Can we Trust The Trinity?

Well welcome along to another edition of Unbelievable here on Premier Christian Radio. I hope your Saturday afternoon is treating you well and whether you're listening live or via the internet you're welcome along to this and we're really pleased to have back with us in the studio James White.

He was with us last week. I'll introduce him in a moment's time. If you want to get in touch with the programme though I'm going to be giving you details of how to do that. Plenty of people get in touch every week by email and phone and I'm sure you're going to be interested in the topic we're bringing you today and the guest who's going to be speaking by phone from America.

The Trinity Debate and the Guests on the Program

Let me introduce you to them here on Unbelievable. Today we're looking at the Trinity. We're asking can we trust the Trinity and the guest from America in a sort of strange twisted way is actually English and my guest in the studio is American.

Sir Anthony Buzzard joins us on the line from the US of the Restoration Fellowship. He's going to be telling us why he came to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity and why he's written several books against it and we're going to be hearing a response from Christian James White who's going to be explaining why he believes we can trust wholeheartedly in the doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in scripture and well we'll just see where the discussion goes as we usually do here on the programme.

So do hope you can stay with me right through till four o 'clock this afternoon. Well James White joins us again. He's on a little sojourn over here in the UK taking in some of the sites and doing some debates and he's very kindly agreed to come back and do this debate with us after his encounter last week with Adnan Rashid.

Anthony Buzzard's Background and Journey to Non-Trinitarianism

But let me first of all I think introduce Anthony who's new to this programme. Sir Anthony Buzzard I should say. Anthony tell us how did you how did you acquire your title? I'd love to know that.

That's easy. That's an inherited title. It's the lowest form of inherited title one stage above the title knight. The knighthood you know which dies with you. My grandfather was physician and then my father was director of naval intelligence.

Didn't get the title for that but inherited it from his father and then I got it as the eldest son so it's an interesting conversation.

Point in America. I'm sure it is. Tell me though how do you end up in the States? Well maybe start from the beginning. Have you always held the view that you have that you don't believe in the trinity or were you at one time you know a believer in a trinitarian view of scripture and came to.

Change that view? Jason that's very easy. I'm a CV boy and you will relate to this that in the CV we didn't do the sang hymns and listen to that. That was me until I was taken to the University of Oxford and up there on a language scholarship and so I was given a bible and I was then invited to quote get saved and I thought that's interesting.

And I went and got saved and I went back to my room then and thought what have I done. And that then launched I suppose a 50-year career studying the bible very badly initially I think made horrible mistakes but through some promptings from two areas I may just be brief here the scholarly world in the 1980s when I began to look at this whole issue.

Actually earlier than that 1970 J .T. Robinson and all those guys at Cambridge were talking about the very subject we're debating today we're discussing today. At the same time the crystal dolphins were at my door saying that I should not believe that I thought was ludicrous.

I mean I was up in arms I had all my proof texts ready. However after some discussion with them and looking at what Jeffrey Lamp was doing at Cambridge and many others and trying to read the history of this it seemed to me that the Unitarians, may I call them the Unitary Monotheists.

Had a good case. Right. And you now represent something called the Restoration Fellowship in Georgia. Tell us a little bit about that particular community. Yes thank you for that.

The Church of God Abrahamic Faith from the 1850s. These were people who picked up their bibles in 1850s and were part of the Adventist revival not seventh day. And so my second and perhaps major greater interest is in eschatology and the second coming and all those things at Bethany Seminary which is the Church of the Brethren not not linked to the Church of God Abrahamic Faith.

So this as you know has a long tradition not only since 1850. But it's a great mistake to imagine that that anti-non-Unitarians pop out up out of the blue you know and sort of suddenly get a new idea.

This is a huge subject but much of the literature has been buried obviously.

Well we'll get into the literature in the course of the program today and thank you for joining us by phone at an early hour of the morning there in the States. And well we'll hear more and James White returns.

James thank you for coming back and speaking into this issue. This is something that you've done a lot of debates. In fact the last time we had you in the studio in 08 we were talking about the Trinity.

Why James White Says the Trinity Is Biblically Necessary

But with a Muslim where do you come from on this. Because very often when this subject comes up you know that people are saying well the Trinity. Well the word doesn't even appear. First of all in scripture and and secondly it's one of those if you like add-ons.

It was something that was formulated later. It was it arrived late on the scene. It was something that kind of the church invented more or less and you won't find it directly there in scripture. What how do you.

