The Great Trinity Debate, Part 5: Bowman on the Trinity

142 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate, Part 5: Bowman on the Trinity"

• Ady Miles

  2010-06-01

  Whilst I disagree in the concept/theory of a Trinity per se, I believe we must be careful not to effectively separate God, Christ and their Holy Spirit. These three are One in Spirit and Purpose.However, where Christadelphians and most non-Trinitarians/Biblical Unitarians/Unitarians disagree is that God is One Person (LORD) made up of Three LORDS. Also, God’s Spirit is spoken of as Himself quite a few times in Scriptures (the account of Ananias and Sapphira for just one example) and God’s Spirit can be “grieved.” Christadelphian belief has always accepted that God and His Spirit are One, just not that there are both distinct personalities (separate Lords.) I believe the confusion mainly lies in the fact that there are three Lords, God, the Father, Christ, His Son and the Holy Spirit of God. However, only the LORD God, the Father is God Himself. His Spirit comes from Him and it part of Him, not a distinct separate personality, being, entity or Lord

  Hope this helps!
• cherylu

  2010-06-01

  Dave,

  I don’t remember these two verses being discussed in this debate. I am wondering how you as a Unitarian understand them?

  Zecariah 12:10 “”I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”

  John 19:37 “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced”.

  In Zechariah 12, it is the LORD speaking and He speaks of Himself as being the one that is pierced. In John, this is referred to as a prophecy that was fulfilled in Jesus death. How could the LORD refer to Himself as being the one pierced here if Jesus was not also that LORD? This seems to be way more then agency at work here to me.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-01

  My comments on Ephesians 4:4-6 apply equally here. All you’re doing is presenting conclusions and asking us to agree with them. You haven’t demonstrated that these conclusions are valid, nor even how the evidence supports them.

  Dave, you must be talking about another debate with someone else since it is clear to us that Bowman has not only presented solid evidence to back up his case but he has actually schooled you along the way documenting your gross exegetical and logical fallacies. All you are doing at this point is projecting since it is you who have made dozens of assertions hoping that not only we agree with them but that we also fail to see that you haven’t provided a scintilla of evidence to back up your eisegesis.

  Dave, time to face reality. You lost this debate BADLY and you were simply outmatched by Bowman. I pray that the Lord will use this to bring you out of your false sect and into his glorious truth which Bowman presented by the grace of the risen Lord.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-01

  THE “THREEFOLDNESS” OF GOD

  Dave,

  This is in response to comment #33 above.

  When you’re not busy misrepresenting the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity and arrogantly claiming to know what these doctrines mean better than Trinitarian Christian theologians do, you’re claiming you have no idea what we mean and criticizing me for not defining all my terms. Why bother, when you’re going to dispute my definitions and claim you know better than I what we mean by our theological language?

  I think you know very well that by “threefoldness of God” I mean the aspect of orthodox Christian doctrine that affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three, and the only three, distinct persons who are God. In other words, the point is not only that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but that these three, and these three only, are God. These are not just three of God’s many names or roles; there is no fourth member; these three specifically and they alone are each God. I explain this point in the conclusion of my Part 5 post when I write:

  “There is nothing arbitrary about the Trinitarian claim of a threefoldness in Scripture’s revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as if, for example, one might just as easily speak of a quaternary of Father, Son, Michael, and Gabriel, or of God, Jesus, Peter, and Paul, or perhaps a fivefold revelation of the Father, Adam, Christ, Power, and Truth. No, this threefoldness of Father—Son—Holy Spirit or God—Lord—Spirit is found throughout the NT in the Synoptics, John, Acts, the Pauline epistles, the Petrine epistles, and elsewhere that space prevents me from documenting with any detail.”

  As anyone can see, I explain quite clearly what I mean by “threefoldness.”

  You also criticized me for supposedly not explaining the significance of the triads in the NT that I discussed in the post:

  “Your introduction goes on to mention ‘triads’ and ‘triadic patterns’; is this what you mean by ‘threefoldness’? You don’t explain. You seem to think that they are very important, but why? You don’t explain. Apparently you believe that they help to substantiate Trinitarianism, but how? You don’t explain.”

