Transcription
We agree that Jesus and the father share divine prerogatives, titles, roles. The only thing I'm disagreeing with is that it makes them the same being.
It sounds very much like if you believe Jesus was human and he comes into existence at his birth and then he's sort of made God. That sounds like adoptionism. As we understand worship, yes, only God can be worshiped.
I could beat the crap out of my boss here, Mike, if I wanted to, right? But I don't have the authority to do that.
All right, you ready to bring in the next guest?
Sure.
Okay. What's up, Mike? How you doing?
Hey, what's up?
Hey, I'm doing well. How are you guys doing?
Doing good. You still don't think
you and I have ever talked.
Is it?
Yeah.
Yeah. Thanks. I I remember uh your channel before you got picked up by IP. I enjoyed a lot of your stuff.
It's nice to talk.
Yeah.
Wait, wait, enjoy. So, you don't enjoy my stuff anymore?
No, I think you guys do a ton of great work on the reliability of the New Testament. Um, debating against Islam. Much respect for you guys.
Thank you. Appreciate it, brother.
Appreciate that.
Awesome. So, you still don't think Jesus is God though?
So, I think he can be God in a predicative sense, but I wouldn't say by his identity or by, you know, ontology, something like that.
Okay. Can you define what you mean by that then?
Yeah. So if you're God by your identity, that means that it goes right down to your ontology, right? It's what you are. I think Jesus can be God in a predicative sense. Uh like he's given in, you know, Hebrews 1:8 quoting Psalm 45:6, right? That where the throne of God is called God that the king of Israel holds. So let me let me say this. We agree that Jesus and the father share divine prerogatives, titles, roles. The only thing I'm disagreeing with is that it makes them the same being. So, one of the things that you guys said in me listening so far is you said that, you know, like coming in the clouds, right? That's something only talked about given to Yahweh. So, then Jesus must be Yahweh. So, I I would want to push back on that and I would say, well, actually, he could be given this description because he's God's anointed and chosen human messiah. Could I show you some verses?
Well, hold on. I I got more questions about your theology. So, just just to verify where you're coming from here.
Okay.
So, you're saying you're holding like some form of adoptionism, it sounds like.
No.
Okay. What is Are you Are you um
I just want to take a crack to make sure I actually understand you before you explicate. That's all. Um I What do I What do I You guys are both Mike. I don't
You can call me Michael. Maybe Michael.
I'll call you Eminem.
Eminem. Okay. Um are you are you so do you think that um this second divine figure kind of pre-exists like eternally alongside the father um or what's what because there's a few different ways you can unpack this I guess right cuz does he have the divine predication prior that to this and then becomes incarnate like can you kind of give us a
Yeah. So, I do not hold to a literal pre-existence. I hold to a notional pre-existence. You know, what you'd read about in like Acts chapter 2, for example. Uh, however, he could literally pre-exist as some, you know, spirit being. Um, I don't think that would entail being God. And so, I'll give you that. And then
I'm totally fine with that. Like cuz like I know I know Jehovah's Witnesses would say like there's a pre-existence and a divinity, but it's just not like ontologically identical to Yahweh for instance. So I'm just trying to unpack where you're coming from. That's all.
Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Completely fair. Um that's just my view. Uh I mean even like the full-blown belief I don't judge trinitarians. I think that our salvation hinges upon our faith in Christ and his work, you know, exactly what his ontology or relationship to the father. I think some of that is up for debate. So, yeah, I I I don't judge you guys. I don't judge people who hold more of an Aryan position. I I just don't I think that he came into being in his mother's womb like it says in Matthew 1:18.
Okay, so that sounds like adoptionism then. So, he was he was born human. and he didn't exist part of that and then he was sort of like adopted as God's son and elected up to a higher position. That's sounds like adoptionism.
So adoptionists believe that Jesus became the son of God at his at baptism. So I
there's other there's there's variations. Some say resurrection. So there's variation on that.
Yeah. So I I just I don't think that he became the son of God at his baptism at the resurrection. I think he was the son of God from his very birth. Okay. So, I mean, he's still the I mean, that's still a form of adoptionism, though.
So, what do you mean? So, if he's like the son in eternity past, that's then that's like the actual non-adoptionist view.