What's your general approach to responding to those kinds of.

Criticisms? Well I believe in the Trinity because I believe in all of what scripture says. And if I apply the same kind of hermeneutics and exegesis that I do to for example the crucifixion the resurrection the nature of the church creation whatever it might be I am forced to recognize that the scriptures teach there is only one true and eternal God creator of all things.

But then I'm introduced to three distinct persons. The father is not the son. The son is not the spirit. The spirit is not the father. They use personal pronouns of one another. When Jesus prays in John 17 5 he's praying to the father saying glorify me father together with you with the glory which I had with you before the world began.

You don't use those types of words if we're not talking about persons. And then finally we have the the texts that present the equality these persons not in the sense of doing the same things clear the spirit does not do the same thing the son does.

The son does not do the same things the spirit does that the father does. And yet the one name Yahweh is used of the father. Jesus is identified as Yahweh a number of times in New Testament especially in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 to 12.

And so you you are forced by the weight of consistent exegesis to deal with all of these things. And any group uh you know I started off dealing with Mormonism primarily as a young man that was the first group that I dealt with.

And so my focus there was upon the monotheism passages because Mormonism is probably the most polytheistic religion I've ever encountered many Mormons defying the concept of an unlimited infinite number of gods.

And then I moved on to Jehovah's Witnesses from along with that and so there you're dealing with the deity of Christ things like that. And then since then you know Islam so on so forth. So I've I've encountered a wide variety of arguments and interestingly enough heard first of Sir Anthony in a debate that he did with Shabir Ali.

I found it to be just a a fascinating thing to listen to because there really wasn't a whole lot to debate because there was so much agreement as far as well Jesus is a man and we agree that he's not God.

And so it's interesting to listen to that encounter a number of years ago. I don't know when it was recorded but that was my first exposure to Anthony Buzzer's position. And since then of course knowing that I was coming over here and when you raised the opportunity I've been listening to everything I can get my hands on and the books and so on and so forth so that we can have a.

Meaningful discussion. Now you have produced a number of books Anthony and one of them has an interesting subtitle the Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound you see this.

As something that has really damaged Christianity. The Doctrine of the Trinity? Good phrase. It's a grand muddle. It's called a mystery. I would call it a muddle. I don't think we need it. I think we can explain the New Testament happily with a Unitarian Unitary I should say monotheistic point of view.

Jesus was a Jew recited the Shema agreed with the Jew. I don't see any need for Trinity. But of course there's a huge overlap with what James White has just said. I also believe that in looking at Jesus you're seeing God.

If you've seen me you've heard me and so on. You've seen heard God. But may I coin I mean I use this word it actually is an American and a British word. And when that's confused with an ontological relationship then all the trouble begins.

James Dunn is doing this material when he says that if we just stuck with the incarnation of God rather than the incarnation of the Son of God then all would be clearer. And so the identification of Jesus as Yahweh I think needs to be modified in the sense that he isn't Yahweh as one-to-one that makes two Yahweh's but he is Yahweh as agent as reflecting Yahweh in a unique.

So you would you would say that we we need to be careful that the Bible is talking about Jesus as the reflection of God rather than the the same person as God. Absolutely to James's good.

Point about the personal pronouns if you look at the history of this Unitarian view and it's nothing to do by the way with Unitarian Universalism we need to make that quite clear nothing at all to with that.

But if you look at this view you will see that they they found the singular personal pronouns most convincing. And I love the way James White argued in his book which I have in front of me here against the modalists and he said clearly the son is not the same person as the father.

I totally agree with that but having said that I do think that God the father speaks of himself as an eye in the Boston street man's sense of personal pronoun one singular person just thousands and thousands of times that convinced is convinces Judaism that God is a single person.

So I'm rather agreeing with James White on the importance of the singular pronouns. There James. Um what do you.

Make of Anthony's suggestion here that um that that Jesus shouldn't be seen as the incarnation of the son of God but rather the incarnation of God meaning in some sense Jesus reflects in a unique way the attributes of Yahweh um this would though place Jesus in purely human terms and upon whom but who had a particular special relationship spiritual nature compared to to.

Other human beings. Well and that's why it's just not enough it just doesn't go far enough. Anyone can say that Jesus as a man greatly reflects the very glory of God and so on so forth. But but the new testament goes far beyond that.

