A Defense of the Deity of Christ w/Chris Date

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics.

I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today I have with me my friend Chris Date, who is

excited that he's here, and we're gonna be talking about a very important topic, the deity of Christ.

And I've entitled this interview, this discussion, as Jesus is God, deal with it.

Okay, this has been the position of the Church, it's the Orthodox position of the Church.

You can't be a Christian if you deny the deity of Christ.

This is kind of Christianity 101, and we're not gonna just simply appeal to Church

tradition, but there's a reason why the Church has held this position so strongly and so clearly throughout its history.

And so I wanna talk a little bit about how do we defend this core doctrine, and

why it's a core doctrine, and how do we defend it against folks that hold to a Unitarian position, when

we think in terms of proponents of Islam, or you know, someone like Dale

Tuggy, who's a noted Unitarian, and Chris has debated in the past, how do we engage

those sorts of objections against, you know, this idea that Jesus is God,

and we might even talk a little bit about the Trinity, because that's always related in some way, the idea of the Trinity.

So let's just see where the discussion goes, and I hope it's beneficial for those who are listening in.

So thanks for coming back.

I'm sure your contributions.

I said, I'm sure your contributions will be helpful for the viewers.

We'll see if mine are.

Well, thank you.

Well, welcome back, folks.

We'll recognize you've been on a couple of times, and I'm not sure if people know, but you've actually done a debate on my channel

a while back on the resurrection within the context of full preterism.

Ah, yeah, but don't ever call that full preterism in my company again.

It's hyper preterism.

Hyper preterism, okay.

And.

It's full of something, but it's not full of preterism.

That's the point.

Okay, well, not the topic of today of today's discussion.

But if you guys want to see Chris in the context of a debate, I mean, I think he Wow, like that was an excellent,

an excellent discussion.

And I think Chris did an amazing job.

And so you can get more of your your fill of Chris date if you check out that debate, and he's got a bunch of other

ones as well on YouTube.

So.

How are you doing, man?

I'm doing all right.

Thanks for asking.

I appreciate it.

How are.

You doing?

I'm doing good.

As I was before we went live.

I told you I my summer vacation is coming to an end.

So that's a little sad.

But other than that, I'm just happy to be here.

And I love this topic.

I really enjoy listening to debates on this topic, informal discussions and formalized debates.

And so I know that you've done a few debates, and you've actually wrote a book on this topic.

You want to speak to that for a few moments?

Well, so it's actually the.

Book form of the live in person debate that I had with Dale Tuggy.

I want to say it was back in like to 17 2017 or something like that.

We did a live in person debate, knowing going into it that we would expand on it in

written form in a published book.

And so we did that we got the book published and I think it's awesome.

We got a Catholic scholar named Timothy Paul to do the foreword.

Unfortunately, the publisher closed its doors and transferred the rights back to Dale and me.

However, Dale and I have just finished signing contracts with Wipf and stock to reprint the book so

before before too much longer, maybe within a month or so viewers would be able to purchase a copy of that book that Dale

Tuggy and I co wrote from Wipf and stock.

So if people keep an eye on my website, Chris date .info, they'll be able to see it when it's available.

Sure.

Excellent.

So so let's jump right in then Jesus God deal with it.

Is the doctrine of the deity of Christ clear, simple and straightforward in scripture?

Or is it one of those sorts of things that we have to kind of wiggle around us, us sneaky proponents of the deity of Christ

have to extract or read into, you know, read into the scripture something that's not there?

How clear do you think is the teaching of the doctrine of the deity of Christ in the text of.

Scripture?

I think it's unmistakably clear.

It's absolutely clear.

And I think it takes more work to read it out, like to remove it

from the text to read it in such a way that it's not reflected in the text than it does to recognize it in the text.

So yeah, I think it's extremely clear.

So in your estimation, then what is what is the clearest passage

if you can go to like one specific passage?

And we're going to hopefully cover a bunch of passages.

But what passage do you think is a go to passage for someone to bring into the discussion once they kind of hit this brick

wall of like, well, Jesus isn't God.

That's not what the scriptures teach.

You know, where does the Christian go from there?

Where do you think is the best place to.

Focus on in terms of the text?

Yeah, I mean, I remain convinced that the best text to go to is the Carmen Christi and

Philippians two, both because it makes the point with crystal clarity,

and because it is an extremely early text, which captures an even earlier hymn,

something that was well known around the church already, but when Paul reproduced it in this letter.

So I'll just read the verses five to eight, which are the verses in question,

Paul is writing to the Philippians.

And he says to them, have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he

was in the form of God, did not count equality with God, a thing to be grasped, but

emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being

found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

So the reason why this text makes the point with crystal clarity is that it uses the language of

both equality with God, and form of God, and ascribes those things to

Christ in his pre -human existence.

Dale Tuggy and other Unitarians will try to argue that form of God and equality with God referred

to something other than true deity.

Form of God, for form of God, for example, Dale Tuggy used to, I don't know if he still does, but he used to argue that,

and here he was sort of trading on Jimmy Dunn, or is that his name, Jimmy Dunn, James Dunn, who

argued that what Paul is describing here in Christ is Christ being a bearer of the divine image.

He's like the second Adam, and he bears the divine image in a way that Adam did

in a pristine way before he fell.

But the problem is that the form of God is language that contemporaneous Jewish authors don't ever use

of anybody except for God himself, and the same is true of the phrase equality with God.

So this text says that, and we could get into the details of the Greek grammar if we wanted, but just on the surface of it, the text is

saying that although Christ shared equality with God and was in the form of God,

he nevertheless emptied himself and took the form of a servant, becoming a human.

And the key here, the reason why I think this is so powerful, this text is so powerful,

is because, besides what I've already said, is that the critics of the deity of Christ will

argue that the text says that Jesus didn't count equality with God something to

reach out and take.

Some translations, like the King James will say, he didn't count equality with God robbery,

something to reach out and grab.

But even the ESV's translation, a thing to be grasped, certainly could be understood to mean held on to,

right, clung to, but it also could be read as reaching out and grasping.

And people who take that view think that what Paul is saying is Jesus didn't consider trying to reach out for

equality with God in the way that Adam did when he ate from the fruit, knowing that it would open his eyes

and he would be like God in that respect.

But the problem is that the particular grammatical construction

did not count.

And then equality with God, that's what's called the direct object of the verb count.

And then the object complement, the second accusative in the construction, a thing to be

grasped.

What we see in contemporaneous Greek literature is that when this word

harpazo, I think it's the word if I'm remembering correctly, a thing to be grasped, when that noun is

the object complement in a construction of thinking or where

the direct object is the direct object of a verb of thinking or reckoning or perceiving, that kind of thing.

What we find is that the word, the noun, something to be grasped is a turn of speech.

It's an idiom that means something to be taken advantage of.

So I've got this table, for example, in the debate slides that I presented

where in the text of Eusebius, in Heliodorus, and in Isidore and other

authors, it always means something to be taken advantage of.

So the point of this, putting these pieces together, is that Paul is saying Christ

became a man because he chose not to take advantage of the equality

with God that he had, his being in the form of God, using language that is only ever described of God.

