Unitarianism and the Trinity

7/24/2019 Unitarianism and the Trinity

1/47

Unitarianism and the Trinity

The following offers accounts of two encounters with Unitarians.

The first: I received mail from a defender of Anthony Buzzard and Charles

Hunting'sThe Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound(foundhere).Our writer overall was pleasant to deal with and also raised some arguments we'd like to

submit for the reader's consideration, along with our rebuttals. Accompanying this

update as well, we have presented some more detailed rebuttals of individual

arguments by Buzzard and Hunting below.

Our writer-in first presented this argument:

This is where I have one of my biggest problems with the Trinity: As pointed out by

Buzzard and Hunting, the Bible uses personal pronouns for God some 25,000 times! If

"He" means "They," why doesn't it just come right out and say so? Why would God play

games with us to an extent that approaches "nausea" (your word)? If this is His subtle

way to get us to do more digging in order to arrive at His true identity in the Trinity, how

do we know that anything else in the Bible is not also such a riddle?

The answer: These are the words of a modern, Western person with gender and

pronoun concerns on the mind. There is no reason to use "they" over "he" -- let us keep

in mind that the big danger in early Israel was polytheism; a plural pronoun could all too

easily be misunderstood.

We should not wonder that the Trinity was not fully revealed until polytheism was erased

as a danger in the mind of the Jews -- after the machinations of Antiochus and the

Romans closed the door to that temptation more or less permanently.

As it is, however, a believer in the Trinity would still see "He" as the appropos pronoun.

Our writer-in had a problem (as did Buzzard and Hunting) understanding that the Trinity

involved a concept ofontological equality, butfunctional subordination. Jesus said that

the Father was greater than he was, and showed himself an obedient servant of the

Father. The Spirit is also clearly under God's command, under any perspective.

Unitarians often fail to recognize this very important aspect of Trinitarian theology, and

make serious errors as a result.
http://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.html


2/47

We agree that "He" is the best pronoun to use -- because the Son and the Spirit are

properly subsumed under the functional identity of the Father. And let me just add here

that the supposition of "riddles" is in the eye of the beholder. As I recently told a Mormon

who insisted that the Bible was written for the "average, reasonable person," and such a

person would easily get theMormonview from the Scriptures, it is first of all necessary

to prove that a certain understanding is "average" rather than actually "way below

average" and not merely a case of us moving the goalposts to make "way below

average" into "average".

Second, it is clear that while one may come to Christ as a child, numerous passages

encouraging Christian growth indicate that we are not toremainas a child.

Personally, I would very much like to see you refer us to a scholar or two who have

successfully refuted Buzzard and Hunting's contention with regard to Psalm 110:1, the

most quoted and most controlling christological text utilized within the NT. As they clearly

show, the two words for "lord" in that text are significantly different. The first "Lord"

(adonai) is Yahweh, the Father, the one God of Israel, as it is in some 6,700 other OT

occurrences. But the second word for "lord" - really, "my lord" - is adoni, which was

never used of God but was intended for the king of Israel or other humans of high rank.

Since the NT expressly and frequently identifies Jesus as that second "lord" - for

example, at Acts 2:34-36 - it should be rather obvious that in the early church Jesus wasviewed as the non-deity lord (adoni, not adonai)! That one challenge alone illustrates

that Buzzard and Hunting have done more than "a little digging in the relevant Biblical

scholarship." Unless someone has or can come up with a significant refutation, they've

presented what I think is a devastating challenge to the teaching of the Trinity.

Our subject and I had some discussion over how Ps. 110:1 worked out in terms of vowel

placement, but it really doesn't matter. Once again, the answer is the same: this is

exactly what we would expect under a functional subordination paradigm.

Just as saying "Jesus is God" is correct, but not complete (for it does not imply the

opposite, "God is Jesus"), so it is that saying "Jesus is Adonai" would not be specific

enough, whereas "Jesus is Adoni" would be fine -- but would reflect the function of

Jesus while saying nothing about his divinity, which is worked out on other grounds.


3/47

Further on our writer insists (as do Buzzard and Hunting) that monotheism was so

controlling an idea that a Trinity would have been impossible for Jews to embrace. Well,

the sacrifice of a human being for sins and the corresponding abandonment of the

sacrifices would have been no easier to swallow; the communion would have been

thought, on the surface, to be a cannibalistic abomination; and even the process of a

Unitarian-safe Jesus exalted to God's right hand would have earned a sneer or two. Not

that such sneers would have stopped Christians (they didn'telsewhere), but the bottom

line is the controlling ideas in Judaism would not have stopped Christian innovation

where the revelation factor was enough of an impetus.

If Christians toed the line on all (or enough) Jewish controlling ideas, why did Paul

persecute them, and why were Paul and others persecuted by Jews later on?

I discovered, for example, that Job 13:8 in the KJV asks: "Will ye speak wickedly for

God? and talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?"

The Hebrew word here is paniym, translated as "person" another 20 times in the OT.

God is referred to as one person in the NT as well. At Hebrews 1:3, Christ is said to be

"the brightness of His [God's] glory and the express image of His person."

Our answers above cover this, though here we can add, that "person" in both cases is

not the same conceptual term as "person" in the typical Nicene exposition. In Job it is

actually "face" (Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon thefaceof the deep." -- those 20 times in the KJV are countered by over 1900

places where it is not translated thusly) and neither that nor the KJV word "person"

reflects a modern psychological category of a unified and single personality.

In Hebrews it is also obviously not a modern psychological term; it is the rare

wordhupostasisand it loosely parallels the Hebrewpaniym.

God is described for our understanding as having only one face. See Gen. 32:30; 33:10;

De. 31:16, 17; 2 Ch. 30:9; Job 33:26; Ps. 10:11; 27:9; 67:1; 80:3, 7, 19; Isa. 59:2; Jer.44:11; Eze. 39:29; Da. 9:17; Mt. 18:10; Ac. 2:28; Heb. 9:24; and 1 Pe. 3:12. God has

only one head (Da. 7:9), one mouth (Ps. 33:6), one tongue (Hab. 1:13), one mind (Job

23:13; 1 Co. 2:16), and one heart (Gen. 6:6; Ps. 33:11).
http://ttp//www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.htmlhttp://ttp//www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html


4/47

Interesting, of course, but as I pointed out (and to which our writer had no reply) this

doesn't hold much water unless Mormons are right about God having a physical, human

body. Add this to what we have already said above about the polytheism temptation and

you have an answer.

From Gen. 49:24 to Luke 1:49 He is called "THE Mighty ONE" 12 times. As if to remind

us that we must never forget that all-important fact, we are told "The Mighty One, God,

the LORD, the Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows, and may Israel itself know."

(Jos. 22:22) At De. 6:4; Mr. 12:29 and Ga. 3:20, we are told that "God is ONE."

But of course -- even under a Trinitarian view this is utterly appropos, for the reasons

stated. The key remains, "one what"? The evidence of the NT suggests, "one being".

We leave our writer with his comments upon my use of intertestamental sources for myitem onWisdom:

I think it is therefore no wonder that you confessed to valuing the comments of

noncanonical writers more than the view implicit in the words of Jesus and the inspired

NT writers! I was taken aback by your statement, "in many ways, the intertestament lit is

much more relevant."

Sadly, this reminds me too much of Skeptics who insist we cannot use Jewish sources

to define a "sabbath's day journey" and my Mormon correspondent who insists that theBible does not need commentaries and councils for us to understand it -- it is

unfortunate that this sort ofviewpountis found even among professed believers. One

may as well ask how we could value a Greek-English lexicon. (Our writer has not replied

since this latest correspondence, but left on good terms.)

Next we'll be taking a closer look at some key cites from Buzzard and Hunting.

