Restitutio

In this lecture, you'll learn about anthropology--the bible's view of humanity.  In particular, we'll focus on the two ends of the spectrum: creation and death.  We'll see how the biblical view of humanity is rather exalted since we are made in God's image.  We'll examine what the bible teaches about death and resurrection and how the intermediate state is regularly labeled sleep.  —— Notes —— Why start here?  it’s where the bible starts (creation) anthropology: your understanding of humanity where do humans come from? two typical answers unguided natural processes based on huge amounts of time and inconceivably unlikely chance events (evolution) God made the first people (imago dei) Genesis account Gen 2.7: God personally creates humans with heavenly bodies God says, “let there be” with plants God says, “let there be” with animals (air, land, or sea) God says, “let there be” with humankind God stoops down he forms us; he shapes us from dust, like clay he breaths into our nostrils the breath of life sounds like mouth to mouth animals have the breath of life, but not such a tender description consider God’s human design 22 square feet of skin 206 bones 25 feet of intestines 45 miles of nerves 100,000 miles of blood vessels can live from hottest equatorial climates to the frigid polar caps skin provides waterproof barrier temperature regulation sensory input fingers are both finely tuned (painting) and strong (boxers) wrists enjoy 160 degrees of motion throw frisbee ride a motorcycle ball and socket shoulder joint allows 360 degrees of motion lift an object from the ground over our heads in one fluid motion hearts pump 2,000 gallons of blood each day never rest stomachs produce hydrochloric acid powerful enough to digest solid metal biped design allows for ridiculous range of activities climb trees run marathons ballet ears pick up incredible range of sounds soft sounds rock concerts voices can whisper, speak, yell, sing eyes allow for nearly 180 degrees of horizontal vision three dimensions brains process everything effortlessly and assemble a realistic perception of the external world capable of thinking abstractly (what’s better courage or integrity?) can imagine future possibilities mental simulator to run through plans art, science, relationships, sports, etc. people are capable of incredible creations Shakespeare your favorite song Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai (more than a half mile high) Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge in China (more than 100 miles) bicycles, performance cars, submarines, airplanes, and spaceships we are discoverers charted a billion stars catalogued over a million animals species we are producers 130 million books over 28 million songs more than 2 million movies we peer into space far away and examine the minute DNA within the microscopic world you gotta admit, that God did a pretty amazing job making us! God’s creation was good (7x) significant b/c it means God made the universe and people the way he wanted it wasn’t some accident (Gnostics) was God’s origin

In this presentation you'll learn about the core creed of the bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, the Shema, and how that relates to the smattering of texts in which Jesus may be called "God."  If Yahweh alone is God then how can Jesus be God too?  Are there two Gods or is something else going on?  The answer is the principle of agency.  Jesus can be called God because he represents God. It is much  more likely that Jesus is called God because he represents God, just like Moses did to Pharaoh, the judges did to Israel, and the king did as God’s anointed one.  Jesus is the ultimate proxy, God’s agent through whom God’s word became a human being and spoke to his people.  Jesus was utterly transparent, always doing his father’s works, pursuing his God’s will, and speaking Yahweh’s words and thus can rightly be called God.  He’s not a separate God, but God’s human representative.  To meet Jesus is to meet God, not because he is God in himself, but because God was so at work within him. —— Links —— For a written version of this talk, see my article, “Explanations to Verses Commonly Used to Teach that Jesus Is God”Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

We continue our refutation of Michael Brown’s opening statement by addressing a whole smattering of texts, including Isaiah 9.6, John 20.28, Colossians 2.9, 2 Peter 1.1, Romans 9.5, and 1 John 5.20. We explain and debunk Brown's unusual singular verb argument from 1 Thess 3.13, 2 Thess 2.16-17, and Rev 22.3-4. We briefly touch upon Zech 14.3-4 and Mat 28.19 before handling Brown's case for the independent personality of God's spirit (Acts 5.3-4; 2 Cor 13.14; John 15.26; Mat 12.32). We look at the angel passage from Gen 48.15-16 and the whole concept of seeing God in OT times. In the end we find that Brown's case is not only confusing and self-contradictory, but he also repeatedly presupposes the deity of Christ in exegesis, he cherry picks texts without regard for their contexts, and he regularly disregards the Hebrew culture of key passages. In the end we remain unconvinced by his case for the Trinity. Here are two manuscripts on Romans 9.5.  