So when you put those pieces together, there really is no way to read this text meaningfully in a way other

than the one that seems to be intended, which is that Christ is in fact a true deity

and chose to let go of the prerogatives that come with that deity in order to become a man and serve

people from whom he deserved service himself.

Anyway.

Now, what did you say.

Unitarians typically say with respect to that passage is an example of argument that you think Dale Tuggy either used or still

uses.

Can you repeat that again?

And then.

I have a question once you repeat it.

Right.

So remember when Adam and Eve, but when Adam and Eve take from the tree,

it's because they've been persuaded, or at least it's because Eve has been persuaded, cajoled by Satan into

thinking that by eating from that fruit, her eyes are going to be open and she's going to be like God.

Okay.

So what some Unitarians and Dale Tuggy used to do this, I don't know if he still does.

Again, he was trading on the work of Jimmy Dunn.

He argued that what Paul is doing here is saying that Jesus bore the image of God

just the same way Adam did.

And that's what he alleges is meant by form of God.

But that word is never used of the image of God.

That's a totally different Greek and Hebrew word.

But anyway, he was in the image of God, just like Adam was.

But unlike Adam, who did try to achieve equality with God by means of eating from the

tree, unlike Adam, who did try to achieve equality with God, Jesus did not.

Okay.

So my question is, so you said that they would say that Jesus is the image of

God, like Adam was the image of God.

And that's what it's really speaking about.

That's an explanation.

Like what is their explanation in terms of how they get that from.

The text?

Well, they don't.

I mean, that's the point.

There's nothing in the text that actually

connects the text here with the language used not only in Genesis one through three, but also the language of everywhere

else in scripture and in contemporaneous literature, the language it's actually used to refer to the image of God.

None of it appears here.

And the equality with God language is similar.

So there's nothing that, but see, you got to keep in mind that I can't speak for Jimmy Dunn.

He had a quote unquote, high view of Christ, whatever that means.

But at least other Unitarians like Dale Tuggy, they just don't want

to accept what the text says.

They can't countenance it because remember, they're convinced that it's logically impossible for Jesus to be

God for reasons we can get into.

So they think, well, it can't, Paul can't be saying this or else he's illogical.

And therefore the scriptures aren't authoritative.

So therefore I've got to find some other way to read this other than the obvious one.

So I'm just going to come up with the one that sounds most plausible.

And since form of God sounds ever so slightly like in English, anyway, image of God, they're like,

oh, that must be what's going on here.

Oh.

And because, and because Eve reached out and took from the tree in order to become like God in a

certain sense, that's enough like Paul's language of equality with God to make the connection.

Of course, you and I know that that's absurd, that connection isn't there, but that's how they do it.

So yeah, I found that interesting because, and this is just by way of kind of an interpretive principle, there's a difference

between exegeting the text and having an explanation as to what you think a

text is, is meaning so that when someone says, well, you know, Chris, you know, your understanding of Philippians, you

know, chapter two well, I really think this is what it's saying.

It's like, well, you can tell me what you think it's saying, but how are you deriving that from the text?

I think that's a very important thing to keep in mind when we're interacting with people who are, when we're disputing

these sorts of texts, difference between exegeting of a text and just giving a story as to what you think a text

means.

That's important, I think.

So that's why I was wondering, what do they say in terms of where, you know, when you say, well, where is that in the text?

Well, I guess they don't have a response to it.

They don't, they don't.

That's.

Exactly right.

They don't.

It really is as paper thin as what I said, the language of form of God is similar to image of God and equality with God is similar to the

eyes will be open and they'll be like God.

But, but on your point about the importance of exegeting, like what Paul is getting at, just think of how perfectly

this idea that Jesus is the pre -incarnate God in this text, how perfectly that fits

the point Paul is making, because the whole point Paul is making is he's trying to encourage his readers

to exhibit something of the humility that Jesus exhibited.

So on the Unitarian reading, Jesus is so humble.

He doesn't think of trying to become equal to God.

Okay.

That's, there's no humility in that.

That's just being sane.

Right.

But if we're right,.

I'm going to be humble right now, Chris, because I don't think I'm equal to God.

Well,.

You're so humble Eli.

You're so humble.

But if on the other hand, the obvious reading is the right one.

And of course it is.

Paul is saying, be humble.

Like Jesus is humble.

Who was so humble that although he was the very God who was owed service, he

nevertheless became a human to serve those very people who owed him service.

That is the most powerful example of humility.

And, and, and, and precisely because the two equals, one of them is treating himself as

less than his equal.

Well, Paul is telling equals to be, to treat each other as, or to be humble toward one another.

Whether you're a King versus a pauper, whether you're a slave versus a freedman, a male versus a

female, whatever sort of hierarchical relationships and socioeconomic statuses are different between people, they're

equal bearing, equally bearing the divine image.

And so in order to instruct an equal, to treat an equal, like they're better, right?

With humility, he points to the perfect example of the equal of the equal with God, the father, who is

God, the son, and how he treated God, the father as superior to himself as the extreme act of humility.

It is a beautiful, consistent and compelling reading.

And Unitarians just don't.

Have anything like it here.

And just getting back to that other point though.

So Jesus is not seeing deity as something to be grasped.

That's only humble if he is divine.

Well, but again, I, I would prefer to use a language that reflects what that idiom means.

Okay.

And that's why taking advantage of, I think is the best way.

So like the NIV will say, he didn't count equality with God, something to be taken advantage of.

Now this is important.

You can only take advantage of something if you have it.

That's right.

Right.

So what it's saying, the fact that he didn't count it, something to be taken advantage of is proof that he

exhibited that equality with God, but chose not to take advantage.

And it makes no sense.

That if he doesn't have access to that, that he's saying, you know, that it's saying he didn't take

advantage of it.

So of course he can't take advantage of it because he doesn't have access.

To divinity.

That's right.

I'm so humble that I chose not to find out where my, where the

quarterback star on my local national NFL team lives and go and break into his house and steal his,

the money in his safe.

And that's how humble I am.

I didn't, I chose not to take advantage of, of, of that quarterback's stash of money.

It's ridiculous.

Well, okay.

So, so Philippians chapter two, verse five through eight, right?

Five through eight.

That's the, the car.

I think that's the best text to go to.

Okay.

And that, and that's a great text because it's, it's pre it's pre Pauline, right?

It goes even before the writing of Philippians.

That's right.

Not only is it pre yeah.

And not only is it pre Pauline, but, but, but it's what Paul has captured, which pre

exists himself is one of his earliest letters too.

Right?

So you've, from, from, you look at all the body of his literature, this is one of the earliest and, and

this teaching of Christ's deity pre pre exists, even that it's incredibly powerful.

Right now, what about Titus chapter two verse.

I think it's 13.

Is it 13?

Yeah.

So Paul test Titus.

Yeah.

So, so it talks about our blessed God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now for a person who is not going into the Greek and I know that there's the grand Phil sharp construction there and there's

stuff behind there that from kind of just the generic Christian.

It's like, well, of course the Bible teaches Jesus God.

I literally call him like our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Is that not a good place to go when, when we're talking to Unitarians?