John's Prologue:As noted in our review, Buzzard and Hunting interpret the prologue

as saying that thelogosonly became personal at verse 1:14, where it is said to have

"become flesh," and they call upon Dunn for support. If this is true, one wonders why

John used the wordlogoswithout qualification earlier in the prologue. John does not say
http://ttp//www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/qt/solex.htmlhttp://ttp//www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/qt/solex.html


5/47

at any point that the logos "became personal" -- saying that it "became flesh" doesn't

qualify.

"Flesh" (sarx) is associated with the human body and weakness, but it was not

considered the seat of what we would call consciousness -- that was the "heart"(kardia). If John wanted to say that thelogosobtained personality,kardiawas the word

to use, not justsarxby itself, since it is clear from the existence of beings of spirit (God

and the angels) thatsarxisn't a requirement for personhood.

An impersonal entity that "became flesh" would just sit around doing nothing -- the Tin

Man did have a heart, he just didn't know it.

Elsewhere Buzzard quotes others of the opinion that the Trinitarian views "destroy all

coherence in the essential Christian claim that Jesus was truly a human being..." One

fails to see how this is so, and it is not explained, much less outlined in terms of specific

psychological issues or the relationship between mind and body, or in terms of the

meaning of the kenotic emptying.

Buzzard and Hunting confuse the issue and beg the question by arguing [128] that if

"the Word is the Son in a pre-human condition, then both Father and Son are equally

entitled to be thought of as the supreme Deity," but this cannot be the case because it

would counter monotheism. As before, Buzzard and Hunting assume that such ideas

could not be overturned (or in this case, it is better to say, fine-tuned) by any means, and

fail to distinguish between ontological and functional equality. Ontologically, the Word

(and Spirit) would be so equally entitled, but functionally, they would not be.

This is why Jesus' divine titles are so carefully qualified: Son of God (not "God" expect

in rare cases), Son of Man (the heir, not the king), the one who sits at the Father's right

(and subservient) hand, indeed the "logos" designation itself.

Because of the nature of God, and His inability to share His glory with others, they show

ontological equality and the inclusion of Son and Spirit in the Godhead; yet they alsostress subordination functionally.

Buzzard and Hunting further quote the opinion of a scholar who says that our mistake

has been to read John's prologue in light of Philo. It is claimed that the text should be

read in terms of a Hebrew background, not "the Alexandrian and Philonic sense as an


6/47

intermediary between God and man." [129] It can be read, this person says, and

understood without reference to Philo.

If this is the case, then one wonders about the amazing coincidence of terminology

between the NT and Philo, as well as the other literature which taught an intermediaryfigure in Wisdom. Was this just an accident?

Buzzard on his own website adds an argument: After arguing that "logos" does not

mean anywhere else a personal being (which is not argued by Trinitarians anyway),

Buzzard notes that English translations before the KJV referred to the Logos as an "it"

rather than a "he" in John's prologue.

Why they did this is not explained and is beyond our ability to unearth, but one may note

that Buzzard, who knows the Greek text, is certainly not wanting us to know what that

Greek text says. The word used isautosand it is a self-referent word that elsewhere is

translated "him" or "he" where a male is referenced.

This does not mean that the word means "he" exclusively. It is a self-referent with

content determined by context. One can only read the Logos as an "it" by assuming the

Logos to be an "it" (and also by assuming that be "it" the translators meant to teach an

idea of a non-person, when all that can be said is that it offers a person that transcends

gender). That Buzzard sees a need to appeal to medieval English texts for any purpose

tells us enough of how weak his case is.

Buzzard and Hunting make a point about the Temptation of Jesus that is mirrored by

Skeptics [133]. See my responsehere.

John 17:5:And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I

had with thee before the world was.

Buzzard and Hunting have difficulty explaining this one. It clearly indicates Jesus was

pre-existent and personal "before the world was" since it is a little hard to experience

glory when one is not personal.

However, the question is begged and we are told that we will have to "adjust our

understanding" [158] (i.e., assume their view is correct) to really get the point. They go

all the way over to 2 Cor. 5:1, "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle

were dissolved, wehavea building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in
http://ttp//www.tektonics.org/gk/godmistakecreate.htmlhttp://ttp//www.tektonics.org/gk/godmistakecreate.html


7/47

the heavens." It is said that since here (and in Mark 10:21) we are said to "have" that

which is to come in the future, Jesus is "merely asking for the glory which he knew was

prepared for him by God from the beginning. That glory existed in God's plan, and in

that sense Jesus already 'had' it. We note that Jesus did not say, 'Give me back' or

'restore to me the glory which I had when I was alive with you before my birth.'"

That Buzzard and Hunting know this is semantic gymnastics is clear in that they

immediately thereafter resort to the "completely foreign to Judaism" argument (false, as

noted). The reference to the past foundation of the world clearly makes this a "give me

back" matter, though expressed in far more respectful terms. It also matches far better

with the kenotic emptying (Phil. 2:5-11).

Finally, in the cases cited by Buzzard and Hunting, there is an accompanying condition:

"ifour earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, [then] we have a building of

God"; "[if you] go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, [then] thou

shalt have treasure in heaven". No such conditional exists in John 17:5.

John 8:58:Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I

am.

We are told that Abraham's rejoicing to see the day of the Messiah doesn't mean that

Jesus knew of Abraham's reaction in the heavenlies, but that "Abraham by faith saw

Messiah's coming in advance of its actual arrival." [208]

If this is the case, one wonders where this is to be found. It isn't in the OT, and Buzzard

and Hunting in a footnote appeal to "rabbinic traditions" that Abraham saw a vision of his

descendants and of the end times, but this hardly constitutes seeing the day of the

Messiah, which in any event, does not match (as we now know) what actually happened

when Jesus came; indeed the late traditions may as well be reactions to Christian

assertions. 8:58 is taken to be a reference to Jesus' "preeminince in God's plan," and

theego eimi("I am") is taken to mean, "I am the Messiah," not the "I am" of Yahweh in

the burning bush, though why Jesus did not then add the modifying object or

specification about the "plan" is something Buzzard and Hunting can only guess at.

It is argued that in other places John uses "I am" to certify that "Messiah" is merely in

view, but this begs their own assumption that the Messiah was not and could not be a

divine figure.


8/47

It is also argued that even in I AM was meant in a divine sense, this would not justify

Trinitarianism, since under the Jewish principle of agency, Jesus perfectly represents his

Father and earns the divine title. We have noted that this fits the Wisdom paradigm

perfectly -- and that no created being could perfectly represent the Father without

somehow being part of the Father. This is simply "God can make a stone so heavy He

can't lift it" illogic.

Next it is said that Jesus did not use the full phrase from Exodus, which is "I AM WHO I

AM" orego eimi ho hown[210]. This is a strange objection since the Exodus phrase is

made in answer to Moses' inquiry and necessarily includes the extra words of

description. That said, it is more likely that"I am" phrases allude to Isaiah.

It is then suggested that Jesus could have merely meant he pre-existed ideally, in the

eternal counsels of God, not actually. But again Buzzard and Hunting must insert the

implied words "the one" at the end of 8:58 to show this, because the text as it stands

does not support their view and must be supplemented to fit it.

Finally we may note the reaction of the crowd, to stone Jesus; Buzzard and Hunting

circumvent this problem by insisting that Jesus was misunderstood. It's odd how the

"controlling idea" of monotheism in Judaism was so strong, yet managed to allow such a

gross misunderstanding that could have been easily prevented with a simple modifying

object-noun.

A last suggestion is that Jesus actually meant, "Before Abraham comes to be

[i.e.,returns in the resurrection], I am [i.e., I will be resurrected myself]." This is based on

the grammatical rule that allows the reference to be to either events in the past or future.

Of course we are once again missing of qualifying words that Buzzard and Hunting have

to insert to put this passage into line, and they try to read the same verb the same way

in Job 14:14 (LXX) as a reference to resurrection ("If a man die, shall he live again? all

the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come."), which indeed is held by

a few evangelical scholars, but most regard Job 14:14 as a reference to the change

ofdeath, and parallel the term used to relief from military service.