  However, in my discussion of each of the triads, I explained their significance in term of their individual contribution in substantiating Trinitarian theology. At the end of the post, I summarized the significance of the triadic texts collectively:

  “Dave and I agree that the Father is God. We agree that the Holy Spirit is at least an aspect of God (Dave thinks the Holy Spirit is God’s power, I think the Holy Spirit is God). Thus, we agree that two of the three referents in this common NT triad refer to God or an aspect of God. There is some force to the argument, then, that the third referent in this triad is also God. I have argued in rounds two and three of this debate that the Son is in fact God and in round four that the Holy Spirit is a divine person. I have further shown in this round that the triadic passages in the NT often provide additional confirmation of the essential deity of the Son or of the personhood of the Holy Spirit or both. These passages therefore provide substantial support, within the larger context of the biblical teaching already examined, for the doctrine of the Trinity.”

  Again, I clearly explained the significance of the triads to my case for the Trinity, contrary to your claim that I didn’t explain their relevance.

  Perhaps you should have read the entire post before you started composing your reply.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-01

  “SOME UNFORTUNATE ERRORS”

  Dave,

  The following paragraph, also from comment #33 above, contained claims that shocked me, even after all of the other strange and off-the-wall claims you have made throughout this debate:

  “This vagueness of language and process has been a consistent feature of your exegesis. In some cases you seem to employ it deliberately, to obscure a point and allow yourself some room for exegetical variation if your initial argument is challenged. In other cases your intention is less clear, and seems to reflect indecision or uncertainty. Occasionally you assert a specific definition without substantiating it from an authoritative source (e.g. Biblical lexica), resulting in some unfortunate errors, as we saw from your treatment of morphē in Philippians 2 and aion in Hebrews 1.”

  Responding to this sort of criticism has really become tiresome. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to make the effort, because some extremely important points need to be made.

  First, your suggestion that I sometimes was deliberately vague “to obscure a point and allow yourself some room for exegetical variation if your initial argument is challenged” is essentially a charge of dishonesty. Dave, this is baloney, and you know it. As for exhibiting “indecision or uncertainty,” well, a scholar sometimes admits some uncertainty, because in real life, even in exegesis, sometimes things are uncertain. The polemicist who is unremittingly dogmatic about everything he says has forfeited any claim to scholarship. When I’m sure about something, I’m not shy about stating the truth as I see it confidently, but when I’m not sure about something, I am careful not to overstate matters.

  You don’t give specific examples of either my allegedly deliberate vagueness or my indecision, but I am guessing you are referring with one or the other of these criticisms to my discussion of Philippians 2:6-7. I presented an interpretation of that passage that did not depend on settling the hotly debated questions about the precise meanings of morphē and especially harpagmon. Far from trying to obscure the issue, I was arguing that fixating on these two words had obscured the relative clarity of the passage as a whole. I was quite clear on that point. I am fairly confident (but not one hundred per cent sure) as to the meaning of morphē but much less so regarding harpagmon, even though the current dominant view of harpagmon is especially agreeable to a Trinitarian reading of the passage. (As a scholar, I don’t seize on a view simply because it happens to be convenient support for my position.) As for my initial argument being challenged, no worries there—as I carefully documented, your multi-part series of comments supposedly critiquing my treatment of Philippians 2 almost entirely ignored what I wrote and made no attempt to engage “my initial argument” at all.

  Second, your criticism that I failed to substantiate my understanding of morphē or aiōn “from an authoritative source (e.g. Biblical lexica)” and that this resulted in “some unfortunate errors” is both vague (something you criticize in others, if you’ll recall) and perhaps one of your boldest distortions of the facts in this debate.

  With regard to morphē, I specifically agreed with the scholars whom you cited on its meaning. This is what I said: “I actually tend to agree with Strimple, Decker, and other recent exegetes who conclude that the meaning of morphē is ‘appearance.’” Ironically, several lexicons favor “nature” as the meaning of morphē, some specifically citing Philippians 2:6-7 as an example (e.g., Friberg, UBS, Louw-Nida). Again, this shows that your dogmatism about the meaning of the word is unjustified, but in any case I agreed with the scholars you cited and with their understanding of the word’s meaning.