Here's the challenge with those who, at least those who call themselves so -called biblical Unitarians, which is of

course a contradiction in terms, but when they, but those who call themselves that what they will argue

is that there's, there's nothing, the authors of scripture, when they use the word God of Christ

are not doing anything particularly astounding.

And they're not, they don't mean by that, that he is true deity.

They'll point out examples where the, you know, I said, you were gods.

I think Isaiah quotes, uh, Yahweh is saying to the rulers of Israel, right?

Humans are in places called gods and the Unitarian, um, the so

-called biblical Unitarian says, yeah, so, so what Paul and other biblical authors think of Jesus as a God,

but so what?

And that's why the texts that I go to in debates with such people are ones that don't trade on that.

I do think it can be argued, but you know, you, you, you, you talked, um, before we started

recording or streaming, you talked about this preference I have for being more of a sniper rather than a shotgunner,

you know?

And so, and, and by the way, that's a metaphor that I got from, uh, Dan Chapa, who was describing me.

He said that, uh, you know, a lot of people are like, they, they, they are like, uh,

grunts on the ground and they're using blast weapons, like shotguns.

Um, whereas I use sniper, uh, I'm more like a sniper.

I try to go for the targeted kill, you know?

And it seems to me that I could spend all the time I have in a debate

arguing why the fact that Paul calls Jesus God and savior is significant.

I could do that, or I could go to Philippians two, where they don't even have that option.

They don't even have that.

They can't circle around it that way.

And so I'm just trying to think about how best to leverage.

My time.

Hmm.

What about Mark chapter one, where it's, uh, where there's a quotation from Isaiah

and it talks about John the Baptist preparing, uh, the way for the Lord.

And you look at the context of Isaiah, it's clearly talking about God there.

I've heard some people use that.

I've used that myself.

But what do you think about a utilization of that passage there in Mark.

Chapter one?

And I say, you run in, you run into a variation of the exact same challenge, which is, um, the

Unitarian is going to already have in mind examples where they can, they can point you to

where old Testament texts about Yahweh are attributed in some way, shape or form

to a lesser being.

And they'll say, look, if that can happen even once in scripture, that could happen here.

It could happen in Hebrews one.

That's another similar text.

Um, there are all sorts of them.

And so what they're saying, what they will say is that by, because Jesus is sort of acting as an agent

for a messenger and authoritative representative of the Lord, therefore

texts about Yahweh can be, uh, attribute, you know, uh, used to refer to

such agents without identifying them as Yahweh.

And that's once again, why I, um, if I have a limited amount of time and I want to have the most bang for my

buck, I'm going to go for the texts that they don't have ready canned responses for, or at least ones that won't take as

much to.

Tear down, you know, when they offer them.

Okay.

So you say, we know we need to go to Philippians chapter two, verse five through eight.

But when I bring up these others, these other scriptures, like, well, they have responses to that.

Does that empty our arsenal of using those passages?

I mean, in what sense do those passages in what sense are those passages still part of

our arsenal?

I mean, it, it, in terms of like, yes, the Bible teaches all throughout that Jesus is

God and we have verse here, verse here, verse here.

Can we not use those with Unitarians because of the responses they have?

I mean, in what sense do, are those other passages that typically come to mind when we think of the deity of Christ are useful to

us?

I think of them as, um, you're right.

Yes, we can absolutely can use them.

Um, I think they're important, but again, I'm, when I'm debating, I'm, uh, and when I say that,

I mean, even one -on -one like, uh, not nothing formal when I'm having a discussion with somebody, I know I have a limited amount of time.

And so the question any of us has to ask when we're in a conversation, formal or otherwise with a Unitarian is

what do I want to use my time?

What do I want to use my time discussing?

Because here's the challenge.

Not only is your time, what's at stake, but it's also the time of the viewers.

And what will happen is if, you know, if I make an argument, if I lead with

arguments from Mark 1, from Titus 2, and in the rebuttal time, my

opponent offers the kinds of responses that I characterized a little bit ago, and they offer a couple of

representative examples to show that this is a plausible explanation.

Well, think about the impact that's going to have on your listeners and how little time you

have now to overcome the impact that's had on your listeners.

Because now I'm going to have to go back to my rebuttal or in cross -examination or whatever to,

um, to, to explain to the listener why that crap response that my opponent gave just doesn't

hold up to scrutiny.

And I don't want to leave my audience with any doubt, right?

I want my viewers to come away thinking, yeah, it's pretty ironclad.

And so what I don't want to, it's sort of like not wanting to give the devil a foothold.

I don't want to give my debate opponent even a little bit of clout in the eyes of my opponent.

Uh, but where I think those texts have more value is when you're trying

to go from the first step of making your, your, um, your Unitarian opponent

unable to offer a meaningful response when it comes to Flippians 2 and the other texts that I use in my debate.

Um, once you've done that, and once your viewers see, oh, they don't have a good answer to those.

Well, then this is where the, those other texts I think become really valuable.

You could say, okay, now that I've shown you how clear a handful of these texts are, how, how

terrible the Unitarian responses to them are now consider this breadth, this

wealth of texts, John 1, 1, right?

Um, Hebrews 1, Mark 1, and so forth.

It's like, what I just showed you is an iron clad case is just all over the scriptures.

Boom.

Here's this boom.

Here's that boom.

Here's that.

But if you do that first, if you flip that order and you go for the shotgun first, and then try to focus on

specific texts, you've now, you've now given some ground to your opponent in the eyes of viewers.

And I.

Want to avoid that at all costs.

So that's why I go the way I do.

So it's not that the other texts that we sufficient to demonstrate the deity of Christ, you're, you're

saying by way of strategy, if we were in a time discussion, there, it's probably better to go

with Philippians chapter two, then some of these other approaches, not that they're insufficient

texts.

They're just not strategically beneficial if you're limited on time.

That's exactly right.

Exactly.

Yeah.

So kind of the generic Christian who is not a biblical scholar and doesn't think too deep into these issues.

The first text that comes to mind is John one, one.

I mean, you know, you ask the average Christian where in the Bible does it teach Jesus as God?

Oh, clearly in the beginning was the word.

The word was with God and the word was God.

What's up with that passage?

Is that a good, is that ever a good passage to use?

I know there's some controversy there.

And when, and when I listened to people teach or discuss the topic of Jehovah's witness, they'll

often say, whatever you do, don't go to John one, one, because they've cut planned responses to that.

I'm like, I always thought though, like, yeah, but if John one, one does teach the deity of Christ, who cares what their plan responses are?

Let's learn what their plan responses are and respond to them.

So, uh, is John one, one, something that should be left out of the discussion when talking about the deity of Christ?

Uh, how would you, how would you drill down that point?

John one, one, yes.

Unitarians have responses, but I think we can still make a case with that first couple of verses in John.

How would you approach there?

Well, so again, the first thing I would do is withhold it until after I've done that first step of show of,

of get of making it clear to any onlookers that the Unitarian has no response

to no meaningful response to the, to the texts that I cited already.

Once I've done that, and now I feel a little bit more comfortable doing a shotgun, then I'll bring

John one, one in and I'll, and what I will do is, so you're aware that like in

the new world translation that the Jehovah's witnesses produced, at least for some time, I don't know if they still do this or not.