If I'm going to categorize it, I would put it in the category of adoptionism. you have unless un unless you have unless you want to call it some form of like unitarianism some form of aranism because it sounds very much like if you believe Jesus was human like and he comes into existence at his birth and then he's sort of made God like elected in that sense that sounds like adoptionism if you don't want to call it that what would you call it
so I I mean I don't think that he was made god I think that he was exalted by God that's what it says Philippians chapter 2 also in Hebrews chapter 1, right? He well as well as Hebrews chapters 3-6, right? He suffered, he died, and because of these things, God exalted him to our new high priest. So, and I also just want to point out something that in Matthew 1:18, when you look up, I'm sure in my screen, I don't know if you want to see it or not.
Oh, are you?
Yeah. Yeah. So, I cannot pronounce this word in Greek.
Can I bring it up, Mike?
Sure. Go ahead.
Yeah. So this word. So this is Matthew 18.
I'm gonna I'm so sorry, man. Can you zoom in a little bit?
Absolutely.
My old man eyes. I'm sorry.
No. So no problem at all. Yo, I was laughing so hard when you made your when you made your comment about your your weight protein. I thought that was so funny. You do look jacked.
I appreciate.
I used to be jacked. I don't work out anymore, unfortunately. I probably should. Okay, so is that better?
Yep.
Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
Awesome. Yeah. Yeah. So Matthew 1:18, now the birth of Jesus took place in this way. So this word for birth, right? If we look this up in a dictionary, it's going to bring up this Greek word and it it is always used for coming into being at a specific moment. So I'm saying that the Messiah, he was prophesied to be raised up from among them, from the line of David, right? A genuine human being who I think that's important theologically. He had to be like Adam to redeem us from from the fall, not the incarnation of this pre-existent spirit being.
Okay, so this just seems to be like a weird argument because like everyone who's born other than Jesus would come into being at that specific moment. So like when you're talking about that that yeah, we would agree everyone else was. Jesus is the only one who's the incarnate one. So like if you're just like well all the other examples are we're like of course but how else are they going to describe it? he was born. So he he that does not mean he came into existence at that point. That's reading too much into a brief word there.
I I could see why you could say that.
What lexicon is this?
This is the BDAG, the um Greek English lexicon of the New Testament.
Yeah, So listen, you're right that
sure. How are you going to profess what's happening if he did in fact pre-exist? Right. they probably still use the same word. I see what you're saying. However, I do think that it's telling that they do describe it this way instead of using language that I think would entail that this is just this person in the Trinity that we've like always believed in, right? He he's been there in the Old Testament since day one, but he's just becoming a human.
Matthew wanted to say Jesus was born. How should he say it?
Uh well just like I said there right the the second person of the trinity uh is incarnating in a human flesh
just like later trinitarians said it right.
That's that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if if I wanted to say because I say Jesus was born in 4 BC is did what is did what I just said did that contradict trinitarian theology?
Well it would because God is eternal. He can't be born if the word listen the word born birth here entails a temporal relation
a relationship to time.
Okay. So then what other eternal being was born?
I just brought up bag. Um the source you're using
the bag you're the part of bag you're showing is this. So
I'm using bag right now.
Um and it says the term is used of ancestry as a point of origin. That's a temporal relation coming into being at a at a specific moment.
Yeah,
that's a temporal relation, right? Talking about ancestry and point of origin.
No, this is a genealogical point of origin.
Okay. So, so let me ask you this.
Because what what because Matthew Matthew's prerogative in the beginning, right, is to outline the genealogy of Jesus. It even says that in the beginning, right? And so Matthew's
point is not to give some some sort of temporal causation account, right? He's saying, "Hey, Jesus is of this ancestry because he wants to point to Jesus being the Messiah that fulfills what was the expected of the Messiah." So we can't just like we can't throw temporal metaphysics into what Matthew's trying to do into this.
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. He's not doing metaphysics. He's just talking about the genealogy. It's the same way I can say Jesus was born in 4 BC. I'm not contradicting trinitarian theology. We're reading too much into these words. Well, I mean, I think that if Jesus is the incarnation of the preexistent eternal second person of the Trinity, okay, the way to describe that is just as I said, right? Just like that. If you're doing what?