The Holy Spirit [215ff]: If The Holy Spirit was a person without an incarnation, as we

showedhere, then there is a substantial problem with Buzzard and Hunting claiming that

the word "becoming flesh" was also the start of his personhood, since clearly the Spirit
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html


9/47

didn't need incarnation to become personal. Buzzard and Hunting have a chapter trying

to divest the Spirit of personhood, making the Spirit merely God's "energy" (which we

agree that it is), but otherwise merely quote other people's erroneous opinions on the

matter, irrelevantly quote objections from Luther and Calvin that they didn't like the

sound of the word "Trinity" (never mind that they fully endorsed the concept), and

engage in selective quotation. For example, Acts 8:26-29:

And theangelof the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto

the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and

went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace

queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to

Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the

prophet. Then theSpiritsaid unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

We are told that the angel and the Spirit are the same, and one might be correct (since

the Spirit does clearly have a "messagerial" role as the inspirer of prophecy), but this is

no way detracts from a Trinitarian view. Once again Buzzard and Hunting just don't

account for functional subordination.

Further objections are posed: "...the Holy Spirit has no personal name."

"Holy Spirit" isn't enough? Most personal names in this age were descriptive in some

way, and still are even if we don't know it; "Philip" means "fond of horses". God has

names like Creator and Father; are those personal names?

"Why is it that in no text of Scripture is the Holy Spirit worshipped or prayed to?"

Because the Spirit's role is to help us with our prayers; he does not make the decisions,

but follows the Father's wishes.

"Not once does the Holy Spirit send greetings to the churches."

Of course not: It indwells the church and its members: "Greetings from inside you?"

Romans 8:26:Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we

should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with

groanings which cannot be uttered.


10/47

They actually do not quote it but note that in v. 27 Christ is the intercessor, and conclude

from here and elsewhere (on verses we also cite) that this is merely Christ's Spirit and

not a separate person.

But 8:27 makes it fairly clearly that we have a team effort:And he that searcheth thehearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the

saints according to the will of God.If Buzzard and Hunting are right, Paul is saying

Christ knows his own mind because of his own intercession, which would be a fruitless

point to make, right along the lines of "Jesus is Jesus because he is Jesus."

It is noted as well that the Spirit's title of Comforter "hardly suggests a person." One may

wonder how it is that a non-person can be known and teach and remind (John 14:15-18,

26); any person who speaks of their tape recorder as "teaching" them would be locked

in the pokey with the coats with the long arms. Since the wordparakletos(Comforter)

has the meaning of an actual person who advocates for another in court, this would be

like calling an impersonal force an Attorney.

Acts 5:3:But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy

Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?...Then Peter said unto her, How is

it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them

which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

Buzzard and Hunting dismiss this one with the expediency of referring to the Spirit as

"the power and authority invested by God in Peter." How one can "lie to" power and

authority is not explained, and the parallel drawn to Moses and Aaron and God (Ex.

16:2, 8) only strengthens the idea that the Spirit possesses personality, since both

parties did as well in Exodus.

Finally a few other ideas that beg the question:

Acts 2:17, which refers to the "pouring out" of the Spirit, is used to say, "Persons, surely,

are not poured out." Human persons are not, but this says nothing about persons thatare of other types of beings, and at any rate, you can't literally pour wrath either (Rev.

16:1). This is a figure of speech however you cut it; though one may playfully point out

that in the realm of science fiction there are living persons in liquid form.

Our challenge in the above linked article re verses like Matt. 28:19 is not met.


11/47

Colossians 1:15ff: As noted in the review Buzzard and Hunting dispense with this rich

passage in less than 3 pages, and their keystone is to quote Dunn's overcautious

comment that Paul was not "arguing that Jesus was a particular preexistent being" but

was rather saying that wisdom was "now most fully expressed in Jesus..." versus

previous manifestations.

If this is so then it seems odd that the language does not express that

Jesusbecamethese things -- the image of God, etc. -- versus that he is, was, and

always was, as the language implies. It is hard to swallow that Paul (or the creed he

quotes) made these numerous allusions to pre-existent Wisdom and yet did not make

this very important distinction clear.

Furthermore, what "fuller expression" could there be than actuality? Dunn accuses

Christians of "ransacking" the language in such cases, but this merely assumes that to

borrow the language was not intended to transmit a truth about the identity of Jesus. In

the end Dunn's argument only assumes what Buzzard and Hunting want to prove, and

fails to explain how otherwise Paul could have written in order to directly equate Jesus

with Wisdom.

Beyond this it is stated that the term "firstborn" cannot refer to an uncreated being (a

point we show in our Wisdom article to be false), and an attempt is made to limit "all

things" to the thrones, dominions and such, though the stress on "all things" (twice) andallusion to Wisdom of Solomon 1:16 suggests rather that these are merely relevant

examples for addressing the Colossian heresy.

It is not the least strange for it to be said that Jesus created all things for himself, and

Buzzard and Hunting do not explain why it would be strange, they merely assert that it

is.

And now we offer some material compiled from our debate with a Unitarian. These are

mini-essays that are summary responses to primary arguments used by our opponent.

Argument 1: When John says "the Word became flesh" (1:14) he means the

Logos became a full human being, which includes personality. The word "flesh"

means a whole person.


12/47

A word study of "flesh" in the NT shows this to be false. As I noted above, this does not

say that the logos obtained a heart, a center of conscious thought; it only says "flesh."

We will see that the vast majority of cites show "flesh" to mean no more than a body

itself,in distinct difference from a spirit or a rational faculty.

There are a few cites of "flesh" that haveanothermeaning -- but it won't help.

Matt. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:

for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

"Flesh and blood" is a widely recognized idiom forhuman weakness. Similar use of the

phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the

works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature.

We'll see some examples further below that make it more clear that the rational part of

the being is NOT in view here -- merely our weakness as creatures (which is not what

"flesh" by itself means).

Matt. 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall

cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Mark 10:8)

Do married people become one rational being? No, they do become "one flesh" as

married persons, and we don't have a union of rational faculties -- and this will be made

more clear in another cite below.

Matt. 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be

saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (Mark 13:20)

No flesh should be saved? Does the rational part of a being die?

Matt. 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing,

but the flesh is weak. (Mark 14:38)

Here the "flesh" and the "spirit" are held in complete distinction. The word for "spirit"ispneuma.

Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

"All flesh" -- humanity, right? Yes. But this is a differing use of "flesh" and it does mean

"humanity" (as in Genesis and Isaiah, for example) -- but it means thewholeof


13/47

humanity, everybody at once. It is a collective noun, so does it help to say the "logos

became flesh" in this sense? The logos became ALL humanity at once?

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a

spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

"Flesh and bones" is a synecdoche for human physicality. But how will they "handle" the

non-tangible rational being of Jesus?

John 6:51, 55 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of

this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will

give for the life of the world....For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

How does one eat someone's full humanity?

John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to

as many as thou hast given him.

It's that "collective" meaning again.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my

Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young

men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Also that collective meaning.

Acts 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my

flesh shall rest in hope:

A distinction is made between "heart" and "flesh" -- "heart" iskardia.

Acts 2:30-31 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath

to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit

on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was

not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Rom. 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of

David according to the flesh...

Of course you cannot be descended from David through your intangible rational parts.


14/47

Rom. 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision,

which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is

that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of

God.

There's that flesh-heart/spirit distinction again.

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:

for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The collective meaning again.

Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God

sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the

flesh:

In the likeness or form of flesh? What is the form or likeness of a heart, mind, or spirit?

Rom. 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to

fulfil the lusts thereof.

Can our rational component have concupiscence, desire, or lust?

1 Cor. 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Also the collective.

1 Cor. 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the

spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Another distinction between flesh and spirit.