  As for aiōn, or more precisely aiōnes, in Hebrews 1:2, you quoted selectively from three reference works (that is, you quoted only part of what they said) in order to support your claim that the word does not mean “world.” One of these, for which you (unwisely, as it turns out) provided a link, was the Liddell-Scott lexicon as revised by Jones (not James, as you incorrectly stated more than once). That lexicon’s entry on aiōn includes the definition “space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho aiōn houtos this present world”! You quoted only three words from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), “space of time,” which I could tell immediately was not an accurate representation of what TDNT says. That is one definition of the singular aiōn, but it is not what any of these reference works say about the plural in Hebrews 1:2 and similar texts. Here is what it says about Hebrews 1:2 specifically: “Hence the aiōnes of Hb. 1:2…and 11:3…are to be understood spatially as ‘worlds’ or ‘spheres’” (Greek text omitted as shown by ellipses). BDAG (the 2000 Denker revision of the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon) favors the same “spatial” understanding of Hebrews 1:2. As I pointed out in my rebuttal, the only scholarly comment specifically on Hebrews 1:2 that you quoted (Marvin Vincent) also disagreed with you! I also quoted four additional lexical reference works (Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer) that also all disagreed with you.

  I’m sorry to have to say it, but you are the one who is obscuring the issues. I realize that some of your supporters find your dogmatic pronouncements on everything from lexicography to historical theology to their liking because they, like you, are dogmatically opposed to the Trinity. They don’t mind at all your distortions of the facts, your overstatements, and your overconfident assertions about things you don’t really understand (see 1 Tim. 1:7); after all, they don’t understand them either. I probably can’t help them. However, I am hoping that some of them care enough about truth that they will be genuinely disturbed by your cavalier abuse of biblical scholarship. That is why, although I am personally weary of the debate and feel that I have already done more than enough to support my position, I am still responding.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-01

  Rob, to be clear about your ‘threefoldness’ argument, seem to be saying this:

  1. The Father is God.
  2. The Holy Spirit is God or at least an aspect of God.
  3. Therefore, a verse contains a reference to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (in any context), it proves Jesus must also be God, and the Father, son and Holy Spirit all constitute three person of the Trinity.

  To put it another way, your argument seems to be:

  1. A is an X.
  2. B is an X or at least an aspect of X.
  3. Therefore, a reference to A, B, and C in the same verse means not only is C an X, but X is ABC.

  You have a huge leap of logic between your second premise and your conclusion.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-01

  Rob, with regard to Philippians 2:6-7, I believe Dave was observing that your back and forth over key word meanings in the text was counter-intuitive to your dogmatism over its meaning. You ‘tend to agree’ with those who say ‘morphe’ means ‘appearance’, but as Dave pointed out you don’t actually interpret the verse as if ‘morphe’ means ‘appearance’. This equivocation and indecision over lexical meanings important to your argument does not build confidence in your exposition.

  You cite a ‘UBS’ lexicon. What is this? Is it Newman? You refer to ‘Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer’ in agreement with you, but your selection of lexicons is curious. Thayer has no scholarly standing these days (his lexicon was obsolete less than 10 years after it was printed), Louw/Nida is a translator’s help (a derivative work, not a lexical authority), and Friberg (ANLEX), is good but does not include analysis of extra-Biblical sources, rendering its glosses somewhat circular. None of these are standard lexical authorities. One of them is obsolete (Thayer), and at least one of them is a derivative work which glosses words defined in lexical authorities (Louw/Nida). If Newman’s is what you’re referring to as ‘UBS’, it’s in the same category.

  So why did you leave BDAG, EDNT, LSJ, Spicq, and TDNT out of your list? Is it because they are dogmatic over the word which you say we can’t be dogmatic over?

  I need to review Dave’s argument for aion, but did he actually claim that ‘world’ is not within the lexical range of the word aion? That’s what you’re objecting to, but I would be surprised if he had made such a claim.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-01

  Rob, here’s an application of your argument from the ‘triads’.

  1. Water is a liquid.
  2. Blood is a liquid.
  3. Therefore, in 1 John 5:8, where the Spirit and the water and the blood are referred to in a triadic formula, ‘Spirit’ is also a liquid, and a liquid comprises Spirit, water, and blood.

  I’m jus not convinced this is logically coherent.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, maybe you didn’t understand or didn’t read what Bowman had posted both in issuing his challenge and in the introduction to the debate series. Let me repost the relevant parts:

  3. The individual must agree (as I will) that for the purposes of the debate, everything THE BIBLE SAYS pertaining to God, and specifically pertaining to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is true and authoritative, and that the purpose of the debate is to determine which of our two doctrines is most faithful TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLICAL AUTHORS AS A WHOLE. The Bible is stipulated here to be the 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture. My opponent and I may cite any published translation of the Bible or refer to the Hebrew and Greek texts; if the translation of a particular passage is disputed for some reason, each of us will be free to offer whatever justification we think best in support of our view. I don’t mind if my opponent gets his or her doctrinal ideas from some other source, but the debate must be focused exclusively on which doctrine best reflects or represents THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.

