February 8, 2010
Dr. Brown Debates Sir Anthony Buzzard on the Deity of Jesus
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Articles on the Deity of Jesus (scroll down)
So Brown agrees on the Jewish-Christian unitarian creed [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29], yet not what it means??
Pray tell why?
Dr. Brown,
Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that the Son of God pre-existed, but that the Son of God “in the flesh” did not pre-exist, since flesh is made by God? In your studies, why is it that Jesus is called the “Son”? I have a theory I’ll attempt below, having not studied that in particular depth.
Also, I could see what Mr. Buzzard was saying about Jesus being the Word of God that pre-existed who later became flesh to dwell among us. Is it not possible that the word “Son” of God was attributed to the Word of God appearing as flesh because he was living in the human realm under the laws of man, where human terminology was to be used? In humanity, we as people come from our dads and are called sons or daughters. When the Word of God came to the earthly realm from God, he became flesh and was called “Son of God”, while God was referred to as “Father” by him. In order for God to come to earth to show us truth and redeem us, He had to limit His power and become human to live under the laws of the earthly realm. If He came in His full glory, the heavenly order would follow Him here and we would all cease to exist due to being in the presence of such holiness. That’s why He sent His Word here in flesh so we could survive in His presence under the laws of man, where His power would be limited to certain terms.
I think in the Old Testament, the term “Son of God” wasn’t really used so this confuses some people with such a concept. Although, some of us understand this was He who appeared to people like Abraham, Joshua, and others. One thing that could be clear to people is that you can’t separate God’s Word from God, nor can you separate God’s Spirit from Him. They’re all connected and each have shown to have a particular role. God overall is the Master, His Word naturally cooperates with Him to see that His purposes are known and literally carried through among us, and His Spirit empowers us to follow His Word. When people begin to see that His Son IS the Word of God, then they can know that His Son has always existed because God’s Word has always existed, just as God has. I think the word “Son” can be used interchangeably with “the Word of God”, and perhaps the concept of God’s Word should be the preface of understanding the concept of God’s Son. Also, the usage of the word “Son” from Son of God, needs to be defined for people because too many people see it in terms of God needing to have a sexual relationship in order to have a son, or that having a second person in the Godhead such as a son, opens up the door for some as thinking in terms of polytheism. If they just understand that Jesus is the Word of God, they can understand that the Word of God is one with God, just as Jesus says He is one with the Father. If we took away the New Testament, the idea of the pre-existing “Son of God” would be much harder for people to understand. On the other hand, the other name He goes by as “Word of God”, would not be so hard to understand as pre-existing.
Xavier,
Perhaps rather than putting my words in my mouth, you should repeat accurately what I said: I affirm that there is One God and only One God and that His unity is complex, best understood as His tri-unity. It appears the lack of clarity is based on your misperception of what I believe.
Michael K.,
Yes, of course, you are correct in stating that the Son of God pre-existed, but not in terms of being in this world “in the flesh.” That’s why I always try to speak of the pre-existence of the Son as opposed to the pre-existence of Jesus, which, technically speaking, is the name given to the Son when He became incarnate.
Re: the use of “the Word of God,” have you read what I have written on this in vol. 2 of my series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus?
Dr. Brown,
I have not read what you wrote about the “Word of God”. Can you enlighten me a tidbit? Also, what’s your take on why Jesus is called “Son” of God? Did my explanation of him being called “Son” present itself as valid in your opinion? (i.e. – use of human terminology for the word “Son” after Jesus was born in the earthly realm) Or does “Son” take on a different meaning if we understand him to have this title before he was born in flesh? I’m not real sure where to reference him as “Son of God” from Tanakh alone.
Michael K.,
Well, it’s quite lengthy, and I think you’d enjoy getting into the material, and it does tie in with the Word as God’s self-expression, but in a personal, not an impersonal way, also looking to the Targumic use of the Memra (and Philo’s logos).
As for Son, I take up that issue too, but from a Trinitarian viewpoint, God has always existed as Father, Son, and Spirit. Looking at other biblical material, we see that the Son proceeds from the Father, but we also see that the king of Israel was designated as God’s son and the nation of Israel was called God’s son. Within the context of the NT, Jesus is designated Son on a number of levels: as the preexistent Son; as the one born of God and not of an earthly father; as the one designated Son by his resurrection, etc.
Again, there’s a lot more to say on this, so I recommend diving into vol. 2 when you’re able to. I might talk about it some more at some point on my show.
Dr. Brown,
Thanks, I’ll try to make a point to get Volume 2 soon. I’d be very interested to read it. There’s no doubt that Jesus is understood to be God’s Son from the NT. Like you said, it’s abundantly clear there. Without the NT, it seems you’d have to have some amazing understanding of OT Scripture to understand that there is a pre-existent “Son of God” who is recognized as such and equal with God. It does become exceedingly clear in the NT. I do think it would be very beneficial to discuss this at greater length on your show, especially using the OT as the primary source. To the average person, it would seem like Jesus wasn’t given the title “Son” until he was “born” in the flesh as God incarnate. OT seems to refer to him using terms as “Lord” (from Genesis 18), or maybe even “Commander of the Army of the Lord” from the book of Joshua, etc., but I can’t find a clear example where He is interacting with people and referred to as “Son”. Perhaps Volume 2 will discuss this more. No doubt he pre-existed though, and I personally believe he was the pre-existent Son since I hold to what NT says. I think the confusing part for some is just the terminology of what to call him with regards to his pre-existence, since “Son” isn’t as clear from OT alone. It seems Mr. Buzzard was saying he believed in the pre-existent Word of God which became flesh as Jesus, but being identified as “Son” was not a pre-existent title for Jesus from his understanding. It doesn’t seem to him that who we refer to as the “Son of God” was the same character in Genesis 18 since he doesn’t believe the “Word” appeared in human form until Jesus came.