The first is Codex Vaticanus and the second is Codex Alexandrinus.  Note the very interesting punctuation after the word σάρκα (flesh) in each.  This indicates that the 4th and 5th century scribes took the latter clause as a distinct unit from the former in agreement with the punctuation we find in the New American Bible (NAB), "theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen."  For comparison, here is the Greek from the NA28, "ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν." To help you follow along, here is the relevant portion of the manuscript Brown used for his opening statement: That’s why Isaiah said in 9:6 that one of the Messiah’s titles would be, “Mighty God,” yet in Isaiah 10:21, it is Yahweh who is called “Mighty God.” That’s why Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” in John 20:28. The text is totally clear! Thomas called Jesus his Lord and his God. And that’s why Paul wrote in Colossians 2:9 that “the whole fullness of deity” dwelt in bodily form in Jesus. Peter is clear as well, writing in 2 Peter 1:1 about “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And it is very likely that Paul speaks of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5, while it is most likely that in 1 John 5:20, John states that Jesus Christ is “the true God.”That’s why Jesus could say that the Father was in Him and He in the Father (John 14:9-11). That’s why Paul identifies the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8:9-11. That’s why Paul could pray to the Father and Son together in 1 Thessalonians 3:13, saying, “Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you,” using a singular verb for the Father and Jesus. And why else would Paul include Jesus in a prayer to the Father, let alone pray to the Father and Son using a singular verb in the Greek – unless they are one? (See also 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, where Paul puts Jesus first in the prayer, using a singular verb again: “Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.”)And that’s why prayer is offered directly to the Son in the New Testament. Stephen prays to Him in Acts 7:59 (“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”); we are taught to pray, “Maranatha,” which in Aramaic means, “Our Lord, come!” And John calls out to Him in prayer in Revelation, “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20). Jesus even told us to ask Him for anything and He would do it (see John 14:14). And that’s why, in Revelation 22, we read th

We continue our refutation of Michael Brown's opening statement by addressing some alleged pre-existence texts in John 17.5, John 12.41, Philippians 2.6-11, and Matthew 23.37.  (See previous episodes here.)  Lastly we spend some considerable time working through Hebrews 1, giving special attention to verses 8 and 10.  To help you follow along, here is the relevant portion of the manuscript Brown used for his opening statement: There are other texts which explicitly point to the Son’s eternal preexistence. In John 17:5, Jesus prays to the Father, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” Once again, the text is clear. John also tells us in chapter 12 that when Isaiah saw the Lord’s glory (meaning, Yahweh in His glory in Isaiah 6), it was the Son of God he saw, the one who suffers and dies in Isaiah 53. Isaiah saw the Son of God, and the Son was called Yahweh. That’s why Paul tells us explicitly in Philippians 2 that Jesus existed in the form of God yet emptied Himself and became a servant, dying for us. And that’s why Paul uses a text speaking of Yahweh in Isaiah 45:23, where God swears that every knee will bow to Him and every tongue swear to Him and applies the verse to Jesus, saying that every knee will bow to Him and every tongue confess that He is Lord. If the Son is not deity, that’s blasphemous, and it cannot possibly be to the glory of the Father. Just think if the verse were referred to an angel, rather than Yahweh. It’s unimaginable. Note also that Paul in this passage uses the example of Jesus in Philippians as an example of humility. He didn’t take what rightly belonged to Him – namely, the privileges of deity – but rather emptied Himself on our behalf. He who was eternally God came to earth as a servant to die for us!  That’s why Jesus says that He had often longed to have mercy on Jerusalem, but it was not willing (Matthew 23:37). He was the one wooing His people throughout Old Testament times. That’s why Hebrews 1:8, quoting from Psalm 45:7, says to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Yes, the Son is God and has an eternal throne! (The plain sense of the Hebrew and Greek texts is quite clear and the major reason there is any debate in how to translate the words is because of theological objections to the Messiah being God.) Not only so, but Hebrews continues, quoting from Psalm 102 and applying these words to the Son, “And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;  they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.’” (Heb 1:10-12) The Son is the eternal creator, the one who always was and always