Well, if you're trying to actually teach people what it is that later trinitarians would come to believe, which we've
Is that what Matthew's doing in Matthew 1, though? Giving a genealogy. No, he's giving a genealogy.
Yeah, Exactly. And everyone in a genealogy, it has a a point of origination. That's a This language again creates a temporal relationship to time. If Jesus is eternal and pre-existed as birth to to even have a birth and be described this way, I think undermines that claim. I think again, you're reading too much into a single word and then running wild with it. There's nothing wrong with the trinitarian saying Jesus was born. Likewise, Matthew can say that he's not doing metaphysics here. He's giving the genealogy and showing that Jesus goes back to David to Abraham to showing that he's fulfilling the scriptures. That's what Matthew's all about. Phil, he's not doing metaphysics. So then if if you totally agree, we wouldn't expect metaphysics here. We would expect him to present a genealogy.
Yeah. So I don't I don't actually agree with that part, the metaphysics. Your point about connecting him to the lineage. Yeah, totally true. But of course he's doing metaphysics. Any type of meaningful sentence or statements presupposes metaphysics, including formal logic.
Let me let me precisify. I guess what I'm trying to say is he's not intending to teach a metaphysical theory about the like ontological identity of Yahweh of Jesus and Yahweh here.
Like yeah, you're doing metaphysics most of the time implicitly. Everybody does that.
But the point of the narrative in Matthew 1 is not to do that. Um
if that makes sense.
Yeah, that's better said. One of my one of my concerns too, I guess, would be like, how do I put this? I mean, this might sound a little anneronistic. I'm just trying to unpack this in a normal way, I guess.
Like, if you go to a normal trinitarian church right now, right? If I'm being honest, most people are not going to understand what the trinity is and how they're reading the text and stuff like that, right? Um,
you go to a loser church. Everyone in my church knows it so well. What are you talking about?
My daughter has memorized the nice scene creed at age 10. She knows what she's doing. Okay.
Really? That's
You're gonna make me switch sides, man. Um, but the point I'm trying to make is like and so let's let's recontextualize there really quick and then imagine the pastor or the priest or whatever is speaking and then starts talking about the trinity or starts talking about Jesus in a particular way that like if the pastor really believed that Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of the trinity like and he's really trying to talk about Jesus but his point is just to talk about some X concept and not the onlogical identity of Jesus, but rather the ancestral identity of Jesus. Would it be wouldn't it be weird to be like, well, that pastor is not a trinitarian, obviously, because if he was, wouldn't he say such a thing?
Yeah, I I see what you're saying. So, uh the issue with that is I think you're presupposing a false dichotomy, right? So if he is ontologically god then he can have no human point of origination because humans and gods have opposite essential properties. Right. So that I I don't think that's a real dichotomy then. I would say that I would say that that is an actual anacronistic argument then because um that that's going to be that's going to be based off of like some sort of metaphysical thesis or set of thesis that you hold to right but we don't know for sure that Matthew thought what you thought there
Matthew thinks so like if Matthew thinks that that's a thing that can happen then that doesn't preclude the idea that this could this uh a hypothesis for like reconstructing what he's trying to communicate or not or you get the point.
Yeah. So, so listen, I I will happily just concede on this and that's actually not even the main point to like debate pre-existence. As I said, he could literally pre-exist his birth. All I was just pointing out is that when you actually just bring up the definition of some of these words, I think it sort of undermines undermines that claim. So, if you're all right with it, what I would see because here's my biggest thing in reality. I think we agree on so much on Jesus, his role, his authority, the purpose he serves in our life by faith in the fallen world that we live in right now. But I think the difference is that you perceive the things that he said and did in light of postbiblical philosophy instead of the narrative that I think that the Bible would set forth. So, I mean, I was
I what I would say in response to that is just just to make sure you understand where we're coming from is we would say and I've got done this a thousand times. In fact, I just put together a presentation I have to give I'm going to be giving in California at Burbank uh on Saturday on why the Bible teaches the trinity. So, I've just gone through a bunch, made all these slides, and every time I do this, I come away with the idea there's one God, but I keep I see three persons in the scripture who are all identified as God.
So I just keep doing this. So, I and again here, hold on. I want to show you something.