Dr. Brown,
I listened to the show live and simply reiterated what you said. Anthony said he did not think the Shema as cited in both Deut 6.4 and Mar 12.29 “is not a Trinitarian creed”. To which you said, “we would agree on that too”. But then you come back trying to cover yourselve by saying its really not a unitarian creed, that its “God in His complex unity”.
I don’t think you even know what you believe Dr. Brown since you keep going back and forth in your interpretation and misapplication of the scriptures. i.e., “there is only one God in His complex unity”.
Am I alone in seeing that this does not make any sense?!
The word (logos) of God is the verbal expression of God. I am sure that you, Dr. Brown, are a man of your word. I am also sure that you “stand by your word”. The word as expressed in John 1:1 is not separate from God anymore than the words coming from your mouth become a separate being that is actually standing beside you. The logos in John 1:1 would have been understood by both Jew and Greeks of the day as the verbal expression of God.
None of the apostles who personally knew Jesus, nor Paul who received revelation from Jesus, nor the early Christians would have believed that the word in John 1:1 somehow morphed from something spoken, or the verbal expression of God into the physical manifestation of the man Jesus. This would make Jesus different from all his brethren, since man was created from the dust of the ground and not spoken into existence. The first one to morph the logos (verbal expression) into the physical Jesus was not one of the apostles who personally knew Jesus, but instead was Justin Martyr; and he had his own agenda. Christians were being persecuted as atheists because they placed a man in the judgment seat at the right hand of God.
God is not a complex unity because he alone is God. Jesus never stated that he was God, and did not say anything that would indicate he believed a tri-un God, or that he believed in any way that God was a complex unity of anything outside himself.
Dr. Brown,
Towards the end of this debate you quote Heb 1.10 and agree with Anthony that the writer of Hebrews is “quoting the Septuagint”. Which, as you know, gives a different reading than the Masoretic-Hebrew text. Supporting, as Anthony suggested [it seems], the context of a Messianic-eschatological ["future creation", as you say] view for this section of Hebrews 1 and the Son’s involvement as “founder of the heavens and the earth”.
Something which apparently is brought out by the writer when he later says that it is “of the world to come which we are referring to” [Heb 2.5].
Could you explain why you dismiss Anthony’s point here as somehow resorting to a “special pleading” of the text on his part, since you have to “read it completely differently than originally written in Ps 102 in Hebrew or the Septuagint”? Yet, you “fully understand that” the LXX gives a different meaning?
Clarification please since I’m just writing back what you said in the debate.
That debate got interesting when the part came up about whether God was ‘one’ or a ‘united one’. I’d like to see a debate just on that topic! In my mind the answer to this single topic of how God is ‘one’ would be the basis for understanding all the other related topics (ie pre-existance) – if we can’t solidify this point then the debates that branch out will seem pointless. I know many people would be interested to hear you debate Anthony Buzzard on this topic; is God ‘one’ or a ‘compound one’… Please consider Dr. Brown and bless you for such a great radio program
Good discussion today. As always too short though. Good timing as well because I just received Sir Anthony’s book The Doctrine of the Trinity in the mail today! Would really enjoy further programs with him. He seems very articulate and gracious, even if he is a heretic
,
Steve,
As long as you dislike as with a “smile and a wink”. Wonder if that’s how so-called “heretics” like Servetus and Wycliffe were burned at the stake though.
Sir Anthony,
Have you read Richard Bauckham’s writings on what he calls a Christology of Divine Identity? If so, what do you think?
Dr. Brown,
I know you listed Bauckham’s book as a recommendation when Kermit Zarley was on. What’s your assessment of his desire to move beyond the standard distinction between “functional” and “ontic” Christology?
I have never been comfortable affirming that which Scripture does not require me to affirm – 1 being but 3 persons. I am a Trinitarian but I’m w/ Bauckham in wanting to go back before the Greek explanations in expressing what I believe the Scriptures teach about the nature of God.
Hi Dr Brown,
Could you please share your view point in regards to the debate. If a whole hearted born again believer in Jesus doesn’t believe in the trinity, the holy spirit being a separate person or the pre-existent Son of God – are these salvational issues?
Thanks for your help
From listening to this and having many conversations on subjects such as this. I must say I see each side of this topic that God is a triune and Unitarian / One. But I see God is One and singular depending on the person doing the viewing. much like science is discovering that on the molecular level experiments that the results are different based on who is doing the viewing.
Much like the experiments on light one experiment proves light is a wave and another experiment proves light is a particle. Both are correct. but each depends on who is viewing and conducting the experiment. As each person studies the scripture certain views are determined based on the viewer.
I am Not saying each can have his own personal view of scripture. Some things are absolute but because God is One and Plural sometimes people can only see God as one way not both.
When a person comes to the scripture he comes with a certain mind set and tends to see only what he is looking for. Sometimes not allowing The Scripture to reveal truth. I must say if truth can be fully explained it is probably not the truth.
On the issue of pre-existence, the Holy Spirit makes a special point in Jeremiah that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in his mother’s womb. This “doctrine” of God’s confession of a “relationship knowledge” of a person prior to their birth is also set forth in detail in Psalm 139:14-17 where the infinite knowledge of God (God’s thoughts are without number) is said to encompass a knowledge of a human being prior to their birth (in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them). If Jesus as man had a greater revelation of this point than David or Jeremiah, he might well have shared it. In fact, if this point is true, we might imagine the Son of Man being filled with this understanding as he looked at himself, as David and Jeremiah had, through the eternal eyes of His Father.
If God the Father “knew” Jeremiah before he was born, and if God’s infinite knowledge and eternal point of view is accepted as a legitimate and authoritative frame of reference, and if Christ is the Logos made flesh, i.e. the self-expression of God the Father made human, one would think that such a human would have a transcendent self-image with respect to time, a vastly expanded expereince of the revelation given to Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and David (Psalm 139:14-18).
Now, if Jesus wanted to share this eternal perspective of himself, if he wanted to say, as Jeremiah and David had done, that from God’s point of view he was known before his birth, and if this pre-birth knowledge of God included his identity as the self-expression of God which was eternally destined to become human in himself, then how would he do that without the potential of confusion — are you saying you are pre-existent?
