Episode 68: The Great I Am
November 26th, 2011 at 12:31 am (Christology, Unitarianism, James White, Arianism, Socinianism, Debates, Patrick Navas)
Debate topic: "The deity of Christ is taught in the following texts or families of texts: John 12:41 (cf. Isa. 6 and 53), 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am" statements of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6)." Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author of The Forgotten Trinity, affirms. Patrick Navas, author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, denies. This episode is part 2 of their debate, including their interaction with Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am statements" of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6). Listen to episode 67, "Firstborn of Creation," for part 1's opening statements and interaction with John 12:41 and 1 Cor. 8:5-6.
Music
- Donnie McClurkin, The Great I Am, from the album, We All Are One (Live In Detroit), 2009
Promoted Resources
- The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
- Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
- Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes or via direct RSS feed.
Standard Podcasts [01:44:19m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (1447)
theopologetics said,
November 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm
My podcast theme music was custom made by http://www.thememusic.co.nz/.
Xavier said,
November 26, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Navas’ audio was terrible at times. Why wasn’t he told?
theopologetics said,
November 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm
I mentioned it several times in the Skype textbox. Dr. White did as well. Patrick had some strange cyclical network issue that kept recurring, even after two reconnections. Since it would only last briefly, and since he was still easily understandable, I made a judgment call and recorded, rather than repeatedly restarting in the middle of many segments. If he feels slighted, I sincerely apologize.
RobertH said,
November 26, 2011 at 10:50 pm
I really enjoyed the second half and think Dr. White really shined there. I wish they would have gone of Phil 2 and Revelation (ch. 5?) where it shows Jesus being worshiped rather unmistakeably.
Xavier said,
November 27, 2011 at 8:42 am
I wish people wouldn’t start from “presuppositions” of trinitarianism or unitarianism and just honestly and efficiently exegete the text!
Also, I hate the “positive vs negative” format of these things. Its like “good vs bad” and puts the “negative/bad” party on the defensive from the get go.
Jesse Toler said,
November 27, 2011 at 8:51 am
Trinitarians probably shouldn’t use Heb 1:3 as a proof text for Jesus being the Second Person of the Trinity. After all, the word ‘karakter’ is also used in Lev 13:28 as a scar being no more than the result of a burn.
Xavier said,
November 27, 2011 at 8:55 am
Also…its interesting to hear from White and trinis in general the disdain and to some extent HATE they have for humanity [”mere men/creatures”]. This is why for them Jesus had to be something else than just a “mere man/creature”.
Yet, the Bible time and time again paints a more positive picture of humanity. The greatest example being the Son of Man himself, Jesus, who exemplifies what “mere men/creatures” are capable of.
I cannot help but see this as some anti-christ/demonic spirit since it is Satan and his demons who have come to hate and despise humanity to the point of destruction.
Jesse Toler said,
November 27, 2011 at 9:20 am
James White uses the analogy of a signet ring to explain ‘charakter’; but, that admits that the impression made from the ring is not the ring itself [cf. Lev 13:28]. Also, the Greek noun used here does not appear in the Apostolic Fathers; but, is used by Herodotus and Aeschylus to refer to an engraving or impression or image on a coin. For example, the image of the emperor Constantine on a coin carries the authority of the Crown; but, is not the emperor himself.
Jesse Toler said,
November 27, 2011 at 9:34 am
My apologies, the noun ‘charakter’ does indeed appear in the Apostolic Fathers [see, Ign ad Mag. 5,2]. Unfortunately for Trinitarians, the noun is found in I Clem 33:4 as well, so a comparison is possible. The term is used to describe the image of God impressed upon man at his creation. If we follow the language and how it is being used, mankind is given the express likeness of God’s own image, as is Jesus.
Xavier said,
November 28, 2011 at 8:47 am
JT
Good info. Add this to the FACT that if your said to be a “copy/reproduction” [charakter] or “image” [ikon], how can you be eternal?!