1 Cor. 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two,

saith he, shall be one flesh.

Add this to the parallel above, and not that "body" is in parallelism with "flesh". That

body is "soma" -- a word which Gundry in his classic study showed meant the

"thingness" part of the person, not the complete person (versus Bultmann, who wanted

to argue that it was the whole kit and kaboodle so he could argue for a "spiritual

resurrection").


15/47

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of

God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Here again, this phrase means "human weakness". One more cite of this sort below.

2 Cor. 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life

also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

The rational part of us is not mortal?

2 Cor. 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves

from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Flesh-spirit dichotomy again.

2 Cor. 7:5 For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were

troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears.

Does our intangible, rational part get tired and need rest?

Gal. 4:13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at

the first.

An infirm spirit?

Gal. 6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire tohave you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

Physical circumcision -- of a spirit and mind?

Eph. 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our

flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children

of wrath, even as others.

A flesh-mind dichotomy again.

Eph. 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Here again, soma is in parallelism with "flesh".

Eph. 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh,

with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ...


16/47

Do slavemasters own your mind and spirit, too?

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against

powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in

high places.

Flesh and blood, versus principalities, powers, etc. Who not being flesh, have no

rational parts.

Phil. 1:22, 24 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose

I wot not...Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Abide in the flesh? No more mind or heart after we die?

Phil. 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that

he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

A list of personal credits, and deeds Paul has done in life, follows this. No praise for his

mind's deeds are included.

James 5:3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness

against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together

for the last days.

Can you eat your own mind?

Rev. 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of

mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all

men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Now the birds get to eat your rational faculties? So, let's review:

1. "Flesh" is usually an outer aspect held in distinction to inner aspects of mind and

spirit. They are referred to as ontologically distinct, ALWAYS.

2. It sometimes can refer to a large group of people, usually all of humanity.


17/47

3. Sometimes (in association with "blood") it refers to human weakness or

inadequacy. It also sometimes refers to the sin nature, but no one wants John 1:14

to read that way. John only uses "flesh" and pairs nothing with it.

4. John 1:14 says that the Logos "became flesh". Since this obviously cannot mean

that the Logos turned into flesh with no remainder, it must mean that the Logos

"took on" flesh. Note that the word "dwelt" is the same as is used to refer to setting

up a tent or tabernacle.

5. John 1:14 does not say anything about the Logos being given a mind, spirit, or

any "inner aspect" that makes something a personal being. Therefore it is logical

to assume that the Logos already possessed these faculties when it became flesh.

Argument 2: Proverbs and other cites say Wisdom was "created". That means it

had a beginning and was not eternal.Our opponent made much of this (for a partial

reply seehere), but moreover, there is a certain semantic limitation involved, and that is

that there is no such thing as verb of production that, taken by itself, could not be

twisted, argued, or mashed into some implication of a beginning at a point in time rather

than eternality.

Even "generated," used by the Nicean creed, could be twisted so. Doesn't generation

imply that what was generated was "turned on" at some point? No surprise that the

Arians kept playing games and the Athanasians needed to narrow things. Heretics have

to have.

So then, there is no reason to see the use of words like "begotten" or "born" or "created"

in Prov. 8, Sirach, etc. as excluding eternality. There is simply no verb available that can

express, by itself, eternality, and that is why time markers for eternality ("eternally

begotten") must be added to express what is being described.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandjesus.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandjesus.html


18/47

Argument 3: John uses the word "logos" like he does everywhere else -- to refer

to the mundane "word" spoken by God, as spoken by people, not to a

metaphysical logos.What this runs down to is:

1. There are obviously two possible uses of logos at issue -- one mundane, the

other metaphysical.

2. The rampant "mundane" use of logos (and dabar in the OT) is used to "prove"

that the use of logos in John 1:14 is also "mundane" rather than metaphysical.

Of course, the obvious glitch here is that Philo also uses "logos" in a variety of mundane

ways, so how do we know that his use of logos is ever metaphysical? The obvious

answer is that the context does not allow us to regard his metaphysical uses of logos asmundane ones, and that (viz. the parallels in John to Wisdom literature) show that his

use of logos is indeed metaphysical.

In response to recent inquiries we are now proceeding with a more detailed refutation of

Anthony's Buzzard'sDoctrine of the Trinity. In the interest of brevity we will not address

most attempts to argue Trinitarianism from the OT (and also not thereby concede,

necessarily, to any of Buzzard's arguments on the OT; notably on Ps. 110:1).

Chapter 1-- In my review of Buzzard and Hunting'sDoctrine of the Trinity(DT) I made

this observation:

The argument Buzzard and Hunting repeat time and time again -- literally a hundred

times, if I may make an underestimate -- is as follows: 1) The Scriptures say God is

One. 2) Therefore, God is one person, and Jesus could only be "a human being vested

with extraordinary powers as God's legal agent." [41] It won't take a logician to see a

certain premise missing from the middle: 1.5) "One" equals to "one person" -- not onesomething else (as in, "one Being of composite nature"), and our authors never succeed

in making this connection in spite of repeating the other two points to the threshold of

nausea.


19/47

Chapter 1 of DT introduces this argument guilty of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

without once proving it. It is argued and assumed, again and again throughout DT, that

"monotheism" is the same as unitarianism, when it is not even by an English definition --

monotheism is merely the recognition of one God, making no statements about the

nature of that God -- though I might add from research into Mormonism that many

scholars, even Jewish and Evangelical ones (like Tigay and Hurtado), are questioning

exactly what value the modern word "monotheism" has in light of Jewish belief in

intermediate beings such as angels, and hypostases.

A better word for Jewish belief may have been "monolatry," the worship of one God.

Unitarianism is "monotheism" (modern definition)plusthe idea that the one God is but

one center of consciousness. Buzzard and Hunting profess to be finding unitarianism in

statements of "monotheism" like the Shema by taking the texts at "face value" and"according to the ordinary rules of language" (which language? English?), but in fact, it

is Buzzard and Hunting (and those modern Jews they quote, like Lapide and Gillet) who

invest statements like the Shema with unitarian semantic content, based on the false

equation of "monotheism" with unitarianism and without any explanation or defense.

It is ironic that (as shown in Smith'sOrigins of Biblical Monotheism, 153) as often as

Buzzard and Hunting use the Shema and say "montheism", other scholars like Hurtado

(an Evangelical) and Tigay (who is Jewish) are making the point that the Shema

isnotclearly monotheistic as we have defined the term; it contains no statement of

exclusivism (i.e., the Lord your God is one Lord, but it does not, other than by possible

interpretation, say, "theonlyone"). Tigay points out that it would read well as a proper

statement of the relationship between God and Israel: He alone is Israel's God, and no

other.

What this all means in our context is: The existence of other, lesser beings (perhaps

demonic, or perhapsfalselyrecognized by others as legitimate deities in their own

rights) is open here. However, it is enough for this context to state that the Shema doesnot offer the safety of anti-Trinitarians that Buzzard and Hunting continually suppose it

does.

Some germane points:


20/47

Under this rubric, it is stated that Israel "knew nothing about a duality or Trinity of

persons in the Godhead."

While not conceding this necessarily, we would make the point that Israel also knew

nothing of a Lord's Supper, atonement via what amounts to human sacrifice, the

resurrection of one particular person prior to the final resurrection, or creationex nihilo,

to name four examples of Christian principles that Buzzard and Hunting presumably

accept. New or progressive revelation is far from problematic as a concept. The key is

whether anything held by the OT or NTcontradictsthe idea of a Trinity -- and in that

respect...

...Buzzard and Hunting quote passages that say that God is "one Lord" (Deut.

6:4), there is "none other" (Deut. 4:39), of God creating all things by Himself (Is.

44:8; 24; 45:18), of being the "only God" (John 17:3, Jude 25) and so on.