Had Anthony stated that Jesus, like Jeremiah and David, was known by the Father (which of course would be experiential knowledge, since God is infinite and unbound by time) before the world was, and that this knowledge is included in the self-image that Christ both experienced and expressed, as well as in the statements of John the Baptist regarding the fact that Christ was “before him,” it would have moved the two men a bit closer on the issue of pre-existence. The truth is, a correct understanding of the Logos and the time frame of God cannot be ignored when discussing the words of Jesus that appear to say he was pre-existent.
Let us ask ourselves, what was Christ’s self image like if he had a full revelation of God’s eternal perspective of him? And what if part of God’s intent in sending Christ was to give the rest of us a window into this eternal perspective — taking us to the destination that Jeremiah and David had pointed toward? Are we “seated in heavenly places” in Christ? Were we known before we were born? Were we not “created in Christ Jesus” and “chosen in him before the foundation of the world”? What if God wanted us to have a vehicle or paradigm for an eternal self-image, couldn’t He provide that in a perfect, pattern Son?
The truth is, much of Paul’s teaching extrapolates on the stated and unstated premise that we are to view our identities as eternally fixed in the Son. And the starting point for that discussion has to be some concept of a “Son” that transends time, not as a second person of a tri-une (complex) God, but as a foreknown, prototype man who “was and is” the self expression of the ONE God– the Logos.
Amen.
Hebrews 1:2
But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (NIV)
1. The Greek word translated “universe” (or “world” in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion, and actually means “ages.” There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.” Vine’s Lexicon has, “an age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated ‘world;’ the R.V. margin always has ‘age.’” Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon has:
“Aion [age], from ao, aemi, to blow, to breathe. Aion denoted originally the life which hastes away in the breathing of our breath, life as transitory; then the course of life, time of life, life in its temporal form. Then, the space of a human life, an age, or generation in respect of duration. The time lived or to be lived by men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity. Aion always includes a reference to the filling of time”1
Since most translators are Trinitarian and think that Jesus was the one who made the original heavens and earth, they translate “ages” as “world” in this verse. But the actual word in the Greek text means “ages,” and it should be translated that way.
2. Trinitarians use the verse to try to prove that Jesus Christ created the world as we know it, but the context of the verse shows that this cannot be the correct interpretation. Verses 1 and 2 show that God spoke through Jesus “in these last days,” whereas He had spoken “in the past” in various ways. If indeed it were through Jesus that the physical world was created, then one of the ways that God spoke in the past was through Jesus. But that would contradict the whole point of the verse, which is saying that God spoke in other ways in the past, but “in these last days” is speaking through the Son.
3. Since verses 1 and 2 say that it was “God” who spoke through prophets and through His Son, it is clear that God is the prime mover and thus different from the Son. These verses
show that the Son is subordinate to God and, as a “mouthpiece” for God, is compared to the prophets.
4. The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal. For the Son to be the “heir” means that there was a time when he was not the owner. The Bible was written using common words that had common and accepted meanings in the language of the time. The doctrine of the Trinity forces these words to take on “mystical” meanings. Yet there is no evidence in Scripture that the writer changed the meaning of these common words. We assert that if the Bible is read using the common meanings of the words in the text, there is simply no way to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in every language. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner. No one in history ever wrote a will that said, “My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!” If Christ is God, then he cannot be “heir.” The only way he can be an heir is by not being the owner.
That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.
5. The entire opening section of Hebrews, usually used to show that Christ is God, actually shows just the opposite. More proof of this is in verses 3 and 4. After Christ sat down at the right hand of God, “he became as much superior to the angels” as his name is superior to theirs. “God” has always been superior to the angels. If Christ only became superior after his resurrection, then he cannot be the eternal God. It is obvious from this section of Scripture that “the Man” Christ Jesus was given all authority and made Lord and Christ.
6. Since aionas means “ages” and not “world,” it is fair to ask in what sense God has made the ages through Jesus. First, it must be understood that the word “made” is extremely flexible. It is the Greek word poieo, which, both alone and in combination with other words, is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV, and thus has a wide range of meaning. Some of the ways poieo is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the “ages” being referred to are the ages after Christ’s resurrection. In verse 2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In verse 3, he then sat at God’s right hand after his resurrection. Verses 5 and 6 also refer to the resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken “in these last days” through His Son, and “given form to” the ages through him (note #1 on Heb. 1:10 below provides more evidence for this).
Broughton and Southgate, pp. 286-298
Hyndman, pp. 123-127
Norton, pp. 194-196
Racovian Catechism, pp. 93 and 94
Snedeker, pp. 457-459
Endnotes:
1. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, under “world.”
Copied from One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, and John W. Schoenheit.
With all due respect to Sir Anthony Buzzard, he seems to put too much emphasis on the views of men which will always be secondary to the Scriptures.
I enjoyed the debate very much although it was just scratching the surface. I’m looking forward to pt. 2.
Steve,
I personally have not gotten very much involved in the debate about terminology, being more of an exegete than a theologian, but because of that, I’m in basic harmony with what you’re saying here and very much appreciative of Bauckham’s work.
I couldn’t stop myself smirking at the start when Buzzard stated that ‘those at scholars Cambridge’ would disagree with you that Christ was seen as preexistent. One of the chief proponents of doctrine of preexistence in the synoptics is Cambridge scholar Simon Gathercole.
Please see his ‘The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke, 2006.
Thank you Dr. Brown for your clarity on many issues that much of the church is nervous to approach. (Homosexuality, Calvinism, Eschatology, the Diety of Christ, etc) You are a much needed and respected voice in the Body, please continue to lead others into the Knowledge of God and be encouraged that there are many who are learning greatly from your ministry. Bless you.
Erlend,
Yes sir! I actually referred to Gathercole’s work without citing him yesterday (again, today), and when I debated Kermit Zarley last month, I linked his excellent volume to the second day of the debate.