will be. That’s what Scripture states! We don’t need to play games with this text and try to make it say something it is not saying. The text clearly and indisputably speaks of the Lord creating the heavens and the earth, which will ultimately wear out, but He – the eternal Lord – will remain the same. Yet Hebrews applies this to the Son! And Psalm 102 makes frequent reference to Yahweh, yet the psalm is referred to the Son in Hebrews 1. Not only so, but the Greek text speaks of the Lord creating the universe in the beginning (archas). There is no denying the plain truth of these words! And Hebrews makes the consistent argument that the Son is greater than the angels, yet in first-century Judaism, the very context of these words, there was no one higher than the angels other than God Himself. —— Links —— You can

In this episode we tackle the next chunk of Michael Brown’s opening statement in the recent Trinity debate.  We address his argument that since God’s words remain forever and Christ’s words remain forever, they must be the same (cf. Mat 24.35 vs. Isaiah 40.7-8).  Next we briefly explain the grammatical issues related to Titus 2.13 and the alleged Granville Sharp Rule.  Then we discuss Brown’s case for Jesus as the eternal, uncreator, creator of the cosmos (John 1, 1 Cor 8.6, and Col 1). To help you follow along, here is the relevant portion of the manuscript Brown used for his opening statement: That’s why in the Old Testament, Yahweh’s words remain forever (Isa 40:7-8) but in the New Testament it is Jesus’ words that will remain forever (Matt 24:35). The Lord declared in Isaiah 43:11, “I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior,” yet throughout the New Testament, Jesus is hailed as our Savior. Either He is one with God, or there is more than one true savior. Paul leaves us no doubt, referring to “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” in Titus 2:13. That’s the most obvious and clear sense of the Greek. Jesus is our great God and Savior. We also learn from this same section in Isaiah that when Yahweh created the universe, He did it alone. As written in Isaiah 44:24, “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” Yet the New Testament tells us explicitly that the Son was involved in creation. In John 1:1, John uses the language of Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint, saying that the Word was in the beginning (en arche), and explaining that what God was, the Word was. And, he continues, “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3-4). And, John tells us, it is this preexistent Word, this Word through which all things were created, which became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). And that’s why John the Immerser explained that Jesus “ranks before me, because he was before me” (John 1:30). That’s why Jesus said that He was from above, that He came down from heaven, that He came from God and was returning to God (John 3:13; 6:38, 41; 8:23; 13:3). That’s why Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Even more emphatically, he wrote, “For by him [meaning the Son!] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17). The text is clear. The Son is eternal. The Son is uncreated. All things were created through Him and for Him. You really have to engage in a hopeless series of exegetical gymnastics to deny the plain sense of these words. And remember: In Isaiah, Yahweh said no one was with Him when He created the universe, yet these texts say He created all things through His Son. That can only mean one thing: The Father and Son are one God! And that’s why Jesus explained that it was His Father’s will “that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23). —— Links —— For a more extensive treatment of John 1.1, see Podcast 111 with John Schoenheit You can find the other episodes in this series on Refuting Brown’s Opening Statement here You can li

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Jerry Wierwille and I systematically refute Michael Brown’s problematic case for the deity of Christ in his recent debate with Dale Tuggy. Due to the number of texts Brown crammed into his opening statement, this will have to be a multipart series. In this episode we begin by covering Brown’s assertion that believing that Jesus is a glorified man “neuter[s] the gospel” since a man’s death for our sins “is hardly a demonstration of the immeasurable love of God.” We discuss his contention that Isaiah 42.8 means that God does not share his glory with anyone else in light of the worship scene in Revelation 5. We explain the absurd claim that Jesus claimed to be the “I am” of the burning bush in John 8.58 as well as the alpha and omega texts in Revelation. To help you follow along, here is the relevant portion of the manuscript Brown used for his opening statement: Thanks so much for coming out tonight and for tuning in to our livestream, and thanks, Dr. Tuggy, for your comments, which I’m quite eager to rebut. The fact is, you claim that Jesus is simply a glorified man, and I want to declare in the clearest possible terms that the Son of God of the Bible – the one we rightly worship as God – is