A proper regard for what Trinitarianism actually teaches, however, refutes these

applications in favor of a Unitarian position. By Trinitarian understanding, the Word and

Spirit are by natureattributes of Godwhich proceed from the Father. They are inclusive

of the "one Lord" of whom there is "none other" -- they are not separate Lords or Gods,

but are part of the divine identity of the one God. In our Wisdom article we explained the

ancient concept of thehypostasis, a quasi-personification of attributes proper to a deity,occupying an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings (though

whether they are indeed personalities may be debated). (Moreover, we will see that Paul

in 1 Cor. 8:4, 6 specifically reformulates the Shema to include Jesus in the divine

identity.)

Our questions to Buzzard and Hunting would be as follows:

Are hypostases in any sense incompatible with "monotheism"?

Some have said so; Hurtado notes Bousset as an example. So we now ask Buzzard

and Hunting: If the God of the Bible did have hypostases, does that in any way

compromise "monotheism"? If the answer is yes, then Buzzard and Hunting will need to

explain why this is so, and explain why Prov. 8, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo

are not monotheistic, or else why they are not actually describing hypostases of God.


21/47

If the answer is no, then our next question comes into play:

If hypostases are not incompatible with monotheism, why is

Trinitarianism incompatible with monotheism?

We perceive that this is more likely what Buzzard and Hunting would say, since they

seem to agree (Ch. 7) that Wisdom, a hypostasis and attribute of God, did preexist with

God. The likely answer now to our question is, "Because Trinitarianism attributes actual

personhood to the hypostases of Word and Spirit."

But then we are led to ask, "How does the attribution of personhood to the hypostases

create a compromise in this respect?" Buzzard and Hunting provide nothing that

answers this question. Indeed their constant insistence that verses like John 17:3

(referring to the Father as the "only true God") are inconsistent with Trinitarianism

indicates that they have no answer, other than the original assumption that

"monotheism" is the same as unitarianism, a conclusion they seem to have drawn not

from actual definitions of the word, but uncritically from modern Jewish commentators

reacting to Trinitarianism who have impregnated the word with their own definitions and

understanding.

One must show that attributing personhood to a hypostasis violates "monotheism" (or

actually, violates statements like the Shema), not merely assume that it does, andBuzzard and Hunting never do this at all.

In closing on this chapter, and as analogy, Buzzard and Hunting might consider the

misuse of the wordelohimby both atheists and Mormons (seehereas an attempt to

refute their version of monotheism. The attempt is made by loading the "freight" of the

modern wordGod(with a capital G) into the ancient wordelohim, which obviously had a

much broader scope of meaning. It is our contention that Buzzard and Hunting make the

same mistake with the wordmonotheism.

Chapter 2-- This chapter adds little to the major premise of Ch. 1, continuing to use the

words "monotheism" and "unitarianism" as though interchangeable (though at one point

referring to "unitary monotheism" which is as much an admission that they are not the

same ideas) and noting particular professions of Jesus that God is "one" (Mark 12:29,

etc). These points are worth highlighting:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/monoelohim.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/lp/monoelohim.html


22/47

It is asked, "Could there have been lurking in the consciousness of Jesus the

idea that he himself was another, coequal person in the Godhead, and therefore

also fully God?"

We ask in reply: What of an idea that Jesus was a hypostasis, an attribute of God, and

thereby also fully God by nature (without exhausting the Godhead)? Note well that we

say that Jesus speaks of himself this way, and acts this way, in thepresent tense. He

does not say, "I am theend resultof God's Wisdom" -- there is no intermediary premise,

which is what writers like Buzzard and Hunting (and far too cautious evangelicals like

Dunn) must do in order to make their Jesus compatible with their version of

"monotheism".

Jesus makes statements and does things that indicate that heisWisdom in a one toone correspondence. Once again we draw from our previous work:

Matthew 8:20//Luke 9:58 Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son

of Man has no place to lay his head.

Witherington notes that the image of this saying "had been used earlier of Wisdom

having no place to dwell until God assigned her such a place (cf. Sir. 24:6-7 to 1 Enoch

42:2), with Enoch speaking of the rejection of Wisdom ('but she found no dwelling

place')." Witherington also notes the parallel to Sirach 36:31, "So who can trust a man

that has no nest, but lodges wherever night overtakes him?" The use of these allusions

"suggests that Jesus envisions and articulates his experience in light of sapiential

traditions..." (Jesus Quest, 188)

Matthew 11:16-19//Luke 7:31-2 To what, then, can I compare the people of this

generation? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and

calling out to each other: "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a

dirge, and you did not cry.'"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking

wine, and you say, 'He has a demon. 'The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and

you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But

wisdom is proved right by all her children."


23/47

Proverbs 1:24-28 Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public

squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she

makes her speech: "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will

mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? If you had responded to my

rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you.

But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my

hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will

laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity

overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when

distress and trouble overwhelm you. "Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they

will look for me but will not find me.

This passage provides some important clues once we have the social data in hand, and

add in the factor of Jesus' communal meals with the dregs of society. Witherington notes

passages like Proverbs 9:1-6, "which speaks of a feast set by Wisdom herself where

she invites very unlikely guests to the table" for the sake of helping them acquire

wisdom. Witherington therefore argues that Jesus dined with sinners and tax collectors

because he was "acting out the part of Wisdom." (187-8)

Matthew 11:29-30 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and

humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my

burden is light.

Sirach 6:19-31 Come to (Wisdom) like one who plows and sows. Put your neck into her

collar. Bind your shoulders and carry her...Come unto her with all your soul, and keep

her ways with all your might...For at last you will find the rest she gives...Then her fetters

will become for you a strong defense, and her collar a glorious robe. Her yoke is a

golden ornament, and her bonds a purple cord.

Sirach 51:26 Put your neck under the yoke, and let your soul receive instruction: she ishard at hand to find.

Jesus is clearly alluding to the passages in the very popular work of Sirach. His listeners

would have recognized that he was associating himself with Wisdom.


24/47

Matthew 12:42//Luke 11:31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the

men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to

listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

Noting the association of Solomon with the Wisdom literature, Witherington writes (186,192):

If it is true that Jesus made a claim that something greater than Solomon was present in

and through his ministry, one must ask what it could be...Surely the most straightforward

answer would be that Wisdom had come in person.

Matthew 23:34//Luke 11:49 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise

men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye

scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city... Therefore also saidthe wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall

slay and persecute...

In Matthew's version, Jesus says, "I will send them prophets..." Luke specifically

identified Jesus with Wisdom.

The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with Wisdom in a number of ways. Jesus speaks in

long discourses characteristic of Wisdom (Prov. 8, Sir. 24, Wisdom of Solomon 1-11).

John's emphasis on "signs" mirrors that of the Wisdom of Solomon, and John uses thesame Greek word for them (semeion). Finally, John's overwhelming use of the term

"Father" (115 times) matches the emphasis on that title in the late Wisdom literature.

Consider also:

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to

eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:26 On him God the Father has placed his seal of

approval. So that your children, whom you loved, O Lord, might learn that it is not

the production of crops that feeds humankind but that your word sustains those

who trust in you.

John 14:15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.


25/47

Wisdom of Solomon 16:18 And love of Wisdom is the keeping of her laws,

and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality.

Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)

Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21;

Wis. 11:4)

Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)

Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)

Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 10:7, 11, 14)

Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-

16; Sir. 24:19-22)

Christ is life (John 11:25)

Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)

Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)

Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)

We would put on Buzzard and Hunting's plate their own words: if language is stable and

has any meaning, these indicate nothing other than that Jesus considered himself

tobeWisdom, a hypostasis of God the Father.

Buzzard and Hunting wonder of the "newness" of Trinitarian doctrine and make

two statements that demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the ancient world:

It is said, "If [Jesus] were to introduce a shattering, radical change in

Judaism's understanding about God, this would have been an obvious opportunity."