I've been out of Jehovah's witness evangelism for a while, but they, they inserted the, um, uh, the indefinite

article, uh, before God, right?

So it's, uh, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a God.

And most Christians, I think that are at all, you know, knowledgeable, we'll be able to

respond to that a little bit.

But I think there's a better point to be made, which is that the way, and I don't, I don't remember the exact

terminology for the names of the construction that's involved and so forth.

But when, uh, but, but look at the work of, uh, uh, Dan Wallace, his Greek grammar beyond the basics is a good place

where you can find this on this very verse.

What the point that he makes is when, um, uh, I think it's, uh, when you have a predicate nominative,

uh, which is the, if you have X is Y, um, the Y is the predicate nominative, the X is the

subject.

And basically when you have the, the way that the predicate nominative is used here, the word was God is,

um, consistent, consistently, it refers to the nature of the subject,

the, uh, the, the quality of the subject.

So the word was deity, um, not God in the sense of

he was, he is the being that is God, but he is deity.

Um, he has that quality.

And I think that's a powerful argument, but again, I think it should come in that second layer of when you're starting to

reveal to your interlocutor and to any onlookers that this powerful case I've made from

these very laser focused texts appear all throughout the biblical data, you know, at that point.

So that's the route I'd go with John one, one.

Okay.

So,.

So if the Bible is so clear on the deity of Christ, so clear that Unitarian has just got to deal with it.

Jesus is God, right?

What if we hypothetically removed Philippians chapter two, verses five through eight, uh, where

else could we go?

What would be the next pass?

You'd be like, all right, Philippians two, five through eight doesn't exist.

Like it's so clear though.

And it's so expansive throughout scripture that Jesus is God where, where, where else could we go?

So I'll, I'll mention the other two texts that I went to in my debate with this sort of laser focused sniper, uh,

approach in mind.

One of them is, is, is in Hebrews one, but not the text in Hebrews one.

Most people think of the text.

Most people think of in Hebrews one is, is, um, uh, is where an old Testament text is, is like you said

earlier, being attributed or being used to describe Jesus.

But I'm actually talking about verses two and three, where the author says that God speaks by Jesus through whom also

he created the world.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.

And he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

And the reason why I like this Texas is for a number of reasons.

First of all, it uses the same stock terminology used throughout all the new Testaments to describe God's creation

of the universe.

Number two, the author of Hebrews as much as, or more than any other New Testament author would have

been intimately familiar with Isaiah 44, 24, in which Yahweh says, I am Yahweh who made all

things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.

And so if the author of Hebrews is saying, Jesus created all things, but

Yahweh in Isaiah 44, 24 says he did it alone.

Then it follows that in the eyes of, um, uh, the author, Jesus is Yahweh.

Um, and now, uh, Unitarians like Dale Tuggy do have some responses.

Um, but they're not particularly good.

So for example, um, and I'll just offer this one counter -argument and respond to it.

Dale Tuggy says that the word, the words for the world in that text that I just read are

tusaionos.

It's Greek meaning the ages.

And so what Dale Tuggy says is you could take that to be the new age initiated by Christ and what's going to come.

But the problem is again, that stock language of creation, the Greek word, the Greek word poieo to make

that's language.

It is all throughout the scriptures used consistently in that creation context.

And so it doesn't seem, um, as if that's what the author is doing.

And in fact, the, uh, this very author, the author of Hebrews later in Hebrews 11, 3 says the

exact same thing the universe, the world ages was created by the word of God so that what

is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

So the author, even if tusaionos the ages, um, can refer to a succession of ages, the author

of Hebrews is using it, um, to refer to the world, um, or, or all ages,

the entirety of all ages, not just a subset of them.

So that's a good text to use as well.

And you want to push back on that or come back on that before we go to the third text.

Can you kind of, uh, go back on how someone like Dale Tuggy would respond to that?

Uh, you had, you mentioned something, it was very quickly that you went through it, but what is the reasoning behind their answer, uh, to

what you just gave there.

In terms of explaining the passage?

It's exactly what you said earlier and put so well, um, they are not exegeting the text and trying to come out

with the meaning the author has in mind.

They are trying to, they're trying to offer a plausible explanation that doesn't require you to

affirm the deity of Christ.

And the way that Dale Tuggy did that here was by pointing out that the words, the world translate Greek mean

literally meaning the ages.

And so he says, well, so maybe what's going on is Jesus inaugurated a new set of ages, right?

Which, which could begin in the time of Christ and therefore doesn't require that he pre -existed his incarnation.

And what I'm pointing out is that, no, that's not going to work because the language of creation and the way that the author

uses the language of creation and the ages later, both combined to indicate that, no, that,.

That response is, and that seems to correspond to what John is saying that through him, all things were made.

So John is saying in a different context, and it's clearly talking about creation because he's saying in the beginning, which

would have hearkened back to Genesis one, which obviously is creation.

So we take the Bible.

I mean, John is not the same as Hebrews, but if you take it in context, in terms of the scriptures as a whole, there seems, it seems

clearly that Hebrews is speaking of creation, just as John is speaking of creation.

It does.

Absolutely.

But the reason why I like Hebrews better is because, because the author of

Hebrews by, you know, being a stereotypically Hebraic author is sure to have

that Isaiah, Isaac text in his mind of who I am Yahweh and I stretched out the heavens alone.

So you, so, you know, somebody can make the argument with John, especially being as late allegedly late of a document it is, they can

argue that, well, he's got sort of this developed theology, this higher Christology that developed over time, and

they could try to wiggle around it.

But with Hebrews, you've got an earlier text, if I'm not mistaken, and you've got a number of factors, not

just the creation language, but a number of factors that combine along with the Isaiah text in the background

that make the Unitarian reading just implausible.

All right.

So did you want me to go to one last one?

Or, well, I wanted to talk a little bit about the I am passages.

How useful are the I am passages?

What comes to mind, John 8, 58, before Abraham was I am a lot of people that I've

seen use that particular argument.

They often make the assertion that when Jesus claimed to be, I am that's kind of a reference back to Exodus 3, 14, where

God tells Moses his name, I am, and so Jesus is claiming divinity.

And then you see, in response to Jesus's assertions, they pick up stones to stone him because a man was making himself out to be God.

Are those good places to go?

Because those are kind of the back pocket generic deity of Christ passages that the average Christian typically is going to go to?

Or do you think they're not sufficient because of various responses and explanations the Unitarian often.

Tries to respond with?

Well, number one, I think they're great texts to use in that second phase that I was describing.

Excuse me.

But if I were to pull one text as being the best example of it, even possibly enough to go in that first

tier, the tier of these are the first sniper, you know, targeted attacks you use.

I would go with John 8, 58.

That is, I think, the best one.

The reason is because what the Unitarian wants to do,

like a Dale Tuggy, is admit the possibility, even if they don't affirm it, that Jesus

did, in fact, preexist his incarnation as some kind of divine being, but that he's not truly God.

And as soon as you say that's a possibility, then you have an easy, you know, canned

response to a text like John 8, 58.