And that's what caused so much of the conflict with the Jews um there you wouldn't have the conflict that you have in the gospel of John with the Jews. Uh if this was all that Jesus was claiming for himself.

But when he says the Jews unless you believe that ego I me you will die in your sins. And then says before Abraham was I am and then when he says I am to the soldiers they fall back upon the ground in the garden.

And he quotes from Isaiah 43 10 and John 13 19 I am that goes far beyond merely representing agentively uh God that's not just simply a perfect man. Uh that's not the description that is given of Jesus in so many texts key texts the carmen christian Philippians 2 5 through 11.

Or Paul's argument against the proto-gnostics and Colossians. They go far beyond that. And so socinianism gives us a rationalistic Jesus a Jesus who's a perfect man. But it's not a new testament Jesus it the the key texts identify him as God.

Titus 2 13 2 Peter 1 1 are left out um or are redefined in a way that really I I feel give us a tremendous amount. And we'll have Anthony respond to. Well well Titus 2 13 uh where where the there Paul is talking about Jesus and he's talking about the coming uh of Christ and he's only talking about one individual in this context.

And it's interesting to me he uses in verses 13 and 14 language specifically that Jehovah is described as the Redeemer of his people in the Old Testament and it says we are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.

This is a this is what's called a granville sharp construction the original language. Um and I I tried to look and Jesus was not a trinitarian the book for explanation and all I got was well maybe the King James version was right here the Granville Sharp construction was formulated after the King James was translated between 1604 and 1611.

Granville Sharp did not live until the end of the um 17th century so um uh there's a 18th century. So the the point is that both God and Savior are referring to one person and there's only one person mentioned in this text who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless.

So that's just one of many texts where Jesus is described in a way that um I don't think a shema quoting Jew. And I agree Jesus quoted the shema. I believe in the shema. I just recognize that since the New Testament applies that one name of Yahweh to the father and the son the spirit is the spirit of Yahweh that there's more to the divine revelation than that kind of.

Monotheism. Um you might want to pick up on that issue of of the verse from Titus that uh James quoted there Anthony. But ultimately James is saying you're not going far enough. Um and the New Testament went far because they were reacting against something those people who rejected Jesus.

That's exactly right. And the unitary monotheist says you're going too far. You've gone beyond the limits. You've broken the unitary monotheistic shema and the John 17 3 where the father is said to be our monast elite in ourselves.

By the way I'm using modern Greek pronunciation just for our listeners. That's the way we've chosen to teach it at Atlanta Bible College. So I'm not mispronouncing the Greek word. But when you say you are the only one who is truly God you're making a typically Jewish unitary monotheistic statement.

But back to the Titus passage I would agree with Bultman and many others there are only two passages two applications of of chaos God to Jesus in the New Testament which are certain. I had the chance of discussing the Titus 2 13 at length with Nigel Turner when he was alive.

And if you look in the molten milligan grammar you'll see that there's absolutely no certainty that you had to repeat the article in order to separate the two. It's ambiguous even Henry Alford who was in very detail.

So I'm I'm simply not convinced that Jesus is called the great God and Savior there. But of course I agree with James. He makes a very good point when he points out that the Yahweh text are applied to Jesus in the New Testament.

Of course there because he's representing Yahweh. What Yahweh does Jesus does. Yahweh's feet stand on the Mount of Olives. Yahweh is pierced in Zechariah. And rabbis said in the Talmud for example that that's the Messiah being pierced.

They didn't think that Yahweh himself could be pierced but they recognized that what Messiah did was being done in the name of Yahweh and as Yahweh. So we're back to that agentival representation sense.

And I want to go as far as I possibly can with that and not say that Jesus is just a man or a mere man. He's a sinless virginally begotten man reflecting God in a way that no prophet ever did. And yet he is still the prophet in whose word in his mouth God has placed his words.

So it's a balance. I mean the key thing here. Surely.

Then is that you you ascribe a lot to Jesus and enough that you think would have made him as it were rejected in the eyes of of those early of those Jews and Pharisees. But but you don't ascribe to him.

Pre-existence. You don't put it on that level that that he was pre-existent with God. Because obviously there there are passages which I'm sure James and others would would know that Philippians. One is perhaps a classic.

You know that Jesus being in very nature God did not consider equality with God. Something to be grasped. I mean those kinds of passages had what what do you say of those. How in what sense are they agentival.

This a completely new term to me. But the other day.