26/47

As noted above this is not as "shattering" or as "radical" as Buzzard and Hunting

suppose. Judaism knew of and accepted the idea of hypostases with relation to the true

God. The only "radical" aspect was the ascription ofpersonality(versus,perhaps

onlypersonification) to the hypostases.

Is this a truly "radical, shattering" step? Radical, perhaps, for it would be new; but

"shattering" is a step too far.

But even so Buzzard and Hunting are neglectful in knowledge of what any "new"

religious revelation would mean. As we have noted in another context and on another

subject:

Roman literature tells us that "(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom

and tradition, the practices of the ancients." (62) In other words, if your beliefs had the

right sort of background and a decent lineage, you had the respect of the Romans. Old

was good. Innovation was bad.

This was a big sticking point for Christianity, because it could only trace its roots back to

a recent founder. Christians were regarded as "arrogant innovators" (63) whose religion

was the new kid on the block, but yet had the nerve to insist that it was the only way to

go! As noted above, Christianity argued that the "powers that be" which judged Jesusworthy of the worst and most shameful sort of death were 180 degrees off, and God

Himself said so.

Malina and Neyrey [164] explain the matter further. Reverence was given to ancestors,

who were considered greater "by the fact of birth." Romans "were culturally constrained

to attempt the impossible task of living up to the traditions of those necessarily greater

personages of their shared past." What had been handed down was "presumed valid

and normative. Forceful arguments might be phrased as: 'We have always done it this

way!'" Semper, ubique, ab omnibus -- "Always, everywhere, by everyone!"

It contrast, Christianity said, "Not now, not here, and not you!" Of course this explains

why Paul appeals to that which was handed on to him by others (1 Cor. 11:2) -- but that

is within a church context and where the handing on occurred in the last 20 years. Pilch

and Malina add [Handbook of Biblical Social Values, 19] that change or novelty in


27/47

religious doctrine or practice met with an especially violent reaction; change or novelty

was "a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values."

Even Christian eschatology and theology stood against this perception. The idea of

sanctification, of an ultimate cleansing and perfecting of the world and each person,stood in opposition to the view that the past was the best of times, and things have

gotten worse since then.

The Jews, on the other hand, traced their roots back much further, and although some

Roman critics did make an effort to "uproot" those roots, others (including Tacitus)

accorded the Jews a degree of respect because of the antiquity of their beliefs. In light

of this we can understand efforts by Christian writers to link Christianity to Judaism as

much as possible, and thus attain the same "antiquity" that the Jews were sometimes

granted. (Of course we would agree that the Christians were right to do this, but that is

not how the Romans saw it!)

Anynovelty Jesus or any Christian taught -- and Buzzard and Hunting can surely not

deny that Christianity taught some "novel" ideas in opposition to Judaism -- would have

had to be carefully insinuated and linked to older ideas (like the Wisdom tradition). We

see Jesus doing exactly what we would expect if he had something "new" like the Trinity

idea to speak of.

It is noted that in Acts, it is reported that a conference was held to decide

on matters like Gentile circumcision and behavior. "If these physical matters were

considered worthy of formal discussion, how much more would a conference be

necessary to discuss the explosive change from belief in a single-person God to that of

a Triune God, among these fiercely monotheistic Jews, leaders of the Christian

community?"

We once again remind the reader that in light of the idea of hypostases, the "change" to

a Triune perception would not have been anywhere near as "explosive" as Buzzard and

Hunting suppose and that they still define "monotheistic" in their own way.


28/47

Yet they also fundamentally misapply the point about the Acts conference. This

conference was an assembly of the people, a standard means of listening to and

considering differing points of view and overcome discord and lack of unity. Such a

meeting would only be called on a subjectif there was disagreementbetween members

on a broad scale. If all of the assembly agreed that Jesus (and the Spirit) was God's

hypostasis, and a person as well, then there is no need for such an assembly. They

would only be in disagreement with non-Christian Jews, who are not a part of their

kinship group.

No such discussion would be needed if all accepted the premise in question, which is

the very point at issue. Bottom line: Appeal to the lack of an "Acts 15 meeting" on

Trinitarianism is a non-argument in context.

2.It is said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not defended in the NT. With this we

may disagree, noting Alan Segal's workTwo Powers in Heavenwhich shows that

there was a dialogue on this issue between Jews and Christians.

3.We find it notable that Buzzard and Hunting, one of whom is a Biblical scholar, rely

on sources like commonplaceencyclopediasfor any purpose whatsoever.

4.Buzzard and Hunting continue to confuse the definitions of monotheism and

unitarianism when they write: "Jesus is a person separate and distinct from the

Father, the only true God. Jesus has not been incorporated into the Godhead."

The idea of a "distinct" person is a "-tarian" question. The idea of "incorporation" is a "-

theism" question. The two are separate and should not be illicitly mixed.

5.Buzzard and Hunting also fail to grasp Trinitarianism in this analogy, of

comparison to John 17:3's "only true God" profession: "We would be suspicious of

anyone who claims that he has 'only one wife' if his household consisted of threeseparate women, each of whom he claimed was his one wife."

The analogy is multiply flawed. Trinitarianism would say the man has one wife, who has

two attributes that are separate centers of consciousness: her thoughts and words, and

her ability to act. The latter two, which would be hypostatic entities, would not be called


29/47

"his one wife" because they do not exhaust the properties of his one wife; they

areattributesof his own wife.

Only the "source" wife could be called "his one wife" and the hypostatic "wives" would

not be called a "wife" by themselves (unless informally) but would be given titlesindicating derivation ("word of wife", "finger of wife," etc.)

If Buzzard and Hunting do not grasp these distinctions, they are not refuting or arguing

with Trinitarianism but with a straw-man version of Trinitarianism.

6.It is notable that Buzzard and Hunting offer a similar misunderstanding of Ps. 82:6

to that of the Mormons, as discussed in my bookThe Mormon Defenders.

However, it does not affect our arguments here.

As before we will not engage OT hermeneutical arguments (while also not conceding

Buzzard and Hunting's exegesis). However, we will agree that Jesus as Messiah was

indeed God's agent and representative. This squares with Jesus' function within the

Trinity and does not address hisontologicalrelationship with the Father.

Chapter 3-- The focus of this chapter is the question, "Did Jesus' followers think he was

God?" if we mean, "did they think he was God (the Father - keeping in mind the

personal name "God" was not yet used) in a one to one correspondence," the answer is

NO. If we ask, "did they think he was a hypostasis or attribute of God, ontologically

equal with yet functionally subordinate to God" (as the Nicean creed also states), then

the answer is YES.

For reference we again refer the reader to our essayhere. Without conceding Buzzard

and Hunting's arguments, we will not argue the points about John 20:28 as it does not

establish the fundamental differentiation of Trinitarianism even if Jesus is being called

"God" (it could just as well be used to support modalism).

Other points of note:

It is objected that in the Gospels, certain persons (the Nazarene townspeople,

Jesus' immediate family) "thought that Jesus had made a claim to be God."
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html


30/47

This and other objections in this chapter rest on a fundamental misapprehension of the

purpose of the Gospels as biographies of Jesus -- they are not intended to be

theological treatises, and therefore, the comparison of such things missing as being akin

to a history of America failing to mention the Civil War is illicit (as well as once again

assuming that a Trinitarian view was more radical than it really was; see above).

The Gospels also say practically nothing about atonement by the blood of Christ (a few

words at the Last Supper is all there is to it), but presumably Buzzard and Hunting do

not deny this doctrine on that basis.

Much of the rest of the chapter focuses on the "silence" of the Gospels on this "radical"

notion, and our answer is the same as above. Do we expect Gabriel to expound on

theological concerns, especially before a humble Galileean peasant whose main

concern is "where is my next meal coming from"? Surely such expectations are

anachronistic. We may also inform Buzzard and Hunting that the same "logic" is used by

atheists to doubt such events as Matthew's resurrected saints and various miracles

reported in one Gospel but not in others.

