Second Response to Anthony Buzzard

Let's get to this first. There is a response.

By.

Anthony buzzard, it's seven minutes long. I'm not sure when it's all that but like I didn't get a chance to edit it. So I guess I have to. And YouTube doesn't like starting and stopping real well. I'm a little worried about this.

We're gonna do the best we can. But let's let's do that. And then there's something else we need to look at and then we'll dive into the radio free Geneva Material from that point. Let's say let's dive into it and there is a opening thing here.

Here we go.

The Shema and First Corinthians 8

I'm thrilled that Dr. White agrees that the Septuagint was the Bible of the New Testament. That's wonderful. It's not even a disputed fact and I appeal therefore to the Shema. Which James White really didn't deal with in any detail except to say that it developed finally into a sort of modified Shema.

It became something different in first Corinthians 8 where Paul speaks of one God the father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

No, actually what I said, of course. In fact, I did deal with it very in-depth and I directed people to the very in-depth discussion of that very issue. On the blog and in the dividing lines that followed after the Unitarian debate that I did with somebody else back in December I believe of 2010 if I recall correct, maybe 2011.

I don't remember which I think is 2011. December of 2011. Which we have gone into depth on and we did point out that in the Greek Septuagint the very language I mean people as widely divergent in their views as NT Wright have written on this very subject.

I think Richard Balcombe has written on this very subject. I am NOT the only one to be making this assertion by any stretch of the imagination. And that is that the language from which the Apostle Paul draws in first Corinthians chapter 8.

When he talks about for us there is but one God the father for us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ and then Discusses both of their roles in creation. That cannot be said of a mere creature and let me again emphasize.

When I say mere creature Jehovah's Witnesses Anthony Anthony buzzard everybody else up. He's not just a mere he's an exalted creature. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. You're either on the uncreated side or the created side there is an infinite chasm between the created and the uncreated and.

So you can talk about the most exalted creature you want. It's still on the wrong side of the chasm. This goes back to Arius. This goes back to Nicaea. This has been what has defined the Christian faith in the beginning.

Do you really believe that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says? Anthony buzzard is not. He does not believe that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says. He is look at his amazing Amazingly fast. I'll attempt to get around John 2028.

It's not possible to do. So when I say mere creature, I'm not just saying well, he's just like any other human being I'm saying that in comparison to the Creator. He is a mere creature. He is on the wrong side of the Creator creation chasm to be worshipped.

To receive honor that is given to him by all of creation in Revelation chapter 4, etc, etc, etc. I.

Want to take that point very seriously. I Thought dr. James White that you were rather quick in dismissing mark 1229. I want to exactly. I've never dismissed mark 1229.

Where is this coming from? I have never dismissed mark 1229. Jesus repeats the Shema. He says the greatest commandment is the love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind. I've preached on this.

This is this is. Again, the only thing I dismiss is the facile assertion That this is a Unitarian creed that this demands Unitarianism. That is what Anthony buzzard has never even attempted to prove. He just asserts it.

Well, it's um. It's because of of singular pronouns and and and all the rest that stuff because he will not listen To what we are saying. His arguments against Trinitarianism remain extremely simplistic and just don't hit the mark.

He doesn't seem to understand that but. Again, I've not dismissed anything.

Is that a Trinitarian or Unitarian proposition that Jesus makes in agreement with the Jew. You weren't clearly.

You did. Is it a trinity? What what are you asking as? I said that statement that there is one God is Absolutely true, but that does not follow that the nature of Jehovah the being of Jehovah is Unitarian.

It's just not there. You can't take one verse the Bible plug your belief into it and then demand everything else in the Bible Fit with your assertion. The question is when we look at what the Bible says About Jehovah's own self-revelation.

It reveals the father as Jehovah the son as Jehovah. You cannot refute that the Spirit is the Spirit of Jehovah. And as I've said that is a further revelation Muslims Anthony buzzard Jehovah's Witnesses all say look you've got to stick with.

Once God has revealed himself at all. He can't reveal anything more than that. That's it. No progressive revelation. No, no, it doesn't doesn't matter that there's an incarnation all the rest of stuff.

You just can't do that.

You can't go there just can't do it. That's what we're being told and get my historical point that Jews have always been Unitarians Not Trinitarians based on their Shema. Well, you know Jesus repeated that Shema.

It's a historical point. Are you really saying that Jews were Trinitarians without knowing it or by misunderstanding their own Shema? What is your point?

Like I don't know how he can't get this. My you know the kids in in Sunday school can get this. What did I say in the last video that he hasn't heard? It's rather obvious. What did I say. The revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity takes place in the incarnation of the Sun and the outpouring of the Holy?

Spirit. How many times have I said that. Is that in my book which was written? 1998 which he says he's read. Was that in the debate that we did? Yes, is there a veil over the mind that does not allow someone to understand?

Evidently on that issue. That's critical. The Shema I would say is a Unitarian Creed and guess what. Jesus our rabbi the one whom we are Bidden by New Testament verses over and over again to listen to carefully recites the Shema Repeats it agrees with an enthusiastic Jew and says that the Lord our God Is one Lord.

