Greg Stafford Cross-Ex

Thank you, sir. Mr. Stafford, I believe it is your position that John 12 -41 does not identify

Jesus as Yahweh because you believe John to be referring to Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant, rather than Isaiah's vision of Yahweh upon His throne.

Is that a correct summary of your position as found on page 176 of your book and I think in your last statement?

It is correct, and I believe that the statement in John 12 -41 with respect to the glory that Isaiah saw is not a reference to Isaiah 6, but a reference to Isaiah 53, correct.

Okay, if that is the case, could you explain why it is that the Septuagint that Isaiah 6 -1 uses all the key terms found in Isaiah 12 -41, including

Idon and Doxo, which means glory, and says the house was filled with His glory, all terms not found in Isaiah 53.

Why then assert John is referring to anything other than Isaiah 6? Because it's not true that those terms are not found in Isaiah 53, as I mentioned

Isaiah 53 -13 in the Septuagint does use a verbal form of Doxo in reference to the glorification of the

Messiah. So that's one point, that the words are in fact used in Isaiah 53 -13 in the

Septuagint, which John not only uses sporadically, but heavily in John 12. And specifically, in terms, was there another part to your question?

Yes, specifically I was asking why, in light of the fact that the Septuagint in Isaiah 6 -1 says that I saw the

Lord, and it specifically says I saw His glory in the exact same term, and it is a substantive, not a verb there, in the

Septuagint, why would you believe that he's quoting something else when it's very clear he's quoting from the Septuagint there?

Because he goes on to say that he saw His glory and spoke about Him. Where did he speak about Him in Isaiah 6?

I can't answer your questions during my cross -examination. No, that would be my question, and that would be a basis for... If you'd like to ask me that question during your section,

I'd be happy to do that. So my point would be then that the term for glory is used in Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6, but that in Isaiah 53, that is where Isaiah speaks about Him relative to the glory that is seen.

In your book, Three Dissertations, page 216, you write, also, to truly take on the weaknesses and limitations of humanity,

Christ would have to have given up that which would have prevented Him from really owning such human limitations, namely

His divine nature, intrinsic to which are attributes that cannot coexist with the intrinsic attributes of human nature.

And therein lies the great fallacy of the Trinitarian incarnation. Is that a correct citation?

Two questions based on that. First, is it truly your position that Yahweh is incapable of the act of incarnation in the

Trinitarian sense, specifically this act resulting in one person with two natures? And secondly, would not the historic

Trinitarian exegesis of the text, which sees the participles labon and gnomonos as circumstantial modals, answer the very objection you have raised regarding the voluntary self -humiliation limitation of the incarnate

Son, who is eternally equal with the Father? I'm not certain whether or not it's possible for Jehovah to take on or be a part of the incarnation in the classic

Trinitarian sense. That would be my answer to the first question. My answer to the second question, I'm not sure what the point is that you're making with respect to the

Greek words you used. Have you ever examined the fact that the participles labon and gnomonos explain how it is that the emptying took place?

Oh, I see what you're saying. I don't think that's a problem. The fact that Christ emptied himself by taking the form of a man makes the same point.

If you are a man, you are not God. Therefore, you are devoid of that which makes you God, thus a man.

But isn't that just going back to what I just asked, and that is that seemingly it is your assumption that God is incapable of doing this.

What if God could? Wouldn't your response be circular? No, because God is not man.

Therefore, if he becomes man, you can't have, based on my knowledge of the scriptures and understanding of theology and metaphysics, if one becomes a man, that one is no longer

God. If one is God, one is no longer man. They are two different categories of being. So from your perspective then, it is a given that cannot be questioned that God cannot be incarnate, hence he cannot both be

God and man. That is a fundamental presupposition of your understanding. Based on my limited knowledge of metaphysics and theology, yes.