Adam said,
November 28, 2011 at 10:53 am
Jesse, Toler,
“My apologies, the noun ‘charakter’ does indeed appear in the Apostolic Fathers [see, Ign ad Mag. 5,2]. Unfortunately for Trinitarians, the noun is found in I Clem 33:4 as well, so a comparison is possible. The term is used to describe the image of God impressed upon man at his creation. If we follow the language and how it is being used, mankind is given the express likeness of God’s own image, as is Jesus.”
All of this is linguistic nonsense. First of all, why are we going to the Apostolic Fathers in order to get the meaning for this term when the AF postdate the New Testament? Such is a diachronic fallacy. What is worse is that the whole context of 1 Clement is that of the Image of God found in Genesis 1:26-27. The phrase that is used in 1 Clement 33:4 is της εαυτου εικονος χαρακτηρα, with the εικονος clearly meaning to refer to the word εικονα used in the citation of Genesis 1:26 which follows.
Hebrews 1:3, on the other hand, uses the term υποστασις: χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου. The problem is that υποστασις does not mean the same thing as εικων. Hence, the two are not parallel. In one text we are dealing with the image of God given to man in creation, and in another text we are dealing with the nature of God. Hence, there is no parallel.
God Bless, Adam
Adam said,
November 28, 2011 at 11:08 am
Xavier,
“Good info. Add this to the FACT that if your said to be a “copy/reproduction” [charakter] or “image” [ikon], how can you be eternal?!”
Again, only if you grossly oversimplify language can you even make sense out of this. Let us apply this logic in a way that will show the oversimplifications in language you are presenting:
If you physically strike something when you hit something in baseball, or when you hit something out of frustration, how can you physical striking not be involved when we speak of a “hit song?”
If deer meat is something that his physical, and cow meat is something that is physical, must not the meat of an argument also be physical?
When two people or animals are mates, then engage in sexual relations; therefore, when two socks are mates, they must also engage in sexual relations.
Catching a baseball involves squeezing your hands together. Therefore, catching a cold must also involve squeezing your hands together.
This whole notion does not recognize the analogous nature of language. When we use language in various contexts, there are going to be things that are the same, and things that are different. While there are similarities between catching a baseball and catching a cold, they are not the same. While there are similarities to a hit song and a hit in baseball, they are not exactly the same thing. While there are similarities between human and animal mates and the mates of socks, they are not exactly the same.
The point is that we allow for this principle in almost all of our language. To interpret any text in the way you have just interpreted Hebrews 1:3 would result in utter nonsense. We have to understand how the text presents reality, and the text presents the nature of God as eternal, and therefore, it is eternality that is being represented. However, it is nonsense to speak of eternality as having a temporal beginning. Hence, we must understand the nature of the signet ring as analogous to what we are speaking of in terms of the fact that the father and the son share the same representation of their natures.
God Bless, Adam
Xavier said,
November 28, 2011 at 11:56 am
Adam,
So according to your, and White’s, reading of Heb 1 Jesus is “eternal” because he is said to be the “exact representation of God”? If so, is Jesus the Father then? Because if I am following your interpretation of the text correctly God is duplicated Himself as opposed to creating a “copy/image” of Himself.
Jesse Toler said,
November 28, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Adam, et al:
Just linguistic nonsense? Really? I suppose it is all just theological nonsense as well…?
I am becoming more certain that Jesus/Logos/Son of God was not eternal; but, an emandation begotten by God prior to creation. Jesus is the Adam who doesn’t fail, not the eternal unbegotten Power.
The Apostolic Fathers were the first believers after the end of he Apostolic Age. What these men have to say is important no matter what the Calvinist like to think.
I agree that eternity has no beginning, so Trinitarians have two eternals [Father & Logos], therefore ditheism. Add the holy spirit as another eternal and now you have tritheism. Monotheism is clearly stated as nothing that is God is seperable from God. God does not make copies or duplications of himself. I am completely willing to agree that God the Father gave total domination to the Son/Logos, but is that the same as Jesus being God?