Thank you for for using agentival. I suppose it it's a good word in a way I think we need to get.

It on on the table. But is it my turn again. Yeah just just to clarify what we do with those passages.

Well first of all let me tell you that Luther for example does not find pre-existence in Philippians 2. Secondly a reading of the NIV there is pushing the language it doesn't say about being in very nature God being in the form of God.

There's a vast literature contradicting the idea that any pre-existence is there including of course James Dunn Colin Brown. And a huge literature as I discovered doesn't make it right by the way and it's a minority literature.

But I simply don't think that Paul is talking about a pre-existing sumner. He's looking he's saying look at the man Messiah Jesus and copy him. And it's a bit vague to say well imagine being you know billions of years old or from eternity and now decide to become a man.

Now you do that much better say look at the historical Messiah and copy his lifestyle. Two things I would direct.

Folks to more modern work on the Granville Sharp construction specifically the work of Dr. Daniel Wallace. His doctoral dissertation on all possible Granville Sharp constructions in the New Testament was published just recently.

I think Brill did it so it means it's outrageously expensive ridiculously expensive in fact. But it's it may be out there it was an academic publisher but I would refer folks that it is not ambiguous.

In Bible college I studied every possible Granville Sharp construction in both Peter and Paul and getting Granville Sharp's original work. And so I would very much strongly challenge that on a grammatical basis.

But as to Philippians 2 Luther didn't see this and Lutherans to this day apply this to the ministry of Jesus. But exegetically it's interesting. I've heard Sir Anthony give the argument he just gave as to what this whole text is talking about and I would like to point out that what Paul is doing here is he's saying to the Christians after verses one through four saying that they have to view one another with humility of mind tapanas of frune is what he uses humility of mind.

What does that mean. Having certain rights laying them aside in service to others. Don't always be looking to your own things. Look to the service of other people. That's the key to peace in the local church.

Then he says have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus. And so that becomes the key contextual way of interpreting the Carmine Christi. Well what would it be. What would illustrate humility to be a creature who does not try to grasp at equality with God.

Is that humility. No actually I think we might know something about a creature who tried to grasp at equality with God in the Old Testament called Satan. That's not. That's not humility. That's just not doing blasphemy.

But what if you are as I believe the verse is correctly translated eternally existing in the very morphe to the you the form of God he's going to be made. He later is going to talk about having the form of a bond servant.

That's his true nature. And that's why the NIV renders it in that way. If you exist eternally in the very form of God but did not consider that position that that that equality you had with God something to be held on to at all costs but voluntarily for the service of others laid that aside.

Is that not the greatest example of humility that Christians could ever be called to emulate having equality with the Father laying that equality aside and as a result of that you have the the flip side of this.

And that isn't it Paul. The exaltation is always a result of going through suffering. So Jesus lays aside the equality has with the Father. He becomes humble to the point of death even the death of the cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him given the name which is above every name the name of Jesus. Every knee should bow once again applying Yahweh language.

From the Old Testament and this was an issue that came up with Balkan when when I had him on the program he very much sees that idea of giving him the name that is above every name as being a direct reference to well what is the name above every name.

Yahweh. It is essentially in the very earliest Christology passages of you know of what the early church was proclaiming they were proclaiming Jesus.

As Yahweh. So if this I'd like to get to Balcom's take on first Corinthians 8 4 through 6 a little bit later on. But but if this is in fact an early fragment of a hymn from the most ancient church which many people believe that it is then it seems that this is not some lengthy development all the way down.

You have not only a pre-existent one and that pre-existence has shown the fact that he did not give consideration he was doing something as a person prior to the incarnation. But you also have very strong language emphasizing the deity of Christ in in this text and so I think that is a much greater contextual way of seeing the humility being given to us as an example.

Responses from you. Answer. Thank you. Thank you so much. First of all ipachon in greek does not mean existing in eternity. Adam was also ipachon. Man is is also ipachon. That's pushing the language. And being in the nature of god in the form of god is obviously difficult for all of us.

But it's compared with being in the form of a slave something like the status of god. And he he has. That i would argue there with modern exegetes who take this view of philippians too that jesus was equal with god.

He was equal with god but he didn't use that equality. Comfortable. He says if you've seen me you've seen god. I am as god. I like uh marie harris's title jesus is as god but he has that equality with god.