I got this right here.
I got a paper.
I love when Mike just gets up to get to his bookshelf and then starts talking to us like we can hear.
You can hear me now. Okay. I know. I know. Okay. So, let me make myself full screen so you pulled out a paper from the library. That's epic.
That's right. So, this is this was given to me by um Robert Bowman Jr.
and what he does is he goes through the Nine Creed and he just shows where each line comes from in scripture and scripture and scripture and scripture.
So, that's the point I want to get at there is that what I'm constantly seeing is I'm like saying, "Gee, I wonder how the Nyine fathers came up with the trinity. They just kept encountering it in scripture."
Yeah. Okay. So, all right. Could you let me share my these verses real quick? I just want to show you a few examples. Right. So
in Hebrews,
is that better? A little bigger?
Yep.
So in Hebrews chapter 3 verse one, Jesus is called the apostle.
And if we look up, if we look up what this means,
it's referring to a delegate, an inboy.
We agree,
right? A messenger, right? So
So that means that he represents Yahweh, right? So he's Yahweh's delegate
here in Acts 2:22.
We we agree. He's the angel of Yahweh. And and in the he Hebrew when you go back to the Hebrew in the Old Testament, angel of Yahweh just means messenger of Yahweh. Would you say that messenger is also
right? So so so listen. That's the point though, Mike. This is the logic of divine images. Okay? You can have someone who represents Yahweh and he is treated as though he is Yahweh, but he is distinct from him. See, that's the narrative, not the person being distinction. That's okay. Not the hypoatic union from the Council of Chaledon at 451. Right.
I got a question. You getting this from Dan Mlullen.
He's just one scholar. He's just one. But yes, re recently I bought his book. Than I know you're reading it right now. I'm just going through it myself.
I thought you said you were going through.
I have a We can talk privately about some of my issues with the book. I just don't want to I don't want to make any public stuff on it just yet because there's stuff I'm still thinking about, but if you want to talk privately about his book, we can. Are you do you hold to his thesis then that like this is the better explanation is going to be like the co like the cognitive science religion stuff where it's more of like a um a non-mic explanation or
Yeah. So there is actually a bunch in there that I find questionable. The underlying premise though I don't think originates with which with which with with Dan. It I mean this has been talked about for hundreds of years by scholarship that the there is what's called a Jewish principle of agency. Okay. God God the monarchy of the father is dynamic. Since forever he has chosen to work through agents whether it's the prophets, the priests or even angels. So, I mean, I could give you numerous examples of where people we know who aren't Yahweh are talked as as Yahweh, but I I just wanted to give you a few verses from Jesus himself, and I think that's always good, right? So, he said, "I can do nothing on my own, but the will of him who sent him, right? His teaching is not mine, but on him who sent him." He says the same thing with his will, with his acts, the words he speak. Right? So the point is that it's Jesus is sent by God. He represents his will, his teachings, his words. So Jesus understood as Yahweh should be understood in that light as his chosen exalted human representative, not based on postbiblical philosophy which had to be debated about by middle platonists.
So here's my issue with this. everything that you're and I don't mean this in a harsh way. Um, this is one of my this is one of my issues with Dan McClone's thesis and a lot of the Unitarian arguments that I hear. The majority of the time when I'm hearing like everything that you're saying, I'm thinking to myself, this isn't mutually exclusive to the trinitarian view.
Um, like what everything you're pointing to can is compatible and equally as intelligible. um if that makes sense on the trinitarian view. So
no,
there has to be there has to be by my lights some it's not just like Yahweh like Jesus is um the chosen messenger of of God. That's not the only proposition on the table. There's a chosen messenger of God and nothing else. Right? And what we have to get to is like what's how do we bridge the gap from this to and to the and nothing else question. Does what I'm saying make sense?
Yeah, of course. What I meant by didn't earlier it's just a statement. So let me ask you Jesus is God, right?
Yes.
So he has all the authority of God.
Mhm.
Okay. So then why is he saying things like I can do nothing on my own authority? If Jesus is God, he already has the authority, right? Why is Jesus saying he was given all authority in heaven and on earth?
Right? If he's God by nature, he already has it. So these statements are not consistent with trinitarian Christologology.