  For the purposes of this debate, we will be focusing exclusively on defending our respective theologies BIBLICALLY. This means that in our debate we are not supposed to address concerns about the development of each other’s theology in church history. We are also not supposed to discuss philosophical arguments for or against each other’s theological model. These historical and philosophical issues may be worthy of attention in their own right, but they are not germane to this debate.

  So can you stop with your smoke and mirrors and actually stay on topic by dealing with the Biblical evidence that Bowman, something I know you can’t do which is why you are trying to divert attention away from the Biblical data. The only thing you can do is arrogantly rant about and hide behind so-called scholarship and who is published in journals and who isn’t.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, now please shock me and prove me wrong by actually engaging Bowman’s Biblical evidence. However, I won’t be holding my breath since even Dave Burke couldn’t adequately deal with Bowman’s evidence or devastating replies to Burke’s attempt at rebutting him.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  Fortigurn, maybe you didn’t understand or didn’t read what Bowman had posted both in issuing his challenge and in the introduction to the debate series.

  Yes, I did. That has nothing to do with what I’m doing here.

  With regard to the lexicons to which Bowman has appealed (a subject you will note Bowman raised, to which you had no objection), I have asked Bowman which lexicon he means by ‘UBS’, and I have asked him why he didn’t use certain other lexicons. Surely you’re not saying that the debate guidelines you quote from Bowman prevent either debater appealing to lexicons?

  With regard to the ‘triads’ of particular words, I am not disputing that ‘triads’ appear in the Biblical text. I agree they appear in the Biblical text. I’m testing the logical coherence of Bowman’s argument concerning what they mean. So far it’s not looking good. If you can make it work, do show me.

  When you’re ready you can address what I wrote.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  fortigurn, you are correct you’re arguments are not working since your comments come back to haunt Burke. Here is what Burke has used for his lexical information:

  We find the same word in Mark 16:12 (“After this [Jesus] appeared in a different form [morphē] to two of them while they were on their way to the country”) and the only other occurrence is in Philippians 2:7. In all three verses the meaning clearly denotes outwards appearance, not “nature”, “substance” or “the essential attributes as shown in the form.” Rob, I invite you to consult such standard lexicons as BDAG, LSJ, EDNT, TDNT, ANLEX, LEHLXX, Louw/Nida and Spicq, for any consensus supporting the Trinitarian interpretation of morphē as “nature.” (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-3-rob-bowman-on-jesus-christ-continued/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ParchmentAndPen+%28Parchment+and+Pen%29#comment-31094)

  I see Burke also using ANLEX and Louw/Nida. So can you now go to that comments section and take Burke to task for sourcing some of the same lexicons that Bowman also referenced, primarily because Burke used them and brought them. And no one really cares or is interested in knowing what lexicons you prefer since you are not the one debating now are you? Burke doesn’t complain so why should you?

  But hey, thanks for throwing your guy under the bus with your comments.

  So now can you actually start addressing the Biblical evidence that Bowman presented by doing something which I know you can’t do, namely exegeting the passages he mentioned and/or demonstrating on exegetical grounds why his arguments are unsound?

  Again, I won’t be holding my breath.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  I see Burke also using ANLEX and Louw/Nida. So can you now go to that comments section and take Burke to task for sourcing some of the same lexicons that Bowman also referenced, primarily because Burke used them and brought them.

  Why should I? If you read what I wrote, you’ll find that I objected to Bowman failing to balance his use of those lexicons, with the others to which I referred. Burke didn’t make that mistake, as you’ve helpfully pointed out. I wouldn’t have minded Bowman presenting definitions from all of the lexicons I listed, and identifying which supported him and which didn’t. What I wanted to know is why he cited only those which supported him, and claimed on the basis of these (rather than the authoritative lexicons), that it wasn’t possible to be dogmatic about the meaning of the word under discussion. Burke didn’t make that mistake either.

  And no one really cares or is interested in knowing what lexicons you prefer…

  This isn’t about what I prefer. It’s about why Bowman has been selective in his quoting from lexicons. I would like to know. That’s a question only he can answer, so why not let him answer it?