Thanks much for posting it again here. What especially fascinated me about Gathercole’s book was his explicating the meaning of the “I have come” passages.
I wonder why these debates seldom address the issue of relationship. I have a relationship with Jesus, and a relationship with the Father. Jesus is not ashamed to call us brethren, and I am not ashamed to call him my brother. I know Jesus as my Lord, and my brother, and who can argue that is not Biblical? Similarly, I know the Father as my heavenly Father, and not as my brother. My relationship with Jesus and His Father convince my heart that they are unique and distinct beings. Jesus said that he is “meek and lowly in heart.” I know Jesus this way. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His character was forged in the fires of trial; he was made perfect by the things which he suffered. I know that character, that person who overcame, who was tempted on all points. I have a relationship with Him. I know His Father too, God Almighty, who cannot be tempted, and in no sense was His character forged in the fires of trial.
It is clear to my spirit that God the Father is the one God, and Jesus is His human Son, exalted to His right hand as an overcomer and heir based on birthright. Christ has earned a reward, and part of what He has earned, is my/our adoration and understanding of the nature of His worthiness, His greatness, His sinless and obedient soul.
God knows this one of whom I speak. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. This one God knows every beat of Christ’s human heart, and appreciates Christ’s obedience and perfection through suffering. He has earned His distinction. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God — except Jesus, he didn’t sin, nor did he come short of the glory of God. When God the Father looks into the heart of His Son, he sees the only obedient human soul to have ever lived; He sees the one who “gave up the ghost” on the cross, and who surrendered His will. I want to know this one who gave up the ghost, and I do. His decision to “give up the ghost” on the cross is worthy of unspeakable honor. No doctrine of the church should rob Jesus of His human glory, or overshadow it with some other idea that is more palatable to the religious mind. When Jesus worships His Father, He worships out of a human heart and will, with a character and willingness that were made perfect through suffering, tempted on all points yet without sin.
God knows who Jesus is, and Jesus knows who God is. Saying that God is a “complex unity” is two dimensional, and ignores the fact that just like Adam had and has a soul, so too does Jesus of Nazareth. God did not deprive Christ of his human identity, that identity is the greatest of gifts, it is life itself. That human soul, the soul that calls us brethren, that seat of personality, deserves recognition. God desires to recognize that soul; He is an overcomer! Let us appreciate that, celebrate that, and when we do, the distinction between God and Christ will become clear. There is one glory of the sun, and one glory of the moon, stars, etc. Glory is about distinction! Blending Jesus and the Father together into some complex unity fails to give the Father His due distinction, and also fails to give the Son His due distinction. And in any event, where is the overcomer? Where is my brother? Decades after Jesus went to sit at His Father’s right hand, Paul called James — the Lord’s brother!! The Lord’s brother? Amen.
We try to lay out doctrines and creeds to define God; we would do better to let our hearts get to know God and His Son as individuals, as persons, as beings, and let their resective positions and personalities speak for themselves. Jesus said that His Father was “His God”; the man Christ is worshipping His God in heaven today. And God the Father is receiving that worship — which is coming from the heart of only person, other than the Father, who is completely perfect, and pure in heart. Let’s not let doctrine rob us of such a beautiful reality!
Brad,
You seem to limit Jesus as to only human. Does not Scripture speak of his divine nature, and of him being one with the Father.? Scripture even says Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and all things were created by him and for him, and are held together by him. You said “Blending Jesus and the Father together into some complex unity fails to give the Father His due distinction, and also fails to give the Son His due distinction”. Based on Scripture, God’s existence functions in comparison to that of a body. For example, just as our arms and legs are different than our brain, it is still part of the same body. The Father is the Head, the Son is the Word, and the Spirit is the Life/Strength Giver. The have separate roles but do not function without each other because they make up one body, and represent one God. You should also know that the Son has always existed as the “Son”. He is the image of the invisible God and he is also the Word of God, and he appeared to Abraham, Joshua, Isaiah, etc., before he was born as Jesus. So his title as “Son” goes beyond being born as a human. The fact that he is referred to as “Son” and distinct from the Father ought to also give an indication that we all were made in God’s image…..each of us having the ability to have sons and daughters who are connected to us by blood but are different persons of the same family body. We are made to love each other in our families, reflecting that we are made in God’s image of Him loving Himself (Father, Son, Holy Spirit = one Body = One God).
Brad,
Do you see no danger in allowing your heart to determine your doctrine?
I too walk intimately with my God and King, relating to the Father as Abba and to Jesus as Lord and elder brother. And based on Scripture, I come to very different conclusions than you do. In fact, the incomplete views you state here demean the Jesus I know, before whose feet I fall in worship, offering him the worship that belongs to God alone.
So, my heart and head find no contradiction between what is written and what I experience. And, with all respect, Brad, I say it is your doctrine that robs you of a massive amount of glorious revelation into who this Son is and the greatness of God’s love for you.
Dr. Brown:
I never said I allow my heart to determine my doctrine. I just find that doctrinal debates such as this often fail to speak of relationship. I have been a student of the Word for over 30 years, have a degree in history and law, (am a practicing attorney)and worship Jesus as Lord just as you do. I attend a trinitarian church every weekend, and when I do I lift my hands and worship Jesus and His Father. I remember the day and moment I gave my life to Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and my God.
You say you relate to the Father as Abba and to Jesus as elder brother, and that the views I state “demean” Jesus. I merely brought out the aspects of scripture that usually get ignored in this discussion, aspects that you have now highlighted in your own comments — the distinction between Jesus as our brother and God as our Father. Were your views “incomplete” prior to the time you mentioned that Jesus was your older brother? How often is Jesus, as our brother, addressed in typical discussions on his person and being? Have you ever written about the the personal relationship our Father has with our older brother — in addition to your other theology? How often have you fleshed out your own sense of Jesus as older brother, and God as Father — I’d love to read it.
