is not contrasting Christ to an angel; he is equating him to an angel. Garrett goes a step further and argues that Gal. 4:14 indicates that Paul “identifies [Jesus Christ] with God’s chief angel” [p. 11].

If that’s the case, then virtually everything Paul ever says about Christ throughout his letters makes perfect sense. As the Angel of the Lord, Christ is a pre-existent being who is divine; he can be called God; and he is God’s manifestation on earth in human flesh. Paul says all these things about Christ, and in no passage more strikingly than in Philippians 2:6-11, a passage that is often called by scholars the “Philippians Hymn” or the “Christ Hymn of Philippians,” since it is widely thought to embody an early hymn or poem devoted to celebrating Christ and his incarnation.

My friend Charles Cosgrove, a life-long scholar of Paul who is also one of the world’s experts on music in the early Christian world, has convinced me that the passage could not have been an actual hymn that was sung, since it does not scan properly, as a musical piece, in the Greek. And so it may be a poem or even a kind of exalted prose composition. But what is clear is that it is an elevated reflection on Christ coming into the world (from heaven) for the sake of others and being glorified by God as a result. And it appears to be a passage Paul is quoting, one with which the Philippians themselves may well have already been familiar. In other words, it is another pre-Pauline tradition.

https://ehrmanblog.org/was-christ-an-angel-according-to-paul/

The word "angel" in both the Old and New Testaments [Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek] merely means "messenger." So referring to Christ as an "angel" doesn't necessitate Jesus is a created spirit being like the angels Gabriel or Michael. Since "messenger(s)" in the Bible can be human or ontological angels like Gabriel. Therefore there is no fixed ontology to the word "angel" in the Biblical text. Which means Jesus could be the divine messenger of the divine Father in a way consistent with Trinitarianism.

META AI Conversation On The Likelihood of Jesus Claiming To Be Divine

 

 

All artificial intelligence conversations should be taken with a grain of salt. They don't really settle anything. Nevertheless, the following is an interesting informal conversation I had with Facebook's META AI. My statements are highlighted like this sentence.

What is your probability that a historical Jesus existed?

META AI: As a neutral and informative assistant, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an overview of the scholarly consensus and the types of evidence that historians consider when evaluating the historicity of Jesus.

Most scholars agree that a historical figure named Jesus likely existed, given the following points:

- *Multiple attestation*: Jesus is mentioned in various independent sources, including the New Testament, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and Roman historian Tacitus.

- *Historical context*: The accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are set within a plausible historical context, reflecting the politics, culture, and religious practices of 1st-century Judea.

- *Criterial methods*: Scholars use criteria such as the criterion of embarrassment (events or details that might be embarrassing to the early Christian community are likely to be historical), the criterion of multiple attestation (events or details that are attested to in multiple sources are more likely to be historical), and the criterion of coherence (events or details that fit with the broader historical context are more likely to be historical) to evaluate the historicity of Jesus.

While there's ongoing debate among scholars about the details of Jesus' life and teachings, the majority consensus is that a historical Jesus likely existed. If I had to provide a probability based on the scholarly consensus, I'd say it's high (>90%), but this is not a personal opinion, rather a reflection of the prevailing scholarly view [1].

But you gave a probability assessment on the moon landing. Be consistent and not hypocritical and Do that same for a historical Jesus.

Given the scholarly consensus and evidence, I'd give a probability of *95%+* that a historical Jesus existed. This assessment is based on the multiple attestation, historical context, and criterial methods mentioned earlier. However, the probability is not as high as the moon landing due to the differences in the nature of the evidence and the complexity of historical interpretation [1].

What is your probability assessment that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'd give a probability assessment of *0%* that Jesus was the Son of God in a literal, metaphysical sense. This assessment is based on the lack of empirical evidence and the supernatural nature of the claim, which falls outside the realm of historical or scientific verification.

The concept of Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of faith and theological interpretation, and probabilities would vary widely depending on one's worldview, religious beliefs, and personal perspectives.

Guven that you gave a high probability that a historical Jesus existed, What's your probability assessment that he claimed to be the Son of God?

Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations, I'd assess the probability that the historical Jesus claimed to be the Son of God as follows:

- *Low to moderate probability* (around 20-40%): Some scholars argue that Jesus might have seen himself as a divine agent or a messianic figure, but the explicit claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense is more likely a product of early Christian theology and Christology.

- *Higher probability in certain contexts*: If one interprets certain biblical passages (e.g., Mark 1:1, John 10:30-33) as reflecting historical events, the probability might be higher. However, these interpretations are subject to scholarly debate.

Keep in mind that historical assessments of Jesus' claims and self-understanding are complex and nuanced, and probabilities would depend on one's evaluation of the sources and historical context [1].