Points such as "Did they believe God was washing their feet at the Last Supper?"

are in one sense merely fallacious arguments from personal incredulity; but they

do raise the question of how much Jesus' disciplesduringhis ministry may have

understood his identity as Wisdom.

The simple answer is that we do not know, and that it makes no difference, and it is an

argument from silence to make an issue of it as Buzzard and Hunting do. Since the

disciples also did not expect a resurrection (seehere) or anatoningdeath, it would be

far from the only thing they misunderstood (to say nothing of how many times Jesus had

to rebuke them for failure to understand something). Appealing to the apparent

ignorance of the disciples is fallacious and irrelevant.

It is suggested that "human curiosity at least would have caused [the disciples] to

see what was going to happen to their read 'God'."

This begs the same question as above, but it is also worth noting that Buzzard and

Hunting are misinformed about ancient personality: as we note elsewhere:
http://ttp//www.tektonics.org/tsr/tsr914.htmlhttp://ttp//www.tektonics.org/tsr/tsr914.html


31/47

"Jesus' apparent defeat on the cross would have been viewed in the ancient world as a

killing blow to his ambitions, and incapable of reversal. As Pilch and Malina note in

theHandbook of Biblical Social Values[48], the Western world holds that defeat is only

temporary, until such time as the 'next round' comes along and the loser has a fair

chance to improve and try again. No such stratification or mobility was known to the

ancients, who regarded defeat as crushing and ultimate. Peter was behaving exactly as

an ancient would in the face of what clearly appeared to be desperate odds..."

Buzzard and Hunting's lack of familiarity with these basic principles of ancient sociology

may lead us to ask how familiar they could possibly be with what ancient Jewish

"monotheism" (as they term it) could bear.

The overcautious conclusions of Dunn are used as a battering ram; on Hebrews

it is said, "It would certainly go beyond our evidence to conclude that the author

has attained to the understanding of God's Son as having had a real personal

existence."

Dunn prefers to think of Hebrews' pre-existence of the Son in terms of "an idea and

purpose in the mind of God." In so doing he merely commits the same error that

Buzzard and Hunting do. If, as Dunn acknowledges, the view of Christ in Hebrews

parallels that of the Alexadrian logos-concept and of Wisdom, then Christ is identified

with a hypostatic personification of God and one of God's attributes. Does God ever lack

one of His attributes?

At best Dunn (and Buzzard and Hunting) can only claim that there is no evidence of this

hypostasis having been apersonprior to the Incarnation, and we shall see how they

arrive at that later on.

And again, Buzzard and Hunting clearly do not grasp Trinitarianism, or else have

no proper idea how to describe it: "Why did the author [of Hebrews] not stateplainly that Jesus was the One God?"

The phraseology as stated indicates "was the One God" in a one to one

correspondence, which, yet again, is not Trinitarinism. However, Hebrews does identify


32/47

Jesus as a hypostasis of the One God, which does square with Trinitarianism. (Again

see link above.)

Like our previous Unitarian opponent, Buzzard and Hunting bring up Heb. 2:14,

17, which says of Jesus, "in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his

brethren." It is assumed that this excludes any chance of Jesus being a "God-

man" as Trinitarianism states. My reply to our earlier opponent suffices:

What does it mean when Jesus is said to have expounded "all things" to his disciples?

Does that include the mating habits of sea slugs? Ye say: "If he's actually a

hypostatisised "God-man" of "Spirit and flesh", then he is not made like his brethren in

every way." Here you assume that "every way"/"all things" covers the category of nature

to an atomizing, sea-slugs extent. Taken so, was Jesus "like his brethren in every way"

in terms of eye color? (Hardly possible, or did he have a little bit of each color

somewhere?) Body hair? Height? Weight? Female organs, maybe?

The shared properties implied by "every way" clearly are not all-inclusive. So you can

hardly use this passage for any purpose of your own. "Every way" refers to a general

category distinction in a way quite typical of Hebrew exclusive language. You can hardly

claim that it excludes God-manhood; the category distinction level is most likely in the

area of "spirit-flesh composite".

At the same time, one may ask (and my opponent never answered) how a non-person

can be "behooved" in any way to do anything. "Behooving" denotes an obligation. A

non-person cannot be obligated. One may as well say that a rock could be "behooved"

to fall.

In short, Buzzard and Hunting commit the same fallacy of imposing modern

anthropological categories on the text without any justification. It must be shown what

the NT writers defined as "human being" or "man" -- it cannot be assumed that themodern definitions apply and that a (hypostasis of) God-man composite would be

excluded.

Here also Buzzard and Hunting commit the error noted in our review:


33/47

Must not Jesus have been in some sense God (infinite) to pay the infinite price needed

for our sins? No, they say: First, that would imply that God could die, and God can't die,

so Jesus could not be God. (What if He takes on a human body?!? No good, they tell

us: they use the Semitic Totality Concept to say that if a body dies, so it is with the

whole man; the dualism between body and soul is said to be "unbiblical" -- they are

misrepresenting what Semitic Totality means; it does not mean that body and spirit (not

"soul" actually -- seehere) cannot exist separately [2. Cor. 5], just that they belong

together properly.)

Chapter 4-- This chapter focuses specifically on Paul. Once again we see the same

arguments addressed above: the alleged unitary monotheism of Judaism (with 1 Cor.

8:4-6, 1 Tim. 2:5, and Eph. 1:17 noted as cites above are -- but see the end of this

section on 1 Cor. 8:4-6) and an assumption that "monotheism" and unitarianism are the

same thing; the alleged "novelty" of Trinitarian thought.

Again we refer to our linked item showing that Paul identified Jesus with the hypostasic

Wisdom of God. Here are the three passages dealt with:

Phil. 2:5-8--Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the

form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no

reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of

men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient

unto death, even the death of the cross.

Approximately half of Buzzard and Hunting's section devoted to the heading of Phil. 2 is

consumed by reminding the reader of previous passages under which it has been

assumed that "monotheism" is the same thing as unitarianism and with warnings

against reading into texts what is not there. Actual counter-arguments to drawing

Trinitarian doctrine from this passage amount to the following:

Noting that Paul's lesson to his readers has to do with humility, it is pointed out,

"It has been asked whether it is in any way probable that Paul would enforce this

simple lesson by asking his readers to adopt the frame of mind of one who, having

been eternally God, made the decision to become man? Is that sort of comparison

in any way relevant to our human condition?"
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.htmlhttp://www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html


34/47

Buzzard and Hunting's argument is flawed in two ways. First, within an ancient

collectivist society, Jesus, as leader of the body of Christ kinship grouping, would indeed

be the example to draw from in any relevant scenario. The implied "problem" of lack of

relevance is, ironic in light of Buzzard and Hunting's later arguments about Hellenism

infecting the church, a product of a Western mindset that sees a vast gulf between the

human and the divine.

Second, as Witherington notes [commentary on Philippians, 64-5], there is a similar

argument that we cannot imitate Christ by becoming incarnate and dying on a cross,

etc. that is "an overreaction" and a "caricature". Buzzard and Hunting's argument is also

an overreaction and a caricature, but in the opposite direction. As Witherington replies,

"An analogy involves points of similarity in the midst of obvious differences; in this case

a similar attitude and similarly self-sacrificial behavior are being commanded to produceunity in the Philippian congregation."

It is a far better argument that the humility of of the emptied Christ is an example which

serves to shame the Philippian believers into giving up their petty squabbles.

It is said that it seems "strange for Paul to refer to the preexistent Jesus as Jesus,

the Messiah, thus reading back into eternity the name and office he received at

birth."

The passage says no such thing about the name and office being eternal. "Christ" is

Jesus' present title from Paul's point of view; this is no different than someone saying,

"President Clinton was born in Arkansas."