My heart is informed by my belief that the Bible is the Word of God, and I believe every Word of it. I believe Jesus is my God and King, elder brother, Lord, Master, Savior, and bridegroom. I threw in the heart comments precisely because I often see brothers enter into such debates without their heart —
How is it demeaning to take a few paragraphs and set forth the idea that Jesus himself described himself as “meek and lowly in heart”? Or that Jesus called God “His God’? Or that Jesus was made perfect by the things which he suffered? Worthy is the lamb!
My addition of these scriptural truths to this debate was an effort to make your debate complete, because the human characteristics of Jesus tend to get set aside in such discussions…and I wonder if the “complex unity” of Gods being, as an idea, takes the meek and lowly heart of our brother into consideration?
Michael K:
I believe Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I believe Jesus is the Word made flesh, and that all things were created in him and through him and for him. I also believe Jesus is my Lord and my God, and that there was never a time when He did not exist. My comments were merely to highlight elements of the scriptures that often get set aside in such discussions. I believe that so much energy is put into defending the Deity of Christ, that we often fail to boldly say — He is our brother. He is the man Christ Jesus. He was made perfect through suffering. He is our High Priest. He is meek and lowly in heart. None of these statements is extra-Biblical, and yet because believers feel it is SO necessary to defend the Detiy of Christ, they often do not speak of these Biblical truths that highlight His humanity.
For instance, now that I have stated my “Deity of Christ” credentials, confessing that He is God, Image of God, Filled with God, Pre-existent, etc., I assume I could get away with addressing his humanity without others thinking that I have demeaned Him in some way, as Dr. Brown has alleged that I have. I just wonder what we do with our brother in all this? The man Christ Jesus? Read what I wrote again, and tell me which point is not in the Bible? Seriously — I mean, doesn’t the Bible say he was made perfect through suffering? Doesn’t it say He is our brother? Doesn’t it say that He calls God “His God”?
Do you not believe that as high priest today, in heaven, He worships His Father?
When He appeared to Paul, he spoke in Hebrew and decades after his resurrection, ascension, and glorification — He said he was from Nazareth — is it demeaning to mention this? He was still talking about His home town!!!
If he had appeared in glory, and said: “I am Jesus of South Jersey” maybe that would help us understand that He is a human being too! In the book of Acts, they referred to Jesus as “a man approved of God by signs and wonders…” I suppose this description of Him was incomplete? A man approved of God? And if I call him “a man approved of God” — am I not speaking Bible?
Jesus was and is a man approved of God…
Steve Noel,
Richard Bauckham confuses the Lord God with the Lord Messiah. Jesus is the supreme agent of the One God but he certainly never claimed to be God himself, which would make two Gods and contradict his own affirmation of the unitarian creed of Israel (Mark 12:29). This subject is not so hard provided one believes the synoptic accounts of the origin of the Son of God. Luke 1:35 defines the basis for calling Jesus the Son of God.
Bauckham has attempted to divide the Shema between God and the Messiah. This is what Paul does not do. In 1 Cor 8:4-6 Paul gives a very clear definition of the one God who is the Father (called “the God” 1300 times in the NT). In this passage Jesus is expressly called the Lord Christ. Everyone should know that the Christ, the anointed, cannot BE God! He is God’s anointed. The difference between God and Jesus is beautifully laid out in Luke 2:11 and 26.
NT orthodoxy repeatedly demands that we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. None of the 11,000 occurrences of the words for God means the triune God. The Trinity developed gradually after NT times under the influence of Greek philosophy.
Hope you enjoy my book.
Brad,
Thanks for clarifying your point. Much appreciated! As for my comments that you demean Jesus in your post, when you state only some of the glorious things about him that are true to the willful exclusion of others that are at least as gloriously (if not even more gloriously) true, I believe it demeans him. As for the points you made about the Lord Jesus, I do not find them deemphasized or ignored in the circles in which I travel, hence not needing special emphasis in a post here as if those points were true and the others (regarding the Son’s preexistence, divine nature, work in creation, etc.) should either be denied of left out.
Brad,
Sorry if I misunderstood. At first, it just seemed like you were making an extra effort to show Jesus as merely being human, saying things like God’s human son or Christ’s human heart. No one disputes Jesus’ humanity, but many people dispute him as deity, so it seemed like you may have been disputing him as deity by going through so much trouble to point out his humanity. Also, when you said “Blending Jesus and the Father together into some complex unity fails to give the Father His due distinction, and also fails to give the Son His due distinction”, this raised the question as to whether or not you believed the Son was just as much God as the Father, especially phrasing things like “some complex unity”. In fact, God’s unity is very complex. Wouldn’t you say that one God having three distinct persons is a complexity? I would.
Anthony,
You state, ” Everyone should know that the Christ, the anointed, cannot BE God!” What an inexact and, ultimately, incorrect statement. Surely he who carries the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form and who was himself in the very form of God and existed from the beginning and is even called God directly is also God. To use your phraseology, Everyone should know that!
Furthermore, I concur with Bauckham’s reading of 1 Cor 8 and his understanding of Paul’s rewording of the Shema there. After all, a first century Jew had one Lord just as much as he had one God (especially a Greek speaking Jew, for whom YHWH had become kurios; God and Lord were thus interchangeable. In fact, in reading the LXX, he would encounter “Lord” far more than “God.”). Surely you must know that to tell that Jewish person that he now had ONE LORD — namely, Jesus — would be to place Jesus firmly within the Godhead, the very point that Bauckham makes, along with many other top scholars.
Regarding your last point, it’s interesting to see how some of the immediate disciples of the apostles clearly spoke of Jesus’ deity — hardly a later development under Greek philosophy.
Brad,
One more point (upon reading your interaction with Michael K.). I obviously did misunderstand your point — perhaps I was too much in the habit of responding to Unitarians recently, so my sincere apologies — and I have also taught that in our desire to defend Jesus’ deity we have left out other aspects of his character on the human side. So, again, my apologies for misreading your post. Obviously, your intent was to glorify Jesus rather than to demean him, and I do hope you understand that, from my biblical vantage point, the Christologies put forth by sincere (but wrong) men like Kermit Zarley and Anthony Buzzard do a great disservice to Jesus.