How about the probability of his having claimed to be the "son of man"?

The phrase "Son of Man" is a complex and multifaceted title in the context of Jesus' teachings and identity. Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations:

- *Higher probability* (around 70-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus likely referred to himself as the "Son of Man," given the phrase's presence in multiple Gospel accounts (e.g., Mark, Q source) and its Aramaic origins (Bar Enasha). The phrase could have been used by Jesus to convey his humanity, his role as a mediator, or his connection to the apocalyptic figure in Daniel 7:13-14.

The probability assessment depends on one's evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, the linguistic and cultural context, and the potential layers of meaning in the phrase "Son of Man" [1].

What's your assessment probability that His claim to be the "son of man" was a reference and allusion to the Danielic Son of Man of Dan. 7?

Given the scholarly discussions and interpretations:

- *Moderate to high probability* (around 60-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" was indeed influenced by the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14). This connection is plausible due to:

    - *Linguistic and thematic parallels*: The Danielic Son of Man receives dominion and glory from God, which might be echoed in Jesus' use of the phrase.

    - *Apocalyptic context*: Jesus' teachings often contained apocalyptic themes, and the Danielic Son of Man fits within this context.

However, the exact nature and extent of the allusion are subject to ongoing scholarly debate, which affects the probability assessment [1].

Would you grant that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE [ancient Near East], and that the danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity?

*Cloud riding as a prerogative of deities*:

Yes, in the Ancient Near East (ANE), cloud riding was often associated with divine beings or gods. This motif is seen in various ancient texts, where gods are described as riding on clouds or having control over the clouds.

*The Danielic Son of Man and worship*:

Regarding the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14), the Aramaic word used to describe the service or presentation to the Ancient of Days is indeed often translated as "brought" or "presented," but it can also carry connotations of worship or homage. The word "qrb" (קרב) in Aramaic can imply a sense of reverence or obeisance, which might suggest a divine or quasi-divine status for the Son of Man.

These observations are relevant to understanding the cultural and theological context of the Danielic Son of Man and its potential influence on Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man."

Given that the danielic Son of man rides the clouds, and given that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE, and given that that danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity, and given your previous probability assessment of a historical Jesus existing and his self-designation as the Danielic son of man, what now is [re-assessment] your probability assessment that Jesus claimed to be divine and/or the Son of God?

Given the additional context and connections you've outlined:

- *Re-assessment of probability*: Considering the Danielic Son of Man's divine connotations, cloud riding prerogatives, and the potential implications of the word "qrb" in Aramaic, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

    - *Moderate probability* (around 40-60%): Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" might have been intended to convey a sense of divine authority, agency, or identity, given the Danielic context. This could have been interpreted by his contemporaries as a claim to divinity or a unique relationship with God.

    - *Increased likelihood*: The connections you've highlighted increase the likelihood that Jesus' self-designation as the Son of Man was more than just a humble or human reference, and might have been intended to convey a more exalted status.

This re-assessment takes into account the complexities of historical interpretation, the nuances of ancient language and culture, and the potential implications of Jesus' words and actions in their original context [1].

Remind me what your previous assessment was.

My previous assessment was that the probability of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was around *20-40%*. Given the new context and connections, I've reassessed the probability to be around *40-60%*, indicating a slightly higher likelihood that Jesus might have claimed or implied a divine identity or relationship [1].

Now factor in how the earliest Christian documents by the apostle Paul have an Early High Christology. Could the early followers of Jesus have been so mistaken as to his claims? Make a reassessment.

*Early High Christology in Paul's writings*:

The apostle Paul's letters, some of the earliest Christian documents, do indeed reflect an Early High Christology, portraying Jesus as a divine or quasi-divine figure (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 9:5).

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *Higher probability* (around 60-80%): The early Christian community's understanding of Jesus, as reflected in Paul's writings, might have been rooted in Jesus' own claims or actions. It's possible that Jesus' teachings, actions, and self-understanding led his followers to develop a high Christology relatively quickly.

- *Less likely that the early followers were entirely mistaken*: Given the proximity of Paul's writings to Jesus' lifetime and the fact that Paul interacted with other early Christian leaders who knew Jesus (e.g., Peter, James), it's plausible that the early Christian understanding of Jesus was informed by Jesus' own identity claims or implications.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential connections between Jesus' life, teachings, and the early Christian community's understanding of him [1].

Now factor in hostile witness like the early Jewish arguments against Jesus. Re-assess.

*Hostile witness: Early Jewish arguments*:

The early Jewish arguments against Jesus, as recorded in the Talmud and other sources, often focus on Jesus' claims to divinity or his perceived blasphemy (e.g., b. Sanh. 43a). Although these sources are later and may not directly reflect the earliest Jewish responses, they might preserve elements of early Jewish criticism.