Xavier said,
November 28, 2011 at 1:31 pm
JT
The Synoptics talk about the “coming into existence” [Luke 1.30-35] hence “origin” [Mat 1.1, 18] of the Son. Take that into consideration when talking about who Jesus is and where he came from. Don’t just rely on the Gospel of John.
Patrick Quick said,
November 28, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Xavier, Jesse,
When you give meaning to the Greek word, you use copy/reproduction. The illustration Patrick used in the debate was like a book reproduction. And then the argument is made that the thing reproduced is not the original. But that misses the point of the writer. The signet ring is a closer illustration. The copy is not the original, the doctrine of the trinity does not teach it is the original. I think both sides need to keep in mind that when we are speaking about God, no human language will be suitable to exhaust what we want to say. (To some extent we are speaking anthropomorphically) What about “image”, when a person looks in a mirror, it’s not the original person, but a copy of sorts, but it is that person at the same time - a representation. When the imprint of the king’s ring was brought to someone, let’s say on a decree the king would distribute, the point is not that people would look at it and say that’s not the original signet ring.. the point is they will say this Has the Same authority as if the king’s ring was right here.
Blessings, Pat
Xavier said,
November 28, 2011 at 8:01 pm
So when is it a metaphor/euphemism and when is it literal? There must be a way to seperate the 2 so we can know how many God is don’t you think?
Patrick Quick said,
November 28, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Xavier,
Not talking about that. God is invisible, right? We both agree that is true and explicitly taught, don’t you agree? So when Jesus said he that has seen me has seen the Father, he didn’t mean physically, literally looking at him as a man we see the Father. We see the Father in the things that Jesus did and said. He raised himself from the dead (and God did). No man takes my life, I lay it down and raise it - destroy this temple (his body) and I will raise. We see the invisible God’s holiness, his grace, his judgement, his power, glory etc. If God were to become flesh, what would he look like? Like Jesus. All the fullness of Deity in Christ (bodily). It doesn’t change the fact that God is invisible.
Blessings, Pat
joseph henry said,
November 29, 2011 at 12:52 am
first off, I thought it was extremely to modulate the other man’s voice to sound unappealing. Typical trinitarian subtrefuge.
Now if Jesus was exalted after his death and resurrection, when before coming to earth he was the exact representation of God, how can that be, he already is everything, now he is more?
I think i have said enough, I know with so-called born again christians, they tend to have selective memories, and further apology for the truth would be senseless, not to mention, a waste of my time.
Funny how you use God’s inspired word through the apostle paul, who would not take a penny from the people he preached to, so that people would not use his taking money to make him out to be a hypocrit. I guarantee the man who is taking the trinitarian stance makes plenty of money off of the word of God.
But you people don’t won’t the truth, you want your ears tickled, and they will be tickled.
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 29, 2011 at 8:22 am
Just something to think about here. Hebrews certainly is an apologetic work about the Son being greater than the angels, Moses, Joshua, the Levitical priesthood, etc… If early Christians were preaching, teaching, and believing that Jesus was Yahweh, then why would any Hebrew need to be convinced of Yahweh being greater than angels, Moses, etc… Of course if anyone were proclaiming Jesus to be Yahweh, there would have been MAJOR controversy over this. I’d imagine an entire book (like Galatians for the circumcision) would have been written explaining the deity of Christ, his incarnation, etc…
The context of Hebrews 1 is the risen Christ and his inheriting the kingdom through the resurrection. Refer to the radiance of Christ at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17. Jesus also received the promised Holy Spirit (Acts 2.) We also are made partakers of the divine nature. Tradition has blinded most Christians of the hope of glory. Being sons of God, we will be very much like our Father.
theopologetics said,
November 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
“first off, I thought it was extremely to modulate the other man’s voice to sound unappealing. Typical trinitarian subtrefuge.”
There was no modulation or subterfuge involved. Patrick had some kind of cyclical network problem that didn’t go away even after multiple connection attempts. He and I talked about it afterwards, and he said no worries.