infinitely more than a glorified man. To make Him into a glorified man is to deny the clear and consistent witness of Scripture. To make Him into a glorified man is to neuter the gospel, since the idea that a glorified man died for our sins is hardly a demonstration of the immeasurable love of God. To the contrary, when God sent His Son to pay for our crimes, He was giving of His very self. So, again, I’m eager to rebut Dr. Tuggy’s opening comments, and it’s clear that a lot of his difficulties come from the fact that Son took on human form, hence praying to the Father and having the Father as His God. But for now, in my opening statement, I will lay out the clear scriptural case that the Son is fully divine, and since there is only one God, then God must be complex in His unity. Simply stated, this one God has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Spirit, and if we are to accept the testimony of the Scripture, this is the only fair conclusion. For Dr. Tuggy and others, this is a logical contradiction, but the day we can fully wrap our minds around the nature of God is the day we’ve reduced Him to our level, thereby making a god in our image. The God of the Bible is marvelous and transcendent, without beginning and without end, rightly called in Judaism the eyn sof – the infinite One – and, according to the Scriptures, clearly complex in His unity. Will we accept the biblical witness, or will we try to create a god based on our own limitations and perceptions? In the Old Testament, the Lord stated categorically that He would share His glory with no one. As written in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” (See also 48:11, “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.”) Yet we see in the New Testament that massive glory and honor are given to the Son. As Revelation records, “Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!’ And I heard every cre

Are you curious how Dale Tuggy thinks he did on the Trinity debate with Michael Brown?  In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Brown’s strongest arguments were.  I ask Tuggy about Brown’s Trinity theory and he explains the “one self” version of the Trinity as well as some of the major problems with that position.  In the end, Tuggy both gave Brown a lot of credit for his rhetorical style while remaining completely unconvinced that Brown’s position can stand up to the bible or plain old logic. Stay tuned next time when Jerry Wierwille and I discuss Brown’s opening statement and give brief answers to his many opening arguments. —— Links —— Visit Dale Tuggy’s website and podcast at trinities.org Check out Tuggy’s excellent YouTube video entitled, “Who Should Christians Worship“ You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Are you curious how Michael Brown thinks he did on the Trinity debate last weekend? In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Dale Tuggy's strongest points were. We talk about his reticence to use traditional trinitarian language in light of his own unique heritage and ministry focus. I press him gently to explain his view of the Trinity in light of some of the confusion that arose during the debate. Next time, I'll be interviewing Dr. Tuggy and getting his response and then after that Jerry Wierwille and I are planning on thoroughly reviewing and rebutting Dr. Brown's opening statement, verse by verse. Now, I realize that a number of you may not appreciate me giving Dr. Brown an opportunity to defend his view of the deity of Christ, but if you've listened to this podcast for any length of time, you know that I end every episode with the words "the truth has nothing to fear." For me, that's not just a tag line, it's how I believe. I'm not afraid to hear arguments for the deity of Christ or the Trinity. It's healthy for those of us who are biblical unitarians to be challenged by passionate defenders of opposing positions. If I'm wrong about Jesus, I want to be corrected and if I'm right then hearing another viewpoint shouldn't be a threat. —— Links —— Visit Michael Brown's website and radio show at askdrbrown.org You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Last night Michael Brown (PhD NYU) and Dale Tuggy (PhD Brown U) debated the question, “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?” Tuggy affirmed while Brown denied. Both scholars recognize the inspiration and the authority of scripture over tradition. Both made an effort to found their beliefs using the bible, reason, and history. The debate went for nearly three hours and followed this format: Opening Statements (20 minutes each) Rebuttals (12 minutes each) 2 Rounds of Cross-Examination (7 minutes each) Concluding Statements (5 minutes each) Questions from the Audience (54 minutes total) Please leave your comments below. Who do you think won? Were both sides fairly represented? Whom should Tuggy debate next? Here are my notes for the two opening statements.  