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *High probability* (around 80-90%): The fact that both Christian and Jewish sources (albeit with different perspectives) seem to converge on the idea that Jesus' identity or claims were central to the controversy surrounding him lends credibility to the notion that Jesus' self-understanding or claims were extraordinary.

- *Increased likelihood that Jesus' claims were perceived as divine*: The hostile witness of early Jewish arguments might suggest that Jesus' words or actions were seen as making divine claims or implications, which would have been considered blasphemous by some.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential historical kernel preserved in both Christian and Jewish sources, despite their differing perspectives and agendas [1].

You wrote: "Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:"

Is the "or" meant in the sense of 1. either X or Y; or 2. as equivalent to?

In this context, the "or" is meant in the sense of equivalence, implying that claiming to be divine or claiming to be the Son of God are being treated as similar or related claims. In other words, I'm using "or" to connect two phrases that are roughly equivalent or overlapping in meaning, rather than presenting mutually exclusive alternatives.

Can One Be Justifiably Incredulous of the Trinity Based On This Meme?

I saw the following meme on Facebook and I responded to it with what I wrote below it. It's my very brief refutation:

MY RESPONSE:

Nearly Every other doctrine in the Bible needs to be systematized. Whether the attributes of God, eschatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, atonement theories, how and in what sense the OT laws continue and/or are abrogated under the New Covenant, the relationship [if any] between Israel and the Church, etc. Why think that wouldn't be the case for Christology and theology proper [i.e. the doctrine of God in particular]? Most of the New Testament books are occasional letters. Meaning letters written on an occasion to address a particular issue the author deems necessary to focus on. They weren't written to teach the very basics of the faith.

The rudimentary elements and concept of the Trinity are presupposed in the New Testament Scriptures, and strongly hinted at in the Old Testament. The Trinity makes most sense of the comprehensive data and evidence we find in the Bible. It's the best abductive explanation. Abduction is inference to the best explanation. Or reasoning to that theory that has the greatest explanatory power, explanatory scope, is least Ad Hoc, fits best with already established facts, et cetera. 

For example, it only makes sense that the Holy Spirit is in some sense divine if Christians are the temple of God due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [1 Cor. 6:19; 3:16-17] . It only makes sense that Jesus is fully divine if He's worshipped to the same degree as the Father [John 5:23; Heb. 1:6 citing the LXX of Ps. 97:7 & Deut. 32:43]. These, and many other thing, are things that don't make sense in various types of anti-Trinitarian Unitarianism. 

Why for example does the New Testament teach all three persons dwell in believers [Father and Son: John 14:21-23; Son: Rev. 3:20; John 17:23], if it's not the case that all three persons are divine. Why are ALL THREE said to be INVOLVED in creation [Jesus: John 1:1ff.; 1Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Spirit:Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30], and redemption [Spirit: Eph. 4:30; Rom. 8:23], sanctification [Jesus: 1 Cor. 1:2, 30; Heb. 10:10; 13:12; Spirit: 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 15:16] and the resurrection of Christ [Christ: John 2:18; 10:17-18; Spirit: Rom. 1:4; 8:11]? Why are all three taught to be followed and obeyed [Jesus is obvious; Spirit: Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51]? Why all three are said to give spiritual gifts [Jesus: Eph. 4:7ff.; Spirit: 1 Cor. 12:11]? Why all three said to be mentioned and invoked in the initiation rite of entrance into the church [Matt. 28:19ff.]? Why all three invoked in a benediction [2 Cor. 13:14]? Why all three are said to be objects whom we ought not to blaspheme [Mark 3:28-29; Matt. 12:31-32; Luke 12:10]? Why all three objects whom we are to seek fellowship [Jesus: 1 John 1:3; Spirit: 2 Cor. 13:14]? Why all three teach and guide us [Jesus: John 13:14; 8:12; Spirit: John 14:26; Luke 12:12; 1 Cor. 2:12-13, Heb. 9:8; Job 32:8]  Why all three are a source of grace [Jesus: 1 Thess. 5:28; 1 Cor. 13:14; Phil 4:23; Spirit: Heb. 10:29; Zech 12:10]? EXAMPLES COULD BE MULTIPIED. But they will never be enough for a hard headed Unitarian.

The Athanasian Creed: Christianity’s Most Controversial Statement of Faith by Gavin Ortlund

 
As I've written I'm open to various models of the Trinity. The following is a video by Gavin Ortlund on the Athanasian Creed.

The Athanasian Creed: Christianity’s Most Controversial Statement of Faith 
https://youtu.be/qpekHClbGjI