Brad,
In reply to your question, “How often have you fleshed out your own sense of Jesus as older brother, and God as Father — I’d love to read it,” I actually preached on related themes twice on my last trip to India, but I was not given copies of the messages (plus, you would have to listen to one or two translators as well). I’ll be sure to let you know when I share on this topic again, in accessible form.
Another issue that gets lost in the whole discussion of Christ’s Deity is the nature of the “blank check” he received “as man” from His Father by virtue of His literal only begotten status. “All power in heaven and earth;” “the Spirit without measure;” “name above every name;” I and my Father are one.” And my personal favorite: John 5:23 “that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father…”
Jesus was born of a virgin, and His human lineage ascended to the Throne of God — that’s pretty important. What we don’t see clearly, at least in my view, is that God the Father is not stumbled by His own Estate Plan — “this is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.” Jesus gets it all — as man. He has, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than any of the angels — a point the author of Hebrews felt worth mentioning, as if such an argument had to be made! But such an argument was not only made, but God breathed that argument into the text, forever highlighting the rationale for Christ’s dominion over angels — inheritance, and a Father – Son relationship. This is a stone of stumbling because it means that Christ’s dominion turns on his only begotten status.
If Jesus as a man is the Son of God, then he is due the same honor as the Father, period. I know that offends people, it is the issue which finally got Jesus killed. “Are you the Son of the Blessed?” No way the high priest was questioning Christ about some kind of pre-existent Sonship, he was getting at who Christ claimed as a natural Father — a legal issue, a blasphemy issue. To the Jews of His day, a claim to be the literal begotten Son of God meant a claim to be equal with God (John 5:18), and that was unacceptable. That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father? Are you kidding?
And yet, God the Father distinguishes the human lineage of Christ as the basis for the honor due Christ. This is the BIG stumbling stone it seems to me, even today. At His trial, Jesus was finally found “guilty of death” when he confessed that He was the Son of the Blessed, and that as the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of His Father. That statement was enough to convict him.
Now, if I were to say, Jesus is one with His Father as man, and as man is due the same honor that is due His Father, based soley on His unique and profound birthright — in other words, that His human lineage and human relationship to God as human Son –puts him at the right hand of God — and gives him oneness with the Father — that God Himself accepts this as appropriate legal grounds for the honor and majesty attributable to His Son, then watch out.
And yet Jesus as man can say that God is His literal Father — and I say that this Sonship give Jesus a birthright of Divine dimensions…that’s right, a birthright of Divine dimensions.
What is interesting is that history is repeating itself. the religious of our day are stumbled by the idea that Jesus, as MAN, is due the SAME honor that His biological Father is due. If you hang your hat on that point alone, you WILL be called a heretic by the mainstream of Christianity. It is blasphemy. You must recant, or say that He is one with God in some way other than “merely” as an only begotten human Son. Am I right?
In other words, if Jesus Christ was on (religious) trial today, and made no claims to be part of a complex unity, no claims to be a second person of God, but merely stated that he was the only begotten Son of God, as man, had been given His Father’s name, and all power in heaven and earth, and that God was requiring the world to honor Him as they Honor the Father — with only Luke 1:35 as a basis, he’d be called a heretic and a blasphemer.
How ironic…
This discussion has really caused me to consider more deeply my understanding of Gods nature and Jesus Christ.
I Think Anthony had some very good points and answered Mikes question very well. I was greatly surprised. I may not agree with all Anthony’s doctrines, but he really got me thinking yesterday.
Mike I listen to your preaching all the time your a huge blessing and i have many of your books.
At the beginning and end of the discussion you suggested Anthony of “special pleading” or twisting scripture. I thought about this after the discussion.
I did not really see Anthony do this in this particular issue.
The bible says God is ONE, you agree with this but also add God is a triune ONE. Can we somehow make ONE =Triune and accuse others who question or do not agree with a literal existence of Christ as special pleading or twisting scripture.
I agree with Johnny you should discuss the truth of God being ONE or ONE Triunity.
Ok how about the term SON – seems to me its not a straight forward term anymore as i read through some of the comments in this blog. Why not?
Christ is the Literal Unique Human Son of God born of a supernatural Conception via the virgin Mary His Mother. God is His Literal Father, which makes Him the SON of God. The fact that God the Father begot the Son through the virgin birth makes Jesus the SON of God? and does not His Resurrection declare that truth with POWER.
The Pre existence Anthony speaks about to me lines up more accurately with scripture . I think BRAD who left a comment in regards to the Eternal perspective of God, Gods foreknowledge and Christ seeing Himself through Gods time frame. Jeremiah being intimately known and Davids psalm 139 are all very challenging and convincing. I am definitely going to look more into that. WOW!
I will continue to seek for the truth, i look forward to another discussion, i am very grateful for this discussion it has caused me to question the common thoughts of who God and Jesus really are.
Hi Anthony,
great to see you post a comment! Although I don’t agree with you saying Jesus isn’t God because you have to weave through too many scriptures, and that topic surely calls for careful clarification. However, i’d be dishonest if said that if someone read the bible fresh who had never had the trinity taught to them it would be clear that God is one person and not three in one. The points you made on that topic during the debate were challenging so can you please share with us your main best points as to why you would say that God is not a coupound unity. I’d have to say I love Dr Browns debating and have always seen him clearly prove his oppostition wrong but this one seems up in the air and I’d like to see this one brought down to earth!!! Thank You
Michael,
You have overlooked the umbrella text in Psalm 110:1 which categorically defines Jesus as non-Deity lord. Luke has laid out for us the identity of Jesus when he tells us in 2:11 that the Lord Messiah was born. Jews did not imagine that the Messiah was God. How could they on the basis of Psalm 110:1? The Son is called the “Lord, son of David,” and constantly the “Lord Jesus Messiah.” Not to distinguish properly between the Lord God and the Lord Messiah is the systematic error of Trinitarianism.