Nick Batchelor said,
November 29, 2011 at 5:16 pm
If Jesus IS Jehovah/Yahweh then could someone clearly explain these verses to me?
Psalms 2:2 Psalms 110:1 Isaiah 61:1 Micah 5:4
Thank you.
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 29, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Couple things…
Patrick, if I were to lose my life would I be able to “find” it within my own power? If we take Jesus’ statements literally, then yes, we could raise ourselves.
The context of Hebrews is the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, not Christ “according to the flesh.” If bringing Him into the world means the incarnation and birth, then the worship of him by angels would completely contradict the author quoting Psalm 8 that said he was made for a little while lower than the angels. The author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 2 which the apostles attribute to the resurrection of Jesus. See for yourself in Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:32-33, Rom 1:4, and within the context of this book Hebrews, the author uses it again to speak of the resurrected Christ in 5:5.)
So pretty much all of what Dr. White argues is based upon his own Trinitarian presuppositions. Jesus was given the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33) which we have and will receive as partakers of the divine nature fully realized in the resurrection of the dead (Rom 8:18-24, 2Pet 3:3-5.) When you take this in it’s Biblical context you will fully understand how the risen Jesus, who is not the Almighty, is the express image of God’s nature, which is translated as “confidence” in all other NT uses of the Greek term. You guys should check into that. (Dr. White here imports a Greek philosophical definition of what the English word nature is.)
See my latest post on Episode 67 of why “ta panta” and his assertion as the context being the Genesis creation as argued by Dr. White would lead him to be a universalist based solely on Colossians 2 if he were consistent, which of course he isn’t because he knows “all” doesn’t always mean “all in existence without exception.”
I could go on, but I only suggest you don’t automatically believe anything, even if it sounds intelligible, without your own deep and detailed study. Study to show yourself approved…
Jesse Toler said,
December 2, 2011 at 4:26 pm
James White did bring up the real fear that Trinitarians have when developing and defending their Nicene Creed. After all, if Jesus isn’t the man-god of the Nicene Creed then Trinitarians may indeed have taken Christology too far.
Chuck McManigal said,
December 4, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I thought, for the most part, that Patrick’s Scriptural points were well taken, and rather difficult for Trinitarians to answer. Think about this: Trinitarians ask their believers to believe something that was not taught or even mentioned in the Bible, that neither Jesus, nor any of the Apostles or early Christians of the 1st through most of the 4th century believed, that can’t be supported Scripturally without distorting the context of certain verses, that’s God-dishonoring, isn’t even reasonable, and had its origin in paganism. JWs choose not to believe this Trinity doctrine. When Jesus said in prayer to his God and Father at John 17:3 that everlasting life is contingent upon our gaining accurate knowledge of “you, the only true God AND Jesus Christ who you have sent” he didn’t mean that people had to have a D.D. or otherwise study at some seminary in order to know God and Jesus. Why not read what the Bible actually says about Jesus and his relationship to his God and Father, instead of using post-Biblical terms to try to explain their man-made doctrine? Some of these post-Biblical terms are “God the Son”, “fully God and fully man”, “Three PERSONS in one God”, and others. If Jesus and God are part of a Trinity, why didn’t Jesus use any of these terms?
Since the debate was in particular concerned with a few verses in John (each of which seemingly was in support of a Triune form of worship, but can be shown to NOT be supportive of Trinity), please consider the following verses of John. It would take too long to comment on each, so I just ask that you use your God-given quality of reason as you consider each verse carefully. Some might say that I’m leaving other verses from John out. Yes, this is true, but most of them were already considered in the debate, and each of them can be explained, consistent with the teachings of John and of the whole Bible. Please consider these verses of John carefully: John 1:18,29 2:16 3:16-18,35 4:20-22 5:19-30,37,43,44 6:27,38,46,57 7:16-18,28,29 8:28,29,54,55 12:12:28,49 13:3 14:28 15:1,2,10 16:3,27,28, 17:1-3,5,6-8,11,12,14,18,21,22,26 20:17,31