Sure, before Abraham existed, Jesus existed, but that doesn't mean he's eternal, right?

It doesn't mean that he's, that he existed eternally before Abraham.

But here's what I love so much about John 8, 58, among all of these other IM texts, is that

there's an extremely similar text in Psalm 92,

not Psalm 92, but Psalm chapter 90, verse two, in which extremely similar

language is used and is clearly about Yahweh.

So if you read Psalm 90, verse two, Yahweh is being spoken to by the

psalmist.

And the psalmist says, before the mountains were made, you are.

And what's interesting is that before the mountains were,

that word were or became is in the exact same, in the Septuagint

Greek, the exact same Greek word and tense as

in John 8, 58.

And the exact same Greek word for I am is used in the Septuagint

rendition of Psalm 92 and in John 8, 58.

So in the exact same way that the psalmist tells Yahweh that before mountains were made, you are,

in the exact same way Jesus says that before Abraham existed, I am.

And now you've got much more than just the mere I am and preexisting language.

Now you've got an intertextuality that you can point to to say, look, if you're gonna argue that all Jesus is saying

is that he preexisted, but that he's not God, well, what?

So is the psalmist just telling God that you're a little bit older than the mountains?

I mean, that'd be absurd.

Now, what do they say to the other part of that passage where it says they picked up stones to stone him because he was

making himself out to be God?

How do they explain that part?

Do they just say, well, they were just wrong.

That's what they thought he was saying.

That's what they say?

Yeah.

They say, I'm paraphrasing, but pretty close here, Dale will say.

That's mean, man.

It's clearly, it seems so clear.

What they will say, what Dale has said in not so many words, but I'm pretty close, is it's

always a bad idea to derive your theology from what the opponents of Jesus thought.

That's actually a very clever way to put it.

You're immediately gonna start, you're not too savvy listeners are gonna be like, ooh, that's a good point.

And that's why that text isn't something that I go to.

However, here's another example where you can use that text in a more powerful way.

Going back to that text in Philippians 2, where Paul says that Jesus didn't count equality with God, something

to be taken advantage of.

Guess what one other text in the New Testament uses that exact same language of equality with God.

The text that you just mentioned, where the opponents of Jesus think he's making himself out to be equal of God.

So Dale is gonna wanna say, the Unitarian is gonna wanna say, yeah, they did think Jesus was making himself out to be equal with God, but they

were wrong.

And then you go, okay, well, if you're admitting that this equality with God language made them think it was worth

stoning him to death, that's the language that Paul was saying in Philippians 2 is true of Jesus.

So again, it's...

Go ahead, yeah.

But even that, they picked up stones to stone him because he was making himself equal to be God, that just seems to

make sense given what Jesus just said and the theme that was laid out in the first chapter of John.

It just seems like you're trying to tell me that John looks like he's saying he's God, but that's not what he means.

Then Jesus is saying these things that sound like he's claiming to be God, but that's not what it means.

It just seems like an odd.

Way of reading the text.

Do you remember what I said at the very beginning of our interview?

I said that it takes so much more work to erase the deity of Christ out of the text.

Than to acknowledge it.

You're absolutely right.

Interesting.

Now, what about the book of Revelation?

I got into a discussion with the Jehovah's Witness, and we got into this discussion

on the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, and God is called...

The Lord is called the first and the last, and Jesus is called the Alpha and the Omega, which is just a different way of saying the first

and the last.

Do you think the book of Revelation is a good place to go in terms of titles?

I remember asking the Jehovah's Witness, what does it mean to say that the Lord is the first and the last?

He said it means that he's eternal.

I was like, okay, so then what do we do when Jesus is called the first and the last?

He's like, well, it's different.

Jesus is called the...

I think it's called...

Jesus is called the Alpha and the Omega, and God is called...

The Lord is called the first and the last, and so he made a distinction between the two phrases.

I'm like, that literally means the same thing.

Is that a good place to go?

I mean, are those good verses to use to kind of show equality that Jesus has these titles that

only make sense if he's God?

Well, so number one, that response to your argument was a pretty lame one because it's

not true.

It's not true that one of them says, I am the Alpha and Omega, and the other says, I am the first and the last.

God in Revelation 1 .8 says, I am the Alpha and the Omega.

Jesus in Revelation 21 .6 says, I am the Alpha and Omega.

I am also the beginning and the end.

So it's not that one does one and the other does the other.

It's one does both, and it's Jesus.

That's right. That's what I was pointing out.

Yeah.

So again, I do...

Yes, I think this is a good argument in that second tier where you're trying to show, okay, now that I've laser focused on these texts and

shown how powerful they are, now look at just how everywhere in scripture this is.

This is where I think that second phase is where I think this comes in.

But just, you got to be prepared for the, again, not the exegesis, but the explanation where they're just going to

say Jesus is using this agentival way of representing is the one who sent him,

right?

It's not that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

It's that he is speaking on behalf of the one who is the Alpha and Omega.

And I want to reiterate the point I made before, and I think it's a point of apologetic application is to make that distinction

between exegesis of a text and just providing an explanation.

When I was talking to the Jehovah's Witness and I quoted, we got into the topic of Genesis 1 .26, let

us make man in our image.

He goes, well, that's the angels.

I'm like, well, where in the text do you get it's the angels?

Oh, well, you know, the angels where it doesn't mention when they were created, they were there.

I'm like, yeah, but where are you getting that from the text?

You're just adding that into the text.

And it ironically supports your view.

And you're using this kind of exegetical approach to combat the

exegetical approach I'm trying to present.

Right.

So in terms of apologetic application, you want to make that distinction between exegesis and just

someone giving you a story as to what they think the text means.

And so I think that's very useful.

I think it's important enough to kind of reiterate there.

I think you're right.

I think it is.

But I will just encourage people to be careful about trying to argue from this text, because it's

not only Unitarians who think that this let us and our

image is a reference to a group of beings other than just God.

It's also Orthodox Trinitarian Christians like the recently passed Michael Heiser.

So you've got you've got to be careful with that one.

Again, strategy.

Think strategically is all I'm trying to encourage people to do.

I remember I think I was reading Wayne Grudem systematic theology where he speaks about the let us make man in our

image.

And some have argued that that's simply referring to what what people have referred to as the royal plural.

But then you can speak of, you know, like, you know, we will decree this law such and such.

And Dr. Grudem pointed out that while that's true, that the royal plural is a thing, there's no evidence that it was

used in kind of the biblical context and in that culture.

So there are there are other explanations that people give, but the explanation doesn't

necessarily carry weight unless it is derived from the text and from a consistent reading of

scripture.

So that's an important thing to keep.

But you're right.

You want to be careful what we say, because there are people on our side that might take a certain passage in a

way that lends credibility to the Unitarian.

All right.

Very good.

All right.

So we spoke about the IAM passages.

We spoke about revelation.

Let's talk a little bit about the arguments for Unitarianism.

What do you think is the strongest argument that Unitarians use that while as a as

someone who affirms the deity of Christ, someone who affirms the doctrine of the Trinity being things that are derived from scripture,

what is the strongest argument that Unitarians use that you find the most difficult to respond to?