  Don’t worry, I also want to know why Burke has been selective in his quoting of lexicons with regard to the meaning of ‘aion’, and I’m going to bother him about that later. I doubt you’ll have any objections?
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, let me also address your false comparison. Appealing to lexicons to establish meaning of the words that are found in the Bible is part and parcel of doing something which you know little of, namely exegesis, which is what this debate is supposed to be about. However, trying to use logic to undermine the Biblical case made for a given position IS NOT! The most you have proven by your appeal to logic is not that Bowman’s exegesis is mistaken but that that the beliefs of the Bible writers are incompatible with logic since, as Bowman has clearly proven, they taught all of the truths which underlie the doctrine of the Trinity.

  Thus, this appeal to logic is a nice trick on your part but it doesn’t work since this is nothing more than an attempt at evasion. Your comments only proves that you know your guy Burke pretty much got decimated in this debate since the Biblical evidence and exegesis that Bowman was just too much and overwhelming for either Burke or yourself to handle or refute. This is why you resort to these smoke and mirrors tactics.

  So thank you for attacking the Bible and proving that it contains illogical teachings! Keep it up, you’re doing great of discrediting your guy and the book you claim to believe in and follow!
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  So now can you actually start addressing the Biblical evidence that Bowman presented…

  As I have pointed out, the evidence isn’t in dispute. It’s Rob’s interpretation of the evidence which is in dispute. I’ve even given a demonstration of why his argument about the ‘triads’ is logically incoherent. If you can show it isn’t, please go ahead.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  Appealing to lexicons to establish meaning of the words that are found in the Bible is part and parcel of doing something which you know little of, namely exegesis, which is what this debate is supposed to be about.

  Great, so now you’re suddenly all smiles about using lexicons. We agree on this.

  However, trying to use logic to undermine the Biblical case made for a given position IS NOT!

  You’re assuming the case is Biblical (fallacy of beging the question).

  The most you have proven by your appeal to logic is not that Bowman’s exegesis is mistaken but that that the beliefs of the Bible writers are incompatible with logic since, as Bowman has clearly proven, they taught all of the truths which underlie the doctrine of the Trinity.

  No that’s not what I’ve done. I am testing the logical coherence of Bowman’s interpretation of the ‘triads’. There is nothing illogical about the ‘triads’ themselves. This is not about attacking the Bible, since the Bible contains no statements about the ‘triads’ at all, let alone what Bowman has claimed about them. I am testing the logical coherence of the claims Bowman is making about them.

  Can you show me that his argument is logically coherent? I have already used an analogy to demonstrate that it is unreliable.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, we are not buying your smoke and mirror tactics. Bowman is debating Burke, NOT YOU. Burke hasn’t objected to the lexical sources that Bowman has appeled to so who cares whether you object or not.

  But I am going to call your bluff. Please provide the lexical information from your preferred lexical sources for the words that Bowman and Burke mentioned, namely aion, morphe, harpagmon, and show us how they define these words in Philippians 2:6 and Hebrews 1:3.

  Like I said, nice debate tricks but we ain’t fallin for it.

  You do have one thing going for you. Even though you have shown that you can’t do Biblical exegesis you have proven that, like Burke, you are a master logical fallacies, i.e. ad hominem, genetic fallacy, appeal to authority etc.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  Is there a reason why you don’t want other people asking Bowman questions? Burke is being asked plenty of questions by other people, and he doesn’t object.

  Please provide the lexical information from your preferred lexical sources for the words that Bowman and Burke mentioned, namely aion, morphe, harpagmon, and show us how they define these words in Philippians 2:6 and Hebrews 1:3.

  Sure, I’m perfectly happy to do that for you (you don’t own any of these lexicons yourself, right?). I’ll even post them in your favorite color. Which would that be? I can’t post them here because there’s no room. I’ll post them on the Christadelphian forum, and paste a link here later. Whatever made you think I would object to this? What makes you think using a lexicon is a ‘debating trick’? You didn’t object to Bowman using lexicons.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, this is my final post to you since I am getting tired with your games.

  You can deny all you want that the Bible doesn’t contain this or that. However, until you can prove your case by doing something which you know very little of, namely presenting and exegeting specific biblical texts to support your position, the only thing you are doing at this point is proving that you cannot engage the evidence presented by Bowman which is why you divert attention away from the Biblical data into another, unrelated issue.