No, they're totally consistent, especially when you count encounter in the incarnation. If Jesus again emptied himself and became the form of a servant, he's going to follow the will of the father in his human nature, in his human mind. So he's going to be doing those things. Plus again, if you go through Joshua Sijuati, again, he would say the same thing. That's why I asked you earlier when you say Jesus is God in a predative sense. I'm like
I need that's why I needed more clarification because Siduality would say the same thing. We say the same thing. He's God in a predative sense.
Yeah.
So he is all of those things because his entire essence comes from the father. He's begotten of the father. God of God, light of light, very God of very God. If he is, as the Nyine creed says, begotten of God, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, we would expect him to be getting his authority from the father, his essence from the father. These are things begotten of the father. He proceeds. I don't want to use that for the holy spirit, but he is begotten of the father. So that's where this this stuff is coming from. He's the origin, the autoto theos.
He he gets his essence from the father. Did you mean to say that?
I'm using it in a colloquial sense. I don't mean it happens like in time. Again, I said he's eternally begotten. So it's there.
Yeah.
Okay. So you agree though that when Philippians 2 is talking about him emptying himself, he's not emptying himself of essential properties to being God. Correct. He's not.
Okay. Okay. Is God's authority essential to being God?
Is God's not an essential property?
So, so it's like an intrinsic property.
Okay. So then you can be God and not be omnipotent.
Authority authority. Authority is all powerful.
Authority is a relational property.
Yeah. It's you're complaining omnipotence and authority. Those are different things.
What? Not. Of course not. If you're all powerful, then you have authority over everything, right? This is what it means to call the most high.
Eminem, I in terms of like raw power, if we're going to use power as a thing, right? Like I could beat the crap out of my boss here, Mike, if I wanted to, right? But I don't have the authority to do that.
Okay. So, you agree that
much more powerful than him.
Stop trying to flex on my Listen,
sorry, Mike. I didn't mean to throw you under the bus.
No, no, it's perfect analogy because again, power and authority are different things. That's not even debated among philosophers.
I I'm not I'm not saying power and authority are not different things. I'm just saying they're inherently related if you're God. So, you agree that if you're God, you have all authority. You must agree with that.
Notice what you said. You said they're related. And what did we say earlier? Yeah, it's a relational property.
So, I'm not I'm not disagreeing with that. But when we're the context of this statement is Philippians 2. What did he empty himself of? I'm saying he can't empty himself of things which are essential to being God.
So if Jesus is God, he cannot empty himself of the authority he would have as God.
To lose the authority of God is just to not be God. It's to be lesser than God.
This depends on what you mean by authority. We're not saying he Hold on. We're not saying he lost any of his ontology. He took the form of a servant. Go ahead, Fan.
Yeah. Two two two things here. just I cuz I think what so was there's something modding in the waters here.
Okay.
Are we interested in what the gospel authors are thinking and trying to teach or are we interested right now in the metaphysical coherence of something what that's going on because let's just like and and let's just say we go down the road here with this conversation and we unpack like some sort of met metaphysical incoherence with the view that we hold too, right? that would not preclude the gospel authors teaching an incarnational christologology.
Okay. So, do you think
do you get my concern really quickly? Like I just don't want to muddy the waters there.
Completely. Yeah. So, I I would just I have like a um a clarifying question. So, do you believe that Jesus as God depends upon like the specific language used at Nika or Calcedon? Like that decides what it is.
Re reword your question for me. Um I'm not I'm not sure exactly what you're asking right now.
So do you agree that when we say Jesus is God right that is defined what that means is defined by like the councils and creeds right by like the Nyian creed by the Chaledonian definition. You agree with that? Yeah. I mean, yes. In it depends on what you mean by some of these things cuz I take the I take a lot of these cre take a lot of like the Ning Creed, the Kelsonian creed. I take these to be um concealier statements, but I don't think that these are robust metaphysical stories that make sense of the statements. They're uh they're probably going to be best more they're probably going to be best understood as apathically to rule out
other beliefs or statements that would be deemed heretical. Oh man, it's really hard to know where to start. Okay, so I mean let's just start with Homoius, I guess. So you think the statement of the same substance is not a metaphysical claim?
I said I said not a robust metaphysical story.