Not impossible, because we obviously believe we have the correct view.

But what do you think is the most difficult argument that they.

Bring up and perhaps provide a response to it?

Yeah, I don't think that there's really any difficult biblical text.

The closest thing they have is something like where Jesus says, the Father is greater, you know, the Father is greater than I.

And, you know, if you don't presuppose Unitarianism, that's a real easy text to

respond to.

Christ is a human being and human human beings are obligated to worship their God, who is greater

than they are.

And so the incarnate Jesus is, of course, going to honor and worship the non incarnate

God, who is his father, as his superior.

So I mean, there's no and then that's just well, that's just an explanation,.

Chris.

Yeah, it's straightforward when you read, you know, who's who's

skipping around the text now.

Jesus clearly says the Father is greater than he.

What do you do when someone kind of yeah, they kind of it kind of like reminds me of like anti

Calvinist, right?

Anti Calvinist who claim and I'm not talking about anyone in particular, so please don't read into this.

But there are a lot of anti Calvinist who used to be Calvinist and they know what Calvinist are looking for when

they ask certain questions.

They're looking for something that they, you know, this Calvinist will claim.

We want to be exegetical in our approach.

So like non Calvinist will try to use that language of exegesis so as

to give the impression that they're sticking.

Our connection has is suffering.

Yeah, you're back.

You're back.

I don't know what's happening here.

It says your connection is connect to a

router.

I haven't used a router in like a billion years.

All right, well, we're still alive.

So no one has said anything.

Although I forgot what I.

Was asking.

Well, so you were, I don't remember exactly what you were asking either.

But in response to your hypothetical accusation that I'm the one coming up with an

explanation, I actually think it's the other way around.

Because in context, what's going on here is Jesus is sort of saying goodbye to his,

or he's in the middle of a sermon here.

And he said to his disciples, and he says, you heard me say I am going away and I will come to you.

If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the father for the father is greater than I.

So notice Jesus is saying that the great that whatever he means by the father is greater than I is the

reason why his followers should have rejoiced to hear that Jesus was going to be leaving them and going to his

father.

But how does the mere superiority of the father justify

expecting his followers to rejoice at the prospect of Jesus going to be with his father?

That doesn't, I don't see an easy explanation for that.

However, if we accept the biblical

theme that even Unitarians acknowledge, which is the anticipated, um, exaltation of Jesus.

Well, now it's the, uh, you see that ever, you see that in all sorts of places, Philippians, Romans, and others.

Um, if that's what, if that's what Jesus is talking about here, you would rejoice.

Um, when I tell you I'm going to be with the father, because that will entail my exaltation.

Well, well, now you're back to the distinction between the, between God, the father and

the human incarnate human God, which is Christ, um, who expects to be

exalted to this greater position than he already has.

Um, that makes perfect sense.

And it no longer, um, and it doesn't involve any sort of inferiority on Christ's part.

It's just that he is a human being who by that, who not yet having been exalted to the

position he's going to be is not yet in the greatest, you know, position that he's expecting to have.

So I just don't think this text go ahead.

Yeah.

Well, the language of exaltation, I think is a problem for Unitarians.

Like if Jesus is God, how is he being exalted or given a name above every name?

How can you be given a name or divine?

So how would you speak to that?

It's like that makes most from, from a Unitarian perspective and someone who denies the deity of Christ

on a surface level, I kind of understand where they're coming from.

It's like, well, if Jesus is God, how can he be exalted or how can he be given a name

above every name?

It doesn't, he have the name in light of the fact that he's.

God.

How would you speak to that?

Well, I would again, point out the presupposition of Unitarianism that they are trading on, or in

this case, the presupposed denial of incarnation.

Um, if, if God and Jesus were just sort of in

the same plane of existence, if, if God were part of the cosmos, and if

God and Jesus are both in, in the stream of time together, then that becomes a more of a challenge to explain how could

Jesus both be that same God and not yet have the name above every name, which is of course,

poetic language referring to the status, the, the, the recognized position of authority that he ought to

have.

Um, that then it might be a little bit more difficult, but we're talking about here within the context of incarnation

and God is not within part of the space -time

cosmos that we are.

He transcends it, pre -exists it.

And the best analogy I can think of for thinking about this is like J

.R .R. Tolkien and Middle Earth.

If J .R .R. Tolkien is the author of the Lord of the Rings, if by merely conceiving of Middle

Earth and everything that takes place in it, he thereby created Middle Earth and everything that takes place in it, he's, he

transcends that timeline.

He doesn't exist at any point in it, right?

He's, he's, he's at all times.

Um, and, and he could easily write himself into the story as an incarnate hobbit.

All right.

A poor, um, you know, J .R .R. Tolkien, the human, well, he, so

he, he, he's, he's the human author that transcends the world of Middle Earth, but within Middle Earth, he, he

is incarnated as a poor, um, low status socioeconomic status hobbit or something

like that.

But that, but now imagine that he's written the story such that he in the story as this hobbit will eventually go

and throw the Mount, the ring into Mount Doom and save the world.

And so they exalt him to a position of some kind of fame or authority or whatever.

Does the fact that he is, that that is the incarnation of J .R .R. Tolkien

somehow prevent J .R .R. Tolkien from being exalted as an incarnate hobbit in the story?

Of course not.

And similarly, if God transcending space -time having created it in,

it becomes incarnate in the, in space -time as a human, but outside of time, he's still God.

Then he can incarnate as a socioeconomic, low socioeconomic status, human being whose

role is to serve others and then eventually be exalted within that space -time, that created space -time

to a position of honor that he didn't have when he first became human.

It makes perfect sense.

There's no contradiction there at all.

That's an excellent analogy there.

Go ahead.

So, so this is going back to this John 15 text, the father or 14, the father is greater than I, the point I'm getting

at is just that there really aren't any difficult biblical texts to explain or to exegete

provided that you have the understanding of incarnation in, in mind.

And so what I think, and this, this is the exhortation I want to offer to your viewers.

If you want to have a meaningful dialogue with a Unitarian who calls himself

or herself a biblical Unitarian, if you want to have a meaningful conversation where, especially if there are going to be

onlookers watching, what you need to prepare yourself to respond to are not so much their

arguments from the biblical texts, because those are easy.

The arguments that you need to be prepared to rebut are the texts that have to do with logic to

use a slightly less or more frowned upon word philosophy.

Look, I'm the first person to say philosophy is the handmaiden to theology and theology

itself is the handmade, in my opinion, to biblical exegesis.

So I'm not putting philosophy on a pedal pedestal, but what happens very often in

debates like this with philosophically or logically savvy Unitarians is that

they will offer an argument that trades on not, not philosophy and sort of the flowery,

you know, abstract way we tend to think about, but philosophy in the rigid logical sense, they will offer an argument from the logical

angle and the, the Trinitarian opponent will try to somehow sweep it

under the rug or dismiss it with a hand wave.

And viewers come thinking that's the best answer that he has.

And I see this with the best Trinitarian scholars out there.

So here's an example.

We know that God is immortal by nature.

He cannot die.

And yet Jesus did die.

So how, if Jesus is God, how is, is he both mortal and immortal at the same time?