He doesn't use it for his own exploitation. He washes the dishes. That's a exercise in humility. But the subject of discourse there is the man messiah jesus. That's what paul called christ. Jesus after all 550 times in new testament he's the messiah.

It's an awful stretch for me to imagine that the messiah the lord's anointed is actually the lord granted. Of course that the name the authority of yahweh is placed on him. But in philippians 2 this is all done to the glory of god.

And that wonderful word of theos 1300 times in the new testament is clearly the father of jesus. So it all winds up to the glory of god. But yes jesus has been given absolute.

Authority under that one god yahweh. Well just very briefly uh i think that who park on here is being used in eternity because notice the contrast in context saying that he existed and that's the term we're translating as existed uh in the very form of god and then he has equality with god.

And then verse seven gives the contrast but he emptied himself he made himself of no reputation. And so the contrast there is where you get that. But i think the most important thing to see here is that while the term theos is the normative term for the father in the new testament the normative term for jesus is the lord.

And of course that's the very term used in the greek septuagint of yahweh. And i think it's important that we get into i think some of sir anthony's primary arguments here specifically in psalm 1101 i'd like to uh have him present that because we end up with a situation in sir anthony's position of having two lords we have the lord yahweh who is the father and then we have the lord messiah who is jesus we end up with two lords even though paul said we have one lord.

And i think that uh the weight of that identification of jesus as kurios as lord needs to be recognized uh in so many texts saying no one can say jesus lord except by the holy spirit uh and then jesus being identified as not simply the one carrying the authority of yahweh but in psalm 110 he is identified as carrying the nature of yahweh immutability unchangeability is ascribed to the son specifically as the son.

In hebrews 110 through.

12 and i think that's important to say just um we're gonna go take a quick break before we go there just uh so people can be mulling it over during the break. What is psalm 110 verse 1. Just for those who don't have a dictionary for a brain like me like you.

If i may just give a brief answer uh the quoted more often than any other verse in the old testament it's an umbrella text very very important. The lord said this is yahweh says to adoni my lord messiah sit at my right hand till i make your enemies your footstool.

It doesn't.

Actually say messiah uh we'll we'll need to look at that we'll look at that anyway but that's the.

We're going to be looking at in the next section of the program. Do stay with me here on a very specifically scholarly biblical look at a particular aspect of christian doctrine the trinity. And we've got with us in the studio james white director of alpha and omega ministries.

You can visit them at aomin .org. And also on the line from the states sir anthony buzzard who's written a number of books in which he believes the trinity has. Well it's a bad doctrine for christianity.

It's been misunderstood it doesn't actually exist as far as he's concerned. And we'll be posting up the links for sir anthony buzzard's website as well. And how you can find out more with the podcast.

As usual you can find that at premiere .org .uk. Forward slash. Unbelievable. Join us again. In a time you're listening to unbelievable on premiere christian radio. You certainly are. It's the weekly saturday show that brings you up to speed with the very latest areas of christian apologetics in the form of debates between christians and non-christians.

Sometimes we feature inter-christian debates. I'm not quite sure where this one falls. I suppose. Certainly. Um sir anthony buzzard doesn't fall in line with what is perceived as historic christian orthodoxy as far as the trinity is concerned.

Um and you were saying that this was kind of the area that first got you into apologetics. James. Um because you were coming into contact with mormons with jehovah's witnesses. Um i think the trinity is probably one of the major sticking points very often for those who do diverge from orthodox christian practice and faith.

Um why why does it come up again and again. Why why do people find it so hard to or some people at least to to see the trinity in the way that that you see it.

Well i think the vast majority of instances it's because of the acceptance of an external source of authority. I mean with the mormons you have prophets and apostles and books of scripture. With jehovah's witnesses you have the governing body of jehovah's witnesses.

And it allows those groups to distinguish themselves from orthodox christianity. They have to have some type of a selling point some way of getting the foot in the door. So with those particular groups i think that's the case.

But historically i think it all does come back to the fact that there is a there is a scandal uh in not only a crucified messiah but remember it's the lord of glory that they crucified. And paul's terminology and uh this is the highest element of god's revelation.

This i believe the revelation of the trinity takes place between the old and new testaments. It is in the the incarnation of christ his crucifixion and resurrection and the outpouring of the holy spirit.

I believe the original apostles were experiential trinitarians. Think of peter. He stood on the mount of transfiguration. He heard the father speak he walked with jesus. He was now indwelt by the holy spirit.