They aren’t perfect, but I tried to keep up with each. —— Notes —— Dale Tuggy’s Opening Statement The Father is the only God (1 Cor 8.6; John 8.54) Jesus is not God but messiah, God’s agent (1 Tim 2.5) compare 2 hypotheses in light of 6 indisputable facts 1. NT believe Father is one God alone 2. NT believes one God is the Trinity 6 Indisputable Facts all 4 Gospels feature a “mere man” compatible main thesis Jn 20.31 -> that’s it? nothing about Jesus being God the word God nearly always refers to the Father and no word refers to the Trinity they should sometimes use the word God to refer to the Trinity but they never do in the NT God is nearly always the Father no more than 8 texts where the term God refers to the Son a human can be referred to with the title God Jesus makes that point in Psalm 82 only the Father and Jesus are worshiped no worship of the Trinity no worship of all 3 persons-> no spirit! Phil 2.11 says that Jesus’ worship is indirectly to God by worshiping Jesus we worship the creator that God is triune or tripersonal is never clearly asserted in the NT poor Jewish theology is always assumed Jesus never gets around to telling us that God is 3 persons in 1 essence no controversy about the Trinity in the NT Trinity theories always engender controversy the NT controversies are over whether Jesus is messiah and whether non-Jews can be saved apart from Torah observance no NT author lifts a finger to limit or qualify clear implications of the son’s limitations Jesus got his mission, authority, message, power, from God no author shows any embarrassment that Jesus is subordinate Jesus is a real human man w/ a real human mom but w/ God as his father he was brought into existence in the womb the one God is eternal why aren’t the NT authors at all concerned to exert the eternal existence of the son will grant pre-existence but not eternality for purposes of this debate   Michael Brown’s Opening Statement not a catholic bone in my body Son of God is infinitely more than a glorified man this denies Scripture neuters the gospel a man dying for our sins is hardly a demonstration of God’s love son is fully divine can’t wrap our minds around the nature of God God is complex in his unity making a God based on our own limitations and perceptions God shares his glory w/ no one (Is 42.8) in Rev 5, massive glory a

Before delving into specific biblical doctrines, we need to first think about what the bible is. In this lecture you’ll learn what the bible says about itself, some reasons to believe God inspired it, as well as the major types of biblical scholars and how they approach scripture. This episode, along with the last one, serves to round out the introduction to this course. —— Notes —— bibliology: one’s understanding about the bible what is the bible? a library of 66 books written by 40 people how should you interact with it?   claims that God inspired the bible Matthew 1.22-23 Mark 12.36 Acts 1.16 Acts 3.18 Acts 4.25 Acts 28.25-26 Hebrews 3.7 Hebrews 10.15-17 2 Timothy 3.16 2 Peter 1.16-21 Revelation 1.1-2   reasons why I believe the bible is genuinely inspired it claims it predictive prophecy unflattering honesty medical insights martyrdom archeology some more reasons ear-marks of eye-witnesses historicity of the resurrection of Jesus changed my life incredible preservation survived some Israelite and Judean kings who disregarded it (Manasseh->Amon->Josiah) survived 70 year exile in Babylonia survived Antiochus Epiphanes who tried to destroy the Torah survived destruction of Temple in a.d. 70 survived destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 135 survived several Muslim empires survived all the crusades OT survived in high quality manuscripts (Aleppo, Leningrad, DSS, LXX) Diocletian tried to destroy the NT NT survived in over 5,000 Greek mss 531 language for whole bible, 1329 languages for NT   dichotomy today between bible-believing and bible-critical approaches to doctrine refer to youtube video of my lecture on Losing Faith from 500 enlightenment gave rise to intense philosophical and biblical criticisms most bible professors in most secular universities examine the bible from an atheist worldview some Christians affirmed these criticisms but tried to save Christianity Schleiermacher (1822): feeling of absolute dependence; entering into Christ’s perfect God consciousness Albrecht Ritschl (1852): kingdom of God = community of brotherly love (focus on Jesus’ ethics not miracles) Adolf Harnack (1886): fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man, worth of each soul, love rather than law Walter Rauschenbusch (1917): social gospel movement—focus on humanitarian needs other Christians dug in and fought the criticisms John Locke (1695) published The Reasonableness of Christianity William Paley (1802) early proponent of intelligent design Charles Hodge (1874) defended infallibility and attacked Darwinism Fundamentalist Movement (1910) In 19th and 20th centuries the liberals and conservatives fight it out major denominations split (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans) as universities go liberal and biblical conservatives leave and start new schools 1806 Harvard splits to form Andover Theological Seminary 1908 Lyman Stewart started BIOLA; he’s the man who funded the 1910 “The Fundamentals” 1929 Princeton splits to form Westminster Theological Seminary 1976 Liberty University Founded a