James Dunn is a scholar of enormous prominence and his book Christology in the Making should be studied with care. He stated to us in correspondence that it is heresy to say that Jesus is identified as YHWH.
I imagine that you have some respect for F.F. Bruce. He expressed doubts as to whether any NT writer believed in the preexisting Son of God.
What is baffling to your Messianic unitarian friends who are now emerging in larger numbers is that you apparently give the name YHWH both to a triune God and equally to each member of that Tri-unity. Does that state your position correctly?
One other question: you assert several times in your book that Jesus “returned” to God. But the text speaks of him rather as “going” not “returning” to God.
The glory in John 17:5 is in that very context (v. 22, 24) a glory in prospect. It is very natural for a Jew to say that one “has” something stored up with God when possession of it awaits the future.
For all the points I’m making there is solid exegetical support documented over the past years and certainly in current books. I would thoroughly recommend Anthony Harvey’s Jesus and the Constraints of History and McGrath’s The Only True God.
Thanks for the opportunity for dialogue,
Anthony
Sorry i mean a literal pre existence of Christ.
The bible says God is ONE, you agree with this but also add God is a triune ONE. Can we somehow make ONE =Triune and accuse others who question or do not agree with a literal existence of Christ as special pleading or twisting scripture.
Dr. Brown, I wish to address something you said to Sir Anthony:
“… Surely he who carries the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form and who was himself in the very form of God and existed from the beginning and is even called God directly is also God.”
The verse reads:
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9)
As you know the word “Godhead” is a translation of the Greek word “theotes. This Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so making a case for it meaning “God” or “Godhead” (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used “theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture; which would have been “divinity” or “divine nature”. Thus it makes perfect sense that Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the “divine nature” dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Peter 1:4).
Another thing to think about is the phrase “dwelleth all the fullness”. We never read about “the fullness of God the Father” because, by definition, God is always full of his own nature. This verse is not talking about Christ being God, nor is it indicating in any way that Jesus existed before he was born; but it is about God providing Jesus with “fullness” as stated earlier in Col. 1:19. The fact that Jesus has “all the fullness” of God does not make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians should be filled with “all the fullness of God”, and no one believes that would make each Christian God.
Furthermore, if Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by way of God’s great and precious promises we “may participate in the divine nature”. Having a “divine nature” does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God.
Johnny,
I agree that Dr Brown was gracious and fair. Here is what I think he is overlooking: there are thousands of occurrences of the words for God in the Bible (YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, Theos). Not one single occurrence of those various words can be shown to mean a triune God.
The word “one” in Hebrew always means “one single.” It is true that the numeral adjective “one” (or any numeral for that matter) can modify a collective noun (like family or bunch). But the meaning of the word “one” remains unchanged. It is still one family and not two families.
If any doubt were to remain, God is proven to be one single divine Person because he is described by singular personal pronouns thousands and thousands of times. This is an exceedingly simple point. God in His gracious approach to us has left us in no doubt. He speaks of Himself as “I.” He is addressed as “Thou” and “Thee” so many times that the ordinary reader could not miss the singularity of the single Person who is defined by singular personal pronouns. The meaning of a pronoun is extremely easy, and it is only when this ground rule of ordinary communication is neglected or avoided that the vastly complicated idea of God being both three and one at the same time gets off the ground.
Try reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter and see if any of those documents provide any basis for asserting that Jesus is YHWH. lf he is YHWH – and we know the Father is YHWH – then surely this violates the creed quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29 and agreed upon by a non-Trinitarian Jew. That creed states that the Lord God is one Lord.
Finally, Jesus never said that he was “going back” to the Father.
Thanks for the question. I hope this gives you something to mull over.
Anthony
Anthony,
I hardly overlooked Psalm 110:1 and the usage of adoni there. David was simply stating that the Messiah, although his descendant, would be superior to him — his lord or master — which was Jesus’ whole point in using the text, nothing more and nothing less. It neither proves nor disproves his deity, but certainly is in harmony with his preexistence, as per John 1:15 (despite your protestations to the contrary).
As far as citing F. F. Bruce, surely you don’t think he’s in your corner on these issues, do you?
I see no possible way that your reading of all the “I am from above, I came down from heaven,” texts in John can be taken as per your arguments (and I’ve been immersed in Jewish reading of the texts for many years) — not to mention his coming from the Father and going to the Father in John 13, surely a “returning” — nor do I see any possible way that your reading of the end of Hebrews 1 can be countenanced as “exegesis” of any sort (just being candid, as you seek to be).
As for my Messianic unitarian friends, first, they are in the tiniest minority; second, I predicted in Israel back in 1986 that the denial of Yeshua’s deity would be the first sign of apostasy in my MJ brethren; third, why in the world would the opinions of a group of people influence my beliefs?
I do not accept your “Jewish” reading of John 17:5, and it flies in the face of so many other verses in John’s Gospel (as I briefly alluded to).
As for Dunn’s comments, if he differed with you, would that move you? N. T. Wright is surely as prominent a scholar as Dunn, and he is clearly not in your camp, nor is Dunn a Unitarian. Will you therefore recant your position?
As for the name YHWH, in cases of theophanies, like Genesis 18, the name is applied to the Son (the only One whom people have seen who is God); and, of course, as F. F. Bruce pointed out, the NT strikingly applies YHWH verses to Jesus (as in Philippians 2, quoting from Isaiah 45!) — evidence of an extremely exalted Christology. Other than that, however, YHWH is primarily identified with the Father in the Scriptures.
I do hope that you will be willing to reconsider your position in the coming days.
Michael
Oh, one last note: You are surely aware that the NT speaks of Jesus’ future “coming” as opposed to his return. That would be in keeping with the language in John: It is absolutely a return to the Father there, based on context.
Anthony Buzzard,
If Jesus did not pre-exist, then what is he referring to in John 8:56? You might wanna check out Genesis 18.
Also, in John 8:58, this appeared to infuriate the jews to the point that they picked up stones to stone him. Jesus is claiming God’s name here. You can try to argue what he meant, but is clear to see the jews were angered by what was blasphemy in their eyes. And in John 10:33, the jews accused him of claiming to be God. And by the way, who can forgive sins but God. Jesus forgave people’s sins.