Oh, okay. So is it is it metaphysical?
Yeah, that's not that's very So
hold on. There's a difference, right? Because when I say robust metaphysical story, I'm saying
it's not like they're like strictly committed to these statements being a tomistic view for instance or something like that. Okay?
Or like you know they have lows for category ontology in the background. I'm just saying
bare minimum statements that are not super robust and there's tons of options on the table for how this can work out.
Totally agree with that. Uh completely. Yeah, of course. like the creeds are supposed to be very short and and memorable things to Yeah. So that that's not wrong. I guess what the the point though is that you were saying, well, are we going are we looking to see what the New Testament was teaching or are we more focused on metaphysical coherence? And all I'm trying to point out is that in the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus being God makes metaphysical claims. And so we're doing both by necessity is all all that I'm trying to get at.
Well, let me I think I think there might be a framing problem there. Um and maybe I can unpack that with just like an analogy. Um like suppose that we have a in a third world country a church that becomes convinced that of the trinity the typical like orthodox Christian claims right
but they don't have any metaphysics or philosophy in their background right like they just think like
we have these statements we believe in and that's the all they really have right
and then suppose uh a group of other religious people come and start arguing with them and they're like, "Oh, can you call yourself monotheist? You believe in three gods." And they're like, "Oh, shoot." Like, "We better like figure this out." And then say also internal to this church in the third world country, they're experiencing people that are like saying things that sound kind of sus cons, you know what I'm saying? And so they're like, "Yo, we should probably like build this out a little bit more so that way we can make sense of this in a way that's more formatted and unified." Does and then say they come up with some consilier statements that will make sense of the what they believe philosophically. Would that later philosophical reasoning not be a proper reflection that maps on to the cognitive beliefs that they have prior to that philosophical stuff?
Okay. So in theory it could right. The question is what evidence can we present to show that? So I think that Jesus proclaiming that his authority, his acts, his words, his teachings are not his own. I think, you know, the writer of Hebrews describing him as the apostle, this recursive relationship between his death, suffering, and then exaltation. I think all that would sort of rule out um believing that they are of the same substance, right? Or that Jesus is one person with two natures. No, I don't I don't think that was on their mind. I think that they understood this in light of Jesus as God's exalted Messiah. So I speak on behalf of just every trinitarian. Every time we hear this, Mike, we're always like,
we agree like none of that stuff. It's like it's like we it's like a lot of the the opponents don't understand what we mean when we say God is three persons because yes, we believe that Jesus is apostle, priest, servant. We we hold to that stuff. We say he is also God onlogically. So every time this stuff comes up, we're like that doesn't contradict trinitarianism. If it doesn't, maybe you don't understand what trinitarian trinitarianism is.
Okay? or or I literally those things, Mike, are all that's necessary to ground Jesus statements and actions. We don't have to believe he's God onlogically. We have to believe he's the son of God, the Messiah, the exalted
on that on that. Okay. So, we we will we'll grant for the sake of argument that those show those things and nothing more. But then what we say as trinitarians, there are other statements that Jesus makes which we use to say, "Yeah, he's more than just being a servant. He's more than just the apostle, the priest. He is also onlogically God." So there are additional statements and that's where the debate really is. So when non-rinitarians bring up those passages, we're all like, "That's not where the debate should be because we accept all those passages. Part of our theology."
I totally get it. So So all right. So let me let me give you an example. Okay. So Jesus forgives sins. Do you think that that is something that he can only do if he's God in essence
as the source of the sins forgiving? Yes. Darl, if you're going to bring up John 20, I have some issues, but
No. No. Okay. So, all right. Uh All right. That's a good one. Let me ask you one more and then I want to show you a few verses. So, what about being woripped? Do you think he he can only be worshiped if he's God in essence?
If we if worship is defined properly, yeah, if it's just bowing down to or prostrating, uh that would be different, but the words are going to be used differently depending on the author. Like Luke uses it differently.
Only as we understand worship. Hold up. As we understand worship, yes, only God can be worshiped.