Kirios of Yosemite. Kirios is a steal. I'm using the modern Greek pronunciation Uh, which they're doing incidentally at Harvard too, because it's a fine beautiful language. The Lord our God is one Lord.

That's very clear. But you move very quickly from that. You made no further comment. I had pointed out that in your book in the text index. You don't even refer to it. You think you'd start the discussion of the Trinity by discussing what Jesus himself the historical Jesus said.

No, actually, I started discussion the Trinity with all of the massive amount of information from the Old Testament demonstrating monotheism. That's why I started out. There's an entire chapter on monotheism because I've debated so many Mormons in the past who deny that belief.

Um, and it is a given that everyone in the New Testament believed in the Shema. I asserted that it is your inappropriate insertion of the concept of Unitarianism into the Shema which is the problem. And it has been refuted by Paul's own usage in first Corinthians chapter eight.

If you can't respond to that just admit it and say I just don't believe it. Uh, I will not allow that into my philosophy or whatever. There's no need for me to follow your erroneous assertion of external ideas into those texts.

Then there is a pause. However, you moved on to first Corinthians eight. Let's go there. Paul says there are many gods and many lords in the world. But to us christians in first corinthians eight there is one god the father and no other god.

But he doesn't. That sound awfully like what jesus said in agreement with the scribe command listen.

Again, uh, it is amazing. Everyone I I rich is doing in the other room. It is amazing. The blindness of tradition can bring upon people it truly is. There is one god. And one lord. So if you're gonna say, oh, oh, oh one god, that's.

Don't worry about the rest of it. There it is. There's unitarianism. And then look at the term courteous to go this is exalted man. But yeah, yeah that that lord part which is actually rendering.

Yahweh.

Doesn't really matter. Yeah, let's not worry about that. It's amazing uh to see him as excited as I am and yet. Missing the entire point the entire point that everybody else can see very very clearly.

Well, I guess I shouldn't say there's there's obviously people who just agree with uh with him. There's as I said that the question is. Well, we'll find out someday where the uh, where the veil lies.

That's exactly a repeat Of what is said by jesus to the in regard to the shema in mark 12 29. So paul is repeating that there's only one god the father. Can you hear this? He didn't say there's only one god father son and holy spirit.

No text ever says that.

Now, of course, uh, we would never say that there was a text said that but again Paul takes the very language of the shema. And he applies the os elohim to the father and he applies Yahweh to the son.

And here anthony buzzard stares into the camera and says what's just what jesus said to the jewish guy. Can't you see that? And you just go.

Really?

Wow.

Amazing.

What does it mean? And one lord jesus christ. He. Again, i'm hearing this for the first time. I want to hear what does he do with the fact that here kurios direct correlative to yahweh Is applied to jesus Through whom all things are made and we through him when he says jesus is a creation.

Let's let's see if we get an explanation.

The singular personal pronouns you have not been brave enough to say it mean a single person.

No, and then you're brave enough to say I deny it. I'm not going to say it when I deny it. I mean there are all sorts of places in the old testament Where plural pronouns are used? Or there are places where singulars are used of cities and and things like that.

That is irrelevant if that's all you've got. There's there's no reason to even bother continuing. It's it's a waste of time. You clearly are not allowing the revelation of the text to speak for itself.

You're not looking allowing the text to be present. Let's let's let's keep going because if that's it if that's All we have in first green things. Eight if there's no discussion of kurios here. Wow, uh, that is a a complete complete face plant, but there must be there.

There's there's still there's still five minutes to go here. There's there's got to be a full discussion of that.

This is not knowing the difference in a being and a person. I'm asking you now to provide the biblical words for being. As a synchron person they don't exist. You're using a language which is post-biblical.

Many scholars know this.

Ah, it's a post-biblical. Don't you dare use post-biblical language while I ask post-biblical questions. I'm a unitarian.

Oops.

That's a post-biblical term too, isn't it? Oh, I just love that. I love when people want to ask post-biblical questions, but if you use post-biblical language. Oh, you're bad. Such inconsistency is amazing to me.

Um again. Sir, anthony cannot discuss his own existence as a human being in differentiation from others without making the very differentiation That we're using here. It is basic to human language. It is basic to human categories and it's basic to understanding what the scriptures are saying.

That's not even an issue. Let's hope we get back to kurios here.

Fine to discuss the trinity in terms of the church fathers. But if this is a biblical discussion, you must locate your language. In the biblical language to make sense to us at all. Uh now.

I directly addressed that in the forgotten trinity.

Uh.

Find that excellent, uh. Quotation from bb warfield where he addresses this very issue of people who want to say well. We'll ask you questions.

Of course.

But you can only use biblical language to answer them now. We don't have to limit ourselves to biblical language to ask the questions, um, and. Uh, but but you're just limited in in that way and that's the assertion that's being made.

Uh, there's no Explanation as to why that is. I could ask him all sorts of questions. Where he could not simply limit himself to. Well, okay. Is that word in the bible? Well, no, that's not the word. I can't use that one.