  So until you actually start demonstrating why Bowman’s arguments are BIBLICALLY UNSOUND you have nothing to stand on, except your logical fallacies.

  So instead of asking me whether Bowman’s points are logically valid can you prove me wrong and show that you can demonstrate that his arguments are unsound by providing a sound exegesis of those same Biblical texts?

  We both know you can’t which is why you do everything but provide an exegesis of the passages to show that Bowman’s case is unbiblical.

  Like I said before, i won’t be holding my breath waiting for you to refute Bowman by demonstrating that his claims are Biblically unsound. If Burke couldn’t do it why should we expect that you can.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Please post them in blue since I am going to use them against you to expose your smoke and mirrors. Now run along and get your list ready for all of us to see.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, I think you do have a hard time comprehending what you read.

  As I have pointed out, the evidence isn’t in dispute. It’s Rob’s interpretation of the evidence which is in dispute. I’ve even given a demonstration of why his argument about the ‘triads’ is logically incoherent. If you can show it isn’t, please go ahead.

  Let me make this more simple so that you can understand the point. Can you provide an “interpretation” of those Biblical texts which is based on sound Biblical exegesis to prove that Rob’s interpretation is unsound and unfaithful to what those texts are communicating? Appealing to logic doesn’t do it.

  Hopefully you now got the point and won’t come up with more evasion tactics.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  So instead of asking me whether Bowman’s points are logically valid can you prove me wrong and show that you can demonstrate that his arguments are unsound by providing a sound exegesis of those same Biblical texts?

  If his argument is not logically coherent, then his conclusion about the meaning of the texts does not follow. This means his exegesis is flawed. Why are you trying to avoid proving his argument is logically coherent?

  I have already tested his argument using annother passage of Scripture. If his argument is valid, then it would have produced a logically coherent result with 1 John 5:8. Do you agree with the conclusion I posted about 1 John 5:8? I came to that conclusion using Bowman’s own method of argumentation.

  Are you trying to say that sound exegesis follows from logically incoherent arguments?

  Please post them in blue since I am going to use them against you to expose your smoke and mirrors.

  You can’t use them against me, because I haven’t made any claims regarding the words in question.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  Can you provide an “interpretation” of those Biblical texts which is based on sound Biblical exegesis to prove that Rob’s interpretation is unsound and unfaithful to what those texts are communicating?

  You’re trying to change the subject from Bowman’s exegeis to mine. That won’t work. As Bowman himself has argued more than once, it’s not necessary to provide an alternative exegesis of a text in order to prove that someone else’s is wrong. All that is necessary is to demonstrate a flaw in their argumentation. If you don’t like that, go talk to Bowman about it and explain to him why you think he’s wrong.

  Once again, can you falsify my argument regarding the logical incoherence of Bowman’s claim?
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn,

  You claimed that I argued as follows:

  “1. The Father is God.
  2. The Holy Spirit is God or at least an aspect of God.
  3. Therefore, a verse contains a reference to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (in any context), it proves Jesus must also be God, and the Father, son and Holy Spirit all constitute three person of the Trinity.

  To put it another way, your argument seems to be:

  1. A is an X.
  2. B is an X or at least an aspect of X.
  3. Therefore, a reference to A, B, and C in the same verse means not only is C an X, but X is ABC.”

  Are you even trying to understand the argument, or are you caricaturing it on purpose?

  First of all, Dave and I agree that there is only one true God. Thus, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three divine persons (i.e., persons each of whom are God), then there are three divine persons yet only one God.

  Second, I have already provided biblical evidence, independent of the triadic texts, that the Holy Spirit is a divine person. Since he is a divine person, and since Unitarians agree that the Holy Spirit is not something other than God, we can conclude that the Holy Spirit is a divine person who is himself God.

  Third, I have also provided independent biblical evidence that the Son is God.

  Ignoring the above three points is a large part of the error of your misrepresentation of my argument. I do not interpret the triadic texts apart from the above evidence.

  Now we turn to the triadic passages of the NT. We find numerous texts in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simply mentioned in the same verse (as you caricatured me as arguing) but are coordinated in some significant way. Thus, all three are coordinated as named objects of confession in baptism, as sources of soteriological blessings, as sources of spiritual gifts, etc. These triads coordinating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit provide, as I said, “additional confirmation of the essential deity of the Son or of the personhood of the Holy Spirit or both,” depending on the specific wording of each text. The repeated pattern found across the NT canon demonstrates that the Trinitarian systematic theological formulation is not a mistaken inference from unrelated texts.