Or here's another one.

God is omniscient, but Jesus didn't know the day or hour of his

return.

Right?

So how is Jesus both omniscient and limited in knowledge at the same time?

And there are other.

Examples that you can get.

Or you could say, you know, God never gets hungry.

Jesus got hungry.

Therefore Jesus isn't God.

Exactly.

And then respond to that requires you to know your theology.

It, well, not only that, but, but, but it also requires you to be able to articulate that theology

in a way that is logically coherent.

That's what I'm trying to really push here is the importance of being able to answer the logical coherence argument, because

it is true.

If, I mean, look, you and I, I'm sure both affirm the law of non -contradiction.

So I'm thinking not both be A and not A at the same time.

Right?

Now I intentionally didn't, or sorry, let me, let me redo that.

What I was trying to, the softball I was trying to serve up to myself.

We both agree that something cannot both be A and not A.

Right?

And if you leave it at that, then this problem, this seeming problem does indeed seem like a problem.

Jesus can't both be omniscient and limited in knowledge.

He can't be both immortal and mortal.

But savvy hearers of this conversation will know that I just cut off that logical law of non

-contradiction prematurely.

It's not, it's something cannot both be A and not A.

It's something cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way.

That's so key.

I teach a lot of eighth.

Graders.

I was like, you must remember that it's the same time and in the same sense, that's

like the key.

If you leave that out, you expose yourself to weakness, but go ahead.

Exactly.

So, so now with that understanding of the law of non -contradiction in mind, and as you pointed out

with a correct theology of incarnation in mind, this is a super easy argument to respond to.

God is not in time.

He doesn't exist at any particular point in time in creation.

So when Jesus is in time mortal, that he is outside of time,

which is not the same time immortal.

That's perfectly sound.

And you could also trade on in the same sense.

If you don't like the, at the same time, part of that caveat in that law, you could trade on the, in the same

sense, you could say that Jesus cannot die the death of a divine being, but he could die the

death of a human being.

And so what I do in my book with Dale Tuggy is exactly this.

I point out that both of those parts of that caveat in the same way, at the same time and in the same way,

both of those things can be leveraged to show that Jesus can in fact, both be mortal and immortal, limited in knowledge and

omniscient provided that he isn't those things at the same time and in the same way.

And that's easy to do.

That's excellent.

Excellent.

Excellent.

All right.

Well Chris, we're at the top of the hour.

I'd like to kind of go through some of the questions.

There are folks who have some questions here and you can keep sending them in if you guys have questions.

This is an area that Chris has debated on and he's written on.

And so he should have all the answers you're looking for.

I'm just kidding.

All right.

Let's go through here.

Someone brought this up here.

So it's not a question.

They say the Bible Care and Share Fellowship says, I love how God sends

prophets.

I don't have that text in front of me, but... I can read it for you.

It's Jesus is saying, therefore...

Oh, wow.

I lost it.

Hold on.

Matthew 23, 34.

Jesus says, therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify and some you'll flog, et cetera.

And I think Bible Care and Share Fellowship's point is a good one, except again, remember what the

Unitarian is already believing.

The Unitarian already believes that Jesus is acting in this representative agentival role, representing God.

And so they'll just say, well, all Jesus is doing is saying, speaking on behalf of the God who is going

to send prophets and wise men, et cetera.

But what I will say is that Matthew 23, 34 comes just three verses before verse 37, in which Jesus

says, oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones, those who were sent to it, how often would I have gathered your children together as a

hen gatherers her brood under her wings?

And this is that third text I alluded to earlier that I included in my positive case in my debate, because

this language of protective bird imagery, protecting people under my wings like a hen does, that

is language in the Old Testament and in the surrounding ancient Near East that is only ever used

of God.

And that's not just true in the Jewish culture.

It's true in the surrounding ancient Near East as well.

If you're at all familiar with ancient Near East iconography, there's this, there's this sun disc with wings coming out of it.

And that is a representation of God that under those wings are where we find our protection.

So the fact that Jesus is using this language that is reserved for God alone, everywhere around him

is incredibly powerful.

And there's more that can be said about that verse as well.

So anyway, good, good point, Bible Care and Share Fellowship.

I appreciate it.

Excellent.

Todo Bermundo says, do you guys know about the Unitarian cult based in the Philippines called Iglesia en Cristo?

Dr. White debated one of their apologists once, but I hope more apologists would talk about them more.

Thanks.

I don't know anything about them.

I'll have to look into them.

Have you listened to Dr. White's debate with one of their proponents?

I have listened to many of his debates, including ones on this topic, but I do not believe I have.

It's a fun one.

Yeah, I'll check it out.

I'm sure it is fun.

It's a fun one.

Let's just say it's, it's very funny because when you see Dr. White's table, it's nice and clean.

He come, he's debated this topic a billion times because of the Trinity.

Then you look at the other side's table.

He, this, the guy who's debating got a library of resources, like three or four assistants

helping him.

It was hilarious to see the contrast.

But I thought Dr. White did an excellent job in that debate.

So definitely a good one if you're looking to see a defense of the Trinity.

All right.

D Otero says, could you use the argument found in Genesis 126 through 31 that uses the plural name of God,

Elohim, and the plural personal pronouns of us and our to argue that God is a

plurality?

And we talked a little bit about that, but you want to speak into that a little bit more?

You know, it's, it's a, it's an argument that has some merit to it and I

am attracted to it.

I believe that that is the significance of the plural personal, plural name and personal pronouns,

but it's not something that I think can be argued in as iron clad of a way

as I like to in my debates.

This would be something that would fall into that second tier.

What I actually do really like though, is it, is that passage in Genesis 19 and this again is, is, is

like a tier two, not a tier one argument, but that text in Genesis 19

where in verse 24, Yahweh reigned on Sodom and Gomorrah,

sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

So you seem to have, and this is right after the Yahweh appears with the two angels or possibly the three members of the

Trinity in a theophany with Abraham at the Oak of Mamre, the Oaks of Mamre.

And then right after that, we see the Yahweh fire seemingly in both the heavens and on the

ground such that the one on the ground can call forth fire from the one in heaven.

So you do have something of a plurality here that I think is pretty powerful, but again, I would put it, I would make it secondary.

Supplementary rather than your go -to.

I like those verses.

Um, I think there's one in Amos two, Amos four, 10 and 11 or something like that, where God is speaking.

It says, I will, um, I will do such and such just as the Lord.

So the Lord is talking, but then he says,.

Amos 411, I overthrew some of you as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

What I like about those is if in my mind, they're like different categories of verses that we can use.

So for example, what I would, what I would suggest when you're talking to Jehovah's witness or a Unitarian, but Jehovah's witness more specifically,

cause you know, uh, you're going to be more likely to come in contact with a Jehovah's witness than say like, you know,

Dale Tuggy street or something.

I, I have categories of explicit verses that we can appeal to.

They're kind of our generic ones.

And I think a lot of the Jehovah's witness types have kind of prepackaged answers to those things.

That doesn't mean you can't use those passages, right?