Um, hmm, how am I going to answer this question because uh, you know, I I. What are you sir? Anthony? Well, i'm a unit. Oh, wait a minute. That term's not there. No, you can't use that. Um, well a biblical monitor.

Well, what does that mean? You see there's the problem. Is you have to be able to find what you mean by things and to artificially limit yourself in that way.

Uh is not an appropriate thing. Oh, but you say that that paul says. That the shema includes now jesus. Yes, that's just wrong. Oh Jesus didn't say that in mark 12. He went on to explain that he was talking about paul not the yahweh of psalm 110 1.

And paul says exactly the same thing in first corinthians 8 4 to 6 having said there's no other god but one god the father. That's what he says there for us christians. That's strictly a unitarian statement.

So half of a sentence is a unitarian statement. There you go. This is the exegesis unitarians are reduced to. Half of the sentence supports my position just not the whole sentence now. It sounds like we're about to get the amazing Denigration of kurios to something other than what it is in deuteronomy 6 4 and 5.

It is. Is that what's coming? Again, I I didn't have the opportunity to to listen to this. But but remember let's let's look. Let's look at deuteronomy 6 4. The actual assertion of heis The oneness is of kurios Yahweh not elohim.

Not theos.

It's of yahweh.

The key term in the shema is kurios in the greek septuagint. It's yahweh in the hebrew.

Yes.

Shema yisrael yahweh eloheinu yahweh. Okay, what's repeated twice and what's repeated only what's said only once? Yahweh eloheinu yahweh echad.

So.

In first corinthians 8 the key Identifying word for the god of israel is applied to jesus Through whom we're all things and we through him. That's paul's use. That's paul's use. That is amazing utterly unacceptable to the unitarian.

Is that what's coming? I.

Well, let's let's let's see if that's what ends up happening. He goes on to say that there's a law so a lord messiah. Well, we know that. Luke 2 11 the lord lord messiah.

Hmm I I don't see lord messiah there. I wonder if I wonder if he's using a different translation. Or a different greek text. Lord messiah. I have kai haise kurios. Jesus christos. Well, there's messiah.

I suppose jesus christ. If you want to Do christos as messiah, so that would but that would be lord. Jesus messiah. Not lord messiah. But but of course jesus christos at this point is a is an established name haise kurios.

Does anyone think i'm missing something here. All haimin haise the os hapater. Kai haise kurios jesus christos direct parallel.

One god.

One lord. Are we going to be given any basis for saying yeah the god part. Yeah, that goes the shema but the the lord part.

No.

That in fact the god part is actually yahweh, but jesus isn't yahweh, so. Let's see if that's let's see if that's substantiated here.

Messiah was born in bethlehem. Nobody in those days thought that god was getting born. Much less that god could die. And in luke 2 26 luke the very notice we have.

Completely left paul. We we're off someplace else now. We're going. Well, you know in those days They didn't expect this as if we know everything the jews expected. There were all sorts of expectations for the messiah.

Most of which were wrong by the way, which is what inflicted the apostles. But we've we've we've left paul here if we don't get back to paul. Well, that's going to be a real good indication of what's going on.

Historical theological writer says that.

The lord's messiah. Yahweh's messiah is the lord messiah who got born. So the distinction made by luke. There is exactly the distinction made by jesus in mark 12 28 following and by paul in first corinthians 8 and following there because it's absolutely clear.

That the lord god is not the lord messiah, there's only one lord god. Yahweh is one person.

Did you catch that?

Assuming assuming assuming unitarianism. He never proves it. He can't. He can't even begin to critically analyze the fact he just assumes and cannot prove. It's his starting assumption. And all the evidence in the world will not stop him from simply repeating the same.

And it happened in the debate, too.

I mean, how many times do we have to go over the same things upon thousands of times with a singular personal pronoun?

There you go.

First of all, I simply do not understand how you say that the shema is somehow Added to sort of fulfilled in some vague way. You don't tell us where this happens except you say it happened in paul. Then was jesus not aware of this trinitarian creed that you're so keen on.

That's the question I would ask you to deal with head on. Then you ask me what pages do you say that god can mean all.

That's it. He left it left it. Absolutely failed. To even begin to deal with first corinthians day failed. Total face plant. Wow. It is right there. It's right in front. And he has to run off to luke.

Try to say well, you know, there's the you know Yahweh is just one person. Jesus can't be that. And yet here the apostle applies the very greek term that is translating the tetragrammaton from the hebrew into greek.

Of jesus says we are through him. All things are through him. A clear description of yahweh in the old testament applied to jesus christ. Can't see it because his eyes are closed. Will not hear what we're saying.

Cannot hear what we're saying. Can I hear it? I'll listen to the rest of it later on because I need to get something else but. There you go.

Um.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. So it's sad to me. It really is sad to me to to see that. Uh, but it's not. It doesn't surprise me. Because that's exactly what we saw in the program no matter how clearly I or michael brown laid out the texts.

There's just when you're unitarian, there's always some way Around it.