Okay. All right. So here, let me show you. Uh I have two passages. Actually, the second one based on what you said, maybe we don't look at it. Okay. So this is the story of the paralytic man, right? Uh Matthew chapter 9, Jesus forgives his sins and the people said this man is blaspheing,
right? So here's the thing I'm going to say that all right, which is it? Is he God ontologically or is he just God's exalted human messiah? Which is it? I think he admits to the latter. what he says, I did this so you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. Okay? So it's not so he didn't say hey guys it's not blasphemy because I'm God. He says actually the son of man which I am has that authority. And look at what the crowd say. Think about this. He says when the crowd saw it they were afraid and they glorified God who had given such authority to men.
Right? that there's no indication here that the people's self-perception was he must be God, he must have a divine nature, he must be homoius, anything like that. They just thinks God gave this authority to men.
You see, so I I see what you're saying.
The crowds say that though. You agree, right?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, so like you're I get your perspective like well Mike we agree that he's the son of God, the Messiah, highly exalted etc. But these are the types of passages which I think undermine any other interpretation right like we I am totally right to say yeah he can forgive sins because God gave him that power. There's nothing in this that says I must believe that he's God to do this.
Okay, once again this just we're circling back to my main point. Okay, we we don't think the crowds declaring this would be a verse we would use to say Jesus is God. This is just again you citing passages we're going to agree on that lead to certain conclusions. It's other passages we argue like the Lord Lord passages we were debating about. Also, you brought up the concept of worship. So, you've been sharing some verses. I'm going to share some verses. Now, all right.
Now, the important the important thing I like to bring up
is to since we've already brought up Dan Mlullen, I would like to bring up the fact that we should not assume univocality. Different biblical authors use words differently.
So take the word procaneo. Matthew uses procaneo more broadly just for a ruler bowing down or somebody worshiping God. Luke uses that word very restrictively. And if I share my slides here, he only uses proaneo a handful of times and it's always referring to worship of God. And Jesus is clear in like Luke 4:8, you shall worship proc the Lord your God. In him only shall you serve. Yeah, in Acts 10 when Cornelius comes before uh Peter, he worships him proc and Peter lifts him up saying, "Don't do that. Stand up. I'm a man too." But if we see in Luke 24:51-52, the disciples worship Proano, Jesus.
So the way Luke is using this word strongly suggests Jesus is God.
I follow that reasoning. That's that's not bad reasoning. So let me let me counter that with this. Okay. So here I'm going to share this verse. I'm going to bring it up. So if we look at the Greek translation of the Old Testament, we're going to find the same word progu used for the king of Israel.
Yeah, I know.
Okay. Right. Right. So or are you bringing it up? Is that the screen is supposed to
uh Yeah, you brought up mine.
Sorry I am. There we go.
So let me let me show you just I want to give a receipt so you know I'm not just making that up. Where is
I know what you're doing. But notice what I said. I started with not assuming a vocality. Not every biblical author is going to use the word the same way. I'm
not how Luke used it.
I I hear you and I'm saying that's not bad logic. But we also have a precedent in scripture for proaneu worship being for the Lord and the king. Right? It say it says and all the congregation blessed the Lord their fathers, bowed down their heads and worshiped proano in the Greek, the Lord and the king. So I I just have a question. Did did God want Israel to have a king at first or no?
Uh he was ambiguous. If you go to like Deuteronomy 17,
right? So So he the point is that he recommended against it. You agree with that?
No. No, I didn't. No, no, no, no, no, no. So this is a this is huge confusion. Muslims use this. So let me correct. You're thinking of 1st Samuel 8 where they come to um they come they come to Samuel and they go, "Give us a king." And he they're like he's like, "No, they're rejecting me." the point that but you go to back to Deuteronomy 17 he said you indeed can set a king over you
and then he gives the guidelines the difference is in 1st Samuel 8 they said specifically they want a king to rule over them like the surrounding nations and the king that God sets up in Deuteronomy 17 is not like that kind of king he is not to judge so they want a king that's going to judge and so that's the difference
hey that's that's a good clarification um I totally agree with that that's actually what I'm sort of trying to say like God is cautioning them like hey if you're going to have a king, these things need to be in order, right? So that yeah, that's definitely my point. So who's the real king of Israel?
God is
God, right? So the king's throne actually represents God's. That's why the even the king of Israel can be prostanated. So I think that's a far better reading and understanding of the gospel giving of you know like the magi worshiping Jesus as like the king as the son of man as the Messiah not as God.