  Thus, your representation of my argument as a simple deduction from any text in which all three are mentioned to the conclusion that all three are one God is simply a misrepresentation of the argument.
• Ady Miles

  2010-06-02

  Christ was given the Name above every other name, the Name of God. If He was God Himself, He would not need to be given this Name

  Christ was a man who overcome the temptations of His human nature. If He were God, this would be a meaningless accomplishment

  Christ was born of God and man, which made Him both human and Divine. We are also born of God, and that also makes us Divine to some extent, but it does not make us God. Neither did it Christ
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn,

  You wrote:

  “You cite a ‘UBS’ lexicon. What is this? Is it Newman?”

  Apparently you do know what UBS is, so I am not sure what your problem is. I am referring, of course, to Barclay M. Newman Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart and New York: United Bible Societies [UBS], 1993).

  You wrote, with regard to my citation of lexicons on the meaning of aiōnes:

  “You refer to ‘Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer’ in agreement with you, but your selection of lexicons is curious. Thayer has no scholarly standing these days (his lexicon was obsolete less than 10 years after it was printed), Louw/Nida is a translator’s help (a derivative work, not a lexical authority), and Friberg (ANLEX), is good but does not include analysis of extra-Biblical sources, rendering its glosses somewhat circular. None of these are standard lexical authorities. One of them is obsolete (Thayer), and at least one of them is a derivative work which glosses words defined in lexical authorities (Louw/Nida). If Newman’s is what you’re referring to as ‘UBS’, it’s in the same category.”

  I agree that Thayer’s lexicon is dated, and I would never rest an argument on Thayer’s alone. However, where he agrees with more recent lexicons, I see nothing wrong with citing him as an additional reference.

  Timothy and Barbara Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) is a standard lexical reference work. The fact that its citations are limited to NT texts gives it more focus, but it does not invalidate it as a useful reference.

  J. P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), is also a standard reference work, one that takes an approach that many scholars consider superior to the approach that BDAG represents. Nida is a renowned authority on NT translation.

  The fact is that every lexical reference work is “derivative” in the sense that all such works in current use today derive from much older works that have been revised and revised again, adapted, or simply used as the starting point for a lexicographer’s own work.

  You wrote:

  “So why did you leave BDAG, EDNT, LSJ, Spicq, and TDNT out of your list? Is it because they are dogmatic over the word which you say we can’t be dogmatic over?”

  Apparently, your zeal to find fault is interfering with your ability to read. The very paragraph from which you quoted cites three of these five reference works (BDAG, LSJ, and TDNT)!

  I’m sorry, but I have limited time, so I am reluctant to spend any more of it answering you unless you can show that you have the ability to follow what I am saying at some level.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn,

  You wrote:

  “I need to review Dave’s argument for aion, but did he actually claim that ‘world’ is not within the lexical range of the word aion? That’s what you’re objecting to, but I would be surprised if he had made such a claim.”

  Why are you critiquing my response to Dave before finding out what Dave said? Here, I will quote it for you:

  “Rob, I think it’s important to tell our readers that the Greek word translated ‘world’ here is ‘aion.’ We saw earlier that this word does not mean ‘world’ or ‘universe’; it means ‘age, generation’ (Liddell-Scott-James), ‘space of time’ (TDNT), ‘a long period of time, without reference to beginning or end’ (BDAG).”

  Go do your homework before criticizing, please.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Rob, I didn’t criticize you in the least. I asked you a civil question, and mentioned the fact that I had to go and check Dave’s post.

  With regard to the ‘triad’ argument, please review what you wrote:

  Thus, we agree that two of the three referents in this common NT triad refer to God or an aspect of God. [b]There is some force to the argument, then, that the third referent in this triad IS ALSO GOD[/b].

  That is what you wrote. You argued that two out the three referents refer to God or an aspect of God (premise), so [b]therefore[/b] (conclusion), there is some force to the argument that the third referent is also God.

  As we can see, this form of argumentation is exactly what I described. You are using the identity of two referents to draw a conclusion about the third. Yet now you say you aren’t arguing that at all. If that’s not what you’re arguing, why did you write it?

  With regard to the lexicons:

  You wrote, with regard to my citation of lexicons on the meaning of aiōnes:

  No Rob, I was