He's an experiential trinitarian. And that's why the language it just uh the new testament is soaked in this language. I highly recommend to folks since uh people's names keep mentioning. I'm not big on mentioning names.

But since lots of names keep getting mentioned uh i there is a a if there's a mountain of of unitarian writings then there's a mountain range of trinitarian writings. And uh bb warfield uh the the great princeton uh theologian his material on the trinity is is just so rich and challenging and yet devotional.

Uh i really tried to model some of my writing after after his and trying to communicate to folks this is not a doctrine. I heard sir anthony in a debate with a biola professor i'm not sure when the debate took place it was very odd.

I'd like to find out from him. Did it take place outside. Because unfortunately it did. It was a terrible venue. Oh was it i i because i kept hearing crickets. And i there are crickets going during the entire debate.

I'm wondering how on earth this took place. Um was that a commentary on the presentations or just what was going on. But but i listened uh and in his opening statement he says something i could agree with on many grounds.

And he said that for most christians the trinity is just simply a a doctrine that they are taught. It's not something that they actually experience. And in fact he said this is reflected in their prayers that most prayers are simply monotheistic prayers they're not trinitarian prayers.

And i i would have to agree with him in in in a majority of instances there. That's one of the reasons i wrote the book that i did i call it the forgotten trinity. That's not the case in my church uh we have trinitarian worship and trinitarian prayers.

But it is to me uh the very central defining aspect of the christian faith. Um let's go to this issue.

Of the psalm 110 verse 1. Um and i may not be quoting it to the to your either your satisfaction but but i think it's along the lines of um the lord my lord said to my lord uh sit at my said to my lord said to my lord sit at my right hand right hand until i make your your enemies a footstool.

Um i always go. I get shown up when i've got bible scholars in the studio it's terrible. Um. But anyway sir antony what what was would be your particular view then on this. Because as you say it is actually funnily enough.

The most quoted old testament verse in the new testament. Um so it was obviously very relevant to those who were writing the new testament. What's your view on it.

Well it's including jesus who with this psalm silenced everybody remember how do you explain that jesus. That david i'm sorry that david could have a lord and a son. And the text says simply says yahweh seven thousand times the one he shrieks to adonai who is my lord.

That adonai 195 times in the old testament always refers to a non-deity superior in the greek septuagint. And that kiriosmo is quite distinct. We have four or five of the major lexicons that the yahweh one god term is carefully distinguished by jews who don't model god with man.

My lord. In the new testament my lord is the messiah. My to say how great it is that the mother of my lord has come to see me messiah in 211 and 226 he's the lord. And then you get they've taken away my lord in john.

And where have they taken him to. So my lord does not refer to god. The father. In the new testament i think you'll find it's a messianic title. It's the messianic title. And my major point would be this mine.

It's not mine. But this particular branch of thinking insists that the church is founded on the crowning decision that jesus is the messiah. Who do you say that i'm not. Well i am yahweh second member of the trinity.

I am the messiah the son of god. And honestly i find that historically very odd to imagine anybody thinking of that statement about.

I am yahweh literally. James your response. Well it's been fascinating uh over the years that i've heard sir anthony making this uh particular argument uh that he emphasizes very strongly the hebrew vowel pointing here now even if we take adani as the proper reading and that is what you find in the masoretic text uh the fact that jesus is uh the king of the of the kingdom of of heaven that would fit.

But i think we need to recognize is of course that in the days of the writing of the new testament there was no vowel pointing uh if we look at the isaiah scroll if we look at the dead sea scrolls there the vowel pointing is a masoretic invention that comes long afterwards.

It is in essence a jewish interpretation of the old testament text. And without the vowel pointing adani and adonai are the exact same forms in the hebrew language. And so the question we have to ask is were the masoretic uh scribes who of course rejected the deity of christ which is why they're jewish um is their commentary reflected in new testament usage or is this a later development that the that finds itself in the hebrew text.

And clearly the greek septuagint's use of kurios. Yes kurios can be used of a mere human individual but it's also thousands of times the greek septuagint's translation of the name yahweh. And so when jesus is called hakurios and when we are told that the very name that we suffer is is the name of jesus who is kurios uh and that the bible of the new testament church is the greek septuagint then we ask the question is psalm 110 1 as it is used in the new testament reflecting this distinction that sir anthony bases so much upon between adonai and adonai and the fact matter is is not.