In light of the presuppositions, Buzzard and Hunting render this passage as

saying that Jesus went down in rank from God's commissioner to the rank of a

servant. No effort is made to explain the passage in detail, especially with

reference to the key word "form" (morphe) which has the figurative connotation of"nature" (and is so used to refer to Jesus as being in the "form" of a servant;

obviously, Jesus did not look outwardly like a slave).

The word here connotes that Christ "manifested a form that truly represented the nature

and very being of God." This fits precisely with a hypostasis, but is a stretch to apply to


35/47

one who was merely a "commissioner." It should be noted as well that the phrases

"made himself" and "took upon him" indicates aconscious choicemade by the

preexistent Christ.

In addition, Buzzard and Hunting do not deal with Phil. 2:9-11: "Wherefore God alsohath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. That at the

name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and

things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father."

The "name which is above every name" is a clear reference to the name of Yahweh, and

is also a clear allusion to Is. 45:23 ("I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my

mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every

tongue shall swear." -- a verse not far after one of Buzzard and Hunting's "unitarianism

is monotheism" verses, Is. 45:21) which thereby include Jesus Christ within the divine

identity.

Finally, it is most shocking that Buzzard and Hunting dispose of this rich passage

(of which Witherington says, entire monographs have been written) with a few

sentences and using onlytwofootnotes, both from Dunn's work (which has been

criticized heavily by Witherington, who also shows [Jesus the Sage, 260ff] that this

passage has clear links to the Wisdom tradition).

Colossians 1:15-18

-- I have already critiqued this above.

1 Cor. 10:4

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that

followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I have not previously seen this verse used to argue for preexistence of Christ; Buzzard

and Hunting read it in terms of as a figure of speech, as in "this cup is my blood". They

also state that "obviously, a literal rock did not accompany Israel through the wilderness"

and say this is an OT typology.

They are apparently unaware of the use of the Sinai story in later Jewish sapiential

literature, as in Philo, who equates the rock with Wisdom and does say that Wisdom


36/47

guided the Israelites. Philo's intention is allegorical, but nevertheless, Buzzard and

Hunting's connection is non-existent, whereas there is a clear reference to the Wisdom

hypostasis, and Paul therefore now states that Christ, as Wisdom and as a person, did

indeed guide Israel through the desert. (Their use of 10:11 to dismiss all of these as

"types" ignores the clear historical references in 10:6-10 which are called "types".)

And in closing, about 1 Cor. 8:4, 6. Buzzard and Hunting use this as an example of the

supposedly pristine unitary monotheism promulgated by Paul, but they are unaware that

this passage is essentially a rewrite of the Shema which includes Jesus in the divine

identity. Let's see that passage:

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols,

we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but

one...But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;

and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Verse 4 clearly alludes to the Shema, as all agree; but recall the Shema again for v. 6:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." Paul has used the key phrase "one

Lord" and applied it to Jesus Christ, thus including Jesus in the divine identity! And there

is more: phrases like "of" or "by whom all things" are parallel to Jewish formulations that

express God's relationship to Creation. This is in line with the Jewish concept of

Wisdom, God's attribute, as God's tool for creation. Monolatry is maintained by includingJesuswithinthe divine identity.

Finally we may note another equivalence Buzzard and Hunting quietly do not deal with

-- Rev. 1:8 and 21:6 has God saying of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega" and

"the beginning and the end." Rev. 1:17 and 22:13 haveChristsaying of himself that he

is the "first and the last", "the Alpha and the Omega," and "the beginning and the end."

One would like to see Buzzard and Hunting explain this anomaly within a Unitarian

viewpoint, but they do not.

Chapter 5-- The primary theme of ths chapter is that Greek philosophy and thinking

corrupted the early church and that the Trinity is one of the damages. In this light we

might note this from Richard Bauckham [God Crucified, 78]:

...(I)t was actually not Jewish but Greek philosophical categories which made it difficult

to attribute true and full divinity to Jesus. A Jewish understanding of divine identity was


37/47

open to the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity. But Greek philosophical -- Platonic

-- definitions of divine substance or nature and Platonic understanding of the

relationship of God to the world made it extremely difficult to see Jesus as more than a

semi-divine being...In the context of the Arian controversies, Nicene theology was

essentially an attempt to resist the implications of Greek philosophical understandings of

divinity and to re-appropriate in a new conceptual context the New Testament's inclusion

of Jesus in the unique divine identity.

Thus if anything, Greek thinking would produce unitarianism -- not Trinitarianism.

The rest of the chapter contains issues we have either covered above ("flesh" in John

1:14), the same insufficient reasoning used to understand the Trinity: "If the Word is the

Son in a pre-human condition, then both Father and Son are equally entitled to be

thought of as the supreme Deity." -- this is only true in an ontological sense; in a

functional sense, the Word is subordinate, not supreme, and as a whole cannot be given

the title of supreme because the Word does not exhaust the Godhead.

It is also claimed, without justification, that personal preexistence attributed to the Son

causes "the idea of the unity of God [to be] lost", which is simply false, for a hypostasis

is an attribute of God, and ascribing personality to an attribute in no way lessens its

nature as an attribute.

There is the same confusion of "monotheism" and unitarianism as synonyms; also the

claim that the Trinitarian Jesus could not be a real human being (once again assuming

modern anthropological categories illicitly) and could not meaningfully suffer temptation.

This rests on an assumption that the Temptations of Jesus were a matter of testing

weakness; I disagree. Here is my take on that matter:

...."Could Jesus have failed the Temptations?"...No, I don't think Jesus could have failed

-- not in the least. Someone will say, "Well, so what did the temptations prove, then?" I'll

explain what they proved with an analogy. Let us recall the story of the Sphinx: Personsapproaching this creature were required to answer a riddle posed by it in order to pass.

Losers were summarily dispatched. The only way to get past it was to answer the riddle

-- right?

Well, let's say that rather than answer the riddle, one of these Greek fellows stopped by

the time travel surplus store, and instead of answering the riddle, blew the Sphinx away


38/47

with a howitzer. So did he defeat the Sphinx? Of course he did. And he did so by

rendering the Sphinx's challenge irrelevant.

As I see it, this is what the purpose of the Temptation of Jesus was -- it was to prove

Satan to be irrelevant in context. Jesus experienced temptation firsthand (Hebrews 4:15)and knew what it was like, but this is not the same thing as saying that he could have

fallen for it (and as Hebrews goes on to say, he didn't fall for it -- cf. Hebrews 2:17-18:

"Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might

be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation

for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able

to succor them that are tempted." ).

A Greek could hear the Sphinx's riddle, and say, "Yeah, so what?" before blowing the

beast to smithereens. In the same way, Jesus was tested, and was guaranteed a 100%.

The Temptation was a glorious demonstration of what the Incarnation had

accomplished.

Chapter 6-- this chapter looks at the patristic-era controversy over the Trinity and as

such does not interest us here.

Chapter 7-- The subject here is preexistence in the NT. Buzzard and Hunting discussthe difference betweenactualpreexistence andidealpreexistence (existing only in

God's foreknowledge). Their conclusions here are very close to our own in Chapter 3

ofThe Mormon Defenderswhere we addressed the Mormon doctrine of preexistence of

souls. (There is also a quick endorsement of "soul sleep" doctrine, which we look

athere.)

At any rate Buzzard and Hunting claim that that Jesus only had "ideal" preexistence,

and we have refuted their explanations of John 17:5 and 8:58 above. They acknowledge

that Wisdom did preexist, but not as a person; it only became a person when Jesus was

born, which as we have shown above (re John 1:14, Phil. 2:5-8, etc.) is false. Hamerton-

Kelly's work on preexistence (with which we do not entirely agree, notably with his

implied endorsement of Q/Marcan priority theories) in Judaism and the NT -- a source
http://ttp//www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.htmlhttp://ttp//www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html


39/47

notab

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ninthcircleofhell
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Unitarianism and the Trinity

Documents