Carmen,
The weight of all the evidence cited, which includes Col. 2:9, cannot be spoken of someone only born of flesh and blood, and your citation from 2 Peter 1 does not relate directly to Col. 2:9.
Anthony, with all due respect, it is utter nonsense to say that the Hebrew word “one” (you’re obviously speaking of “echad” here) always means “one single,” as if that proved that God could not be one single tri-unity — whereas you are fully aware that it can mean “one couple” or “one multi-faceted tabernacle.” So, there is one single tabernacle, consisting of many components, and there is one single God, with a complex unity.
Surely, you can’t believe that “echad,” proves your point? Moreover, in context, it most likely means “alone,” as in, the only God we worship.
You state points here as if it’s the first time any of us heard them, whereas we heard them and processed them and rejected them.
Dr. Brown
Thanks for the response, I hope you do not feel it is misplaced:) Because I think Anthony and Kermit are correct, for the most part. I believe in the vast majority of what they teach regarding Jesus. I just think the divide between the two camps doesn’t have to be so wide.
For myself, I believe the statement that “Jesus is God” is fine. Show me someone who has the Spirit without measure, the Name of God, who is the Logos made flesh, who is the express image of the Father’s person, who has been given all power in heaven and earth, and who sits at the right hand of God — and in my book that one IS GOD. You may say that’s blasphemy, and I’ll hang my hat on “I and my Father are one.” That statement alone gives me everyting I need to say He is God, and He is worthy of Divine worship and honor. To me, all the religious rules go out the door as soon as God begets a human Son — that’s when I bow the knee. John 5:23 is my refuge. When he said “my glory I will not give to another,” in my view, He wasn’t including His only begotten Son in that statement — because if Jesus is His Son, He is not “another.” If you know what I mean. Jesus would be an automatic exclusion, Sonship being the rationale.
With respect to His pre-existence, I believe Jesus was filled without measure with God’s “eternal Spirit,” and was the Logos expressed and made flesh in a human person. Based on that, I believe Jesus was with God before the world was — as the Logos. That means Jesus was pre-existent — as man –well, as the Logos that in God the Father’s mind was Christ, and always Christ — as man. He was “always on His mind,” so to speak, and when we’re talking the mind of God, we throw time and space out the window — After all, He is the “I AM,” and I take that to have something to say about His relative position to time and space.
So I believe that everything Jesus is, he is as a man — even one with God the Father. To me He is the Temple of God the Father, the Express Image of the Father’s Person, and God with us — as a man. That’s my “Deity of Christ.” I just think if he said He and His Father were “one,” then all bets are off — He’s equal with God. (The “Jesus is not God” camp thinks I am way off too, go figure).
So I am guilty as charged! You will no doubt conclude I am a heretic, but that’s okay. Just know that I understand your position. I know why you think I am “off, and for anyone else reading this, I know, I know — after decades of facing the heat that comes with this territory, I know. But try to maybe accept the possibility that a person who prostrates themselves before the Throne of God, accepting God and His Son Jesus, should not be ex-communicated from the fellowship of believers because we differ on some of these points.
Thanks for this forum Dr. Brown, you do great work…and thanks for pointing out that the humanity of Christ is acknowledged in your circles…
Hi Anthony thanks for the response!
I guess there are verses in John that seem to imply what Dr. Brown was saying about Jesus’ pre-existance but it’s not clear – from the very beginning of John and right through the language is difficult and it is soaked with figurative speech as Jesus Himself admitted in John 16 – but even if you take the verses as most do even though John is such a deep book, what do we do with all those clear verses in Isaiah and other OT books when God says, ‘I alone made eveything’, besides me there is no one else’ – you can’t get clearer than. My question to Anthony and Michael is how do trinitarians get past all those verses in the OT where God declares he is one and alone as God? Comments by either brown oor buzzard are coveted. Thanks
This discussion has really caused me to consider more deeply my understanding of Gods nature and Jesus Christ.
I Think Anthony had some very good points and answered Mikes question very well. I was greatly surprised. I may not agree with all Anthony’s doctrines, but he really got me thinking yesterday.
Mike I listen to your preaching all the time your a huge blessing and i have many of your books.
At the beginning and end of the discussion you suggested Anthony of “special pleading” or twisting scripture. I thought about this after the discussion.
I did not really see Anthony do this in this particular issue.
The bible says God is ONE, you agree with this but also add God is a triune ONE. Can we somehow make ONE =Triune and accuse others who question or do not agree with a literal pre-existence of Christ as special pleading or twisting scripture.
I agree with Johnny you should discuss the truth of God being ONE or ONE Triunity.
Ok how about the term SON – seems to me its not a straight forward term anymore as i read through some of the comments in this blog. Why not?
Christ is the Literal Unique Human Son of God born of a supernatural Conception via the virgin Mary His Mother. God is His Literal Father, which makes Him the SON of God. The fact that God the Father begot the Son through the virgin birth makes Jesus the SON of God? and does not His Resurrection declare that truth with POWER.
The Pre existence Anthony speaks about to me lines up more accurately with scripture . I think BRAD who left a comment in regards to the Eternal perspective of God, Gods foreknowledge and Christ seeing Himself through Gods time frame. Jeremiah being intimately known and Davids psalm 139 are all very challenging and convincing. I am definitely going to look more into that. WOW!
I will continue to seek for the truth, i look forward to another discussion, i am very grateful for this discussion it has caused me to question the common thoughts of who God and Jesus really are.
Johnny,
God alone DID make everything! That’s the whole point. The Son IS God, just as the Father is God — the same one God.
As for the verses in John, I see no fair way to interpret them contextually to mean anything other than preexistence. The mountain of evidence is truly insurmountable, unless one engages in special pleading, as I said on the show.
Brad,
So, I didn’t misunderstand you that much after all!
Hi Mike
If the Son is God is He the Father ?