They're, they're the word of God and we can argue them, but there are these kind of more obscure passages that

will become very useful, uh, in terms of like plurality, like that Amos 411 and others that

are there less, you're less likely to get a good answer because it's kind of an obscure passage that, you know, many people haven't

really dealt with.

So, um, Amos 411 and others like that, you know, the Lord fired, uh, you know, what was it?

What'd you say?

Uh, my goodness, I'm having like a 19, uh, verse 24.

Yeah.

So I got like a huge monitor here, here, here.

I'm trying to, I'm like multitasking here.

Yeah.

Like those are obscure passages I think are helpful to, to use instead of some of the more explicit ones.

But, um, I guess it depends who you're talking to.

Yeah.

All right.

Um, this is not a question, but I have a question from this comment.

This is from young, young earth creation, Anthony Rogers, who have had on the show before, are you familiar with Anthony Rogers?

A little bit.

Yeah.

Okay.

Def excellent resource in defense of the Trinity guy knows his stuff.

Um, and I highly recommend him.

Anthony Rogers has comprehensively countered Heizer's argument about the let us in Genesis one 26.

And so it's still a great text, uh, an argument to use.

Are you familiar with Michael Heizer's argument and do you think it has any merit as a counter to

say the traditional understanding from, you know, when we say let us, there seems to be kind of an implication of plurality.

I, I'm sympathetic, not to his treatment of let us here in Genesis one, but to

his, uh, and this is a fairly common understanding of Old Testament scholarship, his, his understanding of what is it?

Psalm 82 as referring, you know, I said year gods or whatever.

Um, most Christians perhaps, I think, understand this as a reference to

the rulers of Israel or something like that.

But Michael Heizer, I think argues pretty compellingly that this is a, uh, a picture of a council of

divine beings of which God is the preeminent, the most preeminent.

So I'm sympathetic to that.

What I think is a mistake.

I'm not familiar enough with Michael Heizer's argument when it comes to Genesis one, but what I've yet to

see is any reason other than one's prior

assumption.

Number one, that the divine council exists, a council of the divine beings, including God as the one at the,

at the head.

And number two, that that is what the author has in mind when he quotes God as saying, let us make man in our image.

I don't see evidence, strong enough evidence for those things to think that that's what's going on in Genesis one.

So I do, I, I do still take that.

Let us make man in our image to be the Trinity speaking.

What I, but again, what I'm trying to think of a strategy in a limited amount of time, do you really want to be

prepared to in detail, rebut an argument like Michael Heizer's in the context of a limited amount of

time where you're trying to focus on?

I mean, you've got to, you've.

Got to think strategically again is what I'm repeating.

Yeah.

Excellent.

All right.

Uh, here's our last question here and we'll wrap things up.

And I just want to thank you so much.

I think you've done an excellent job.

Um, if you're wondering like, Hey, we usually go like an hour and a half or something or two hours.

Um, I I've been trying to shorten things with some exceptions so that, uh, it's more manageable for people,

uh, driving into work.

They can listen to a full episode or most of an episode or something like that.

Um, but, uh, this is, there's a lot of good stuff here in, in this one hour and six minute, uh, discussion.

And I hope folks are finding it useful.

So we're going to close things up with this last question and then, um, and then we'll wrap it up.

So here, this is another one from, uh, total bed mundo Unitarian say that the exalted human Jesus, not God

will eventually subject his power and authority to the true God using first Corinthians 1527 through 28.

What does first Corinthians 1527.

Through 28 mean?

Yeah, that's really an interesting text.

And I don't think it's extremely clear what's going on.

I'll read the verses.

Um, so we can talk about them.

This is right after Paul saying the last enemy to be destroyed is death.

He then says for God has put all things in subjection under his feet.

But when it says all things are put in subjection, it is plain that he is accepted who put all things in subjection

under him.

When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him

that God may be all in all.

So the, the question here trades on the idea of son himself eventually

being subject to, um, uh, the father, uh, in

a way evidently that isn't, uh, fully realized right

now.

So what might that mean?

Well, um, if the son

is in his exalted status right now, um, if he has

a certain degree of authority that he is going to in the Eschaton hand back over to the father,

um, so that he is even more fully subject to his father than he already is as the

exalted human that he is, then that could account for this kind of language.

And so what I've always understood this text to be saying is that Christ is exercising that kind of authority right now

on behalf of the father sitting at the right hand of the father right now in the heavenlies where he's at right now.

Um, and he is ruling on behalf of his father, um, over the

world and its affairs and the salvation of his people.

Um, but when the Eschaton comes and when the final enemy is destroyed, which is death and all who remain

are God's people who are immortal and glorified, and there's no more sin, then the incarnate

exalted son will then hand over the affairs, the, his authority over the affairs of the

world back to his father who gave it to him in the first place.

And he will remain forever, forever, forever, every bit as subject to his father

as the rest of us are.

Because again, we can't, it's important to remember this.

Jesus wasn't merely a human, he is one and will always be one.

And a human being will never be, um, will never, no human being will ever

fail to be, uh, required, expected to be subject to

his creator.

So if, so I'm, so that's the way I take this text.

Jesus is right now exercising an authority given to him that he will one day give back to his father, but he's

doing so as an incarnate human.

So it's no challenge to his deity, which is the divine being that he shares with his father and son, uh, Holy Spirit

exists outside of time, transcendent to created space time.

So there's no contradiction.

Again, it's.

At the same time and in the same way thing.

Excellent.

Well, thank you so much for that, Chris.

I've been speaking with Chris date, a friend of mine and a, uh, an excellent apologist.

Um, if you guys want more of, uh, Chris's content, you guys can check out his podcast,.

Theo apologetics.

Did I say that right?

Almost Theo, not Theo apologetics.

It's the apologetics.

The apologetics and in, and he has a YouTube channel as well.

You want to tell folks a little.

Bit about your YouTube channel?

Well, yeah, so I haven't, I I'm not doing anything with it currently because of my wife's health issues that I'm trying to help, uh,

support her with.

But, uh, if you go to youtube .com slash the apologetics, um, I do a podcast,

a video, a vid cast that is also in podcast form in which I, um, cover a variety of theological

and apologetics topics and interview guests on theological and apologetics topics.

Um, but I think the easier way to find me would be to just go to Chris date .info, C

-H -R -I -S -D -A -T -E.

Like what's the date today?

Uh, Chris date .info.

And there they can find all the work I've done, including both the apologetics as well as, um, other,

uh, shows that I'm a part of and books I published and.

Articles I published, et cetera.

Awesome.

Well, thank you so much.

I really appreciate your friendship and I appreciate your work and the things that you're doing and the things that you've done in the past.

I sometimes listen to old episodes.

My house really good.

Uh, so you've got some good, uh, current stuff and some good old stuff.

So really appreciate you and, uh, and everything you're doing.

Well, I feel the same way about you and it was a real honor to be on your show again.

I appreciate it.

Well, thank you so much.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is it for today's, um, episode.

And, um, I don't know when I'm coming back on starting work soon, so I'll have to keep folks in

the loop as I schedule things.

And, um, yeah.

So for tonight, that's all.

And, uh, that's it.

Take care.

God bless.

Bye -bye.

Bye -bye.