Mike I I specifically said what I said because I knew you were going to do this again. We cannot assume univocality. We cannot assume that they're all using the word procono the same way. I specifically focused on Luke Acts there and how he uses it. I agree. As I said, Matthew uses it more loosely than Luke does. The old the Septujian the translators as well use it more loosely. But how does Luke use it? He only uses it to refer to worship of God. So this is just what aboutism. It's not addressing my point.
Well, well, if you remember, Mike, like you sort of said that in response to what I was talking about concerning it. So I mean, if that's let's say that's true then, right? The reading of Luke is true, then that I think would just be contradicting how I'm reading it in Matthew, right? So, okay. So Jesus is worshiped as God in Luke, but he's not in Matthew because Proaneu is used more loosely, right? I don't think that actually answers the problem.
No, no, no, it does because Luke is saying they worship Jesus. Matthew is just saying they bow down to Jesus. That's not a contradiction. It's just Matthew's being more general. It's con they they are consistent. That's not contradicting though.
Can I can I I don't because I don't want it to be like a a 2v one. So, I'm like trying to step back unless I have something I just want to say. That's all.
I appreciate that, Than a lot. No, please um join in and I I will have to go after your closing statements. I have to There's a job I have to go do.
Gee, he's running. He's running.
Okay. Yo, Eminem, we do not want to use slurs on this stream. And I learned recently that the jo o word is a slur according to Jen's ears.
Oh my gosh. I know. I would love to see.
We can we can continue the conversation later. I totally get it's not going to end here, but yeah, go ahead. I'm going to check something real fast with you guys.
This is like kind of a dorky epistemic thing that I not that I think I'm noticing. Um,
so tell me like if this sounds like a straw man, just correct me, please.
Okay,
but it seems like it see what what I'm hearing and what I'm perceiving is is very like um trinitarians are going to give the evidence that they think is going to support their hypothesis, right? And then at least it feels like from my perspective that the unitarian response is often times like well your theory like this data doesn't like entail the trinitarian doctrine. It can be made sense in a unitarian way. Um and so therefore trinitarian's not trinitarianism isn't isn't true or something like that. And at least for me what I'm far more interested in is like hey, you have your theory I have my theory. We both care deeply about what the scriptures say. Like I I don't know what other Christians have said about you, Eminem, but like um I think if you're let's just say trinitarianism is true and that Jesus is indeed God and you're just sincerely in unculpably mistaken about that what your position like if that's the world that is that if that is an accurate reflection of the world, right? Like I think I'm going to see you in on the new earth, right? I got nothing against you. Um the but it I what I'm more interested in is like you have your theory, I have my theory, and at the end of the day, it's like which theory makes the data, which theory like best accounts for the data, which theory is more probable based off the data. It's it's it's it's not like does this entail this or does this entail this. I I don't I I think there's going to be very rare moments in scripture that you have a specific piece of text that's actually going to like just make it impossible for one theory or the other to be true or false. Um I just said a lot there. Sorry, but I just What are your thoughts there?
So I actually think the first part that you said is is for the true for to a large degree. So the way that I do perceive it is that you know trinitarianism sort of hinges on these philosophical developments you know the person being distinction hypoatic union and these are just like later they're postbiblical and so I I do perceive that as like anacronistic so it's like certainly a possible interpretation and you know maybe to some degree like what juicy mic no I I when I'm listening to people I'm like I'm like staring ing off in his face.
Mike just peaked in from the side. That was so wild. I'll just I'll just stop there. I got to go. I think that Yeah, for the most part, that's fair. And Than, thank you so much for just that levelheadedness and just choosing to think and believe the best. That really means a lot to me. I think that's it.
Oh, I appreciate that, man. Contrary to people's popular opinions about me for some reason lately, um I'm a I'm a pretty chill dude. Well, awesome, dude.
Thank Thank you and thank you, Mike, for having me on and yeah, hope hopefully we can talk again some other time.
All right. Yeah, let's talk again. I want to talk to you more about the Lord Lord in the future. Lord, so we'll do that sometime in the future.
Awesome.
Anyway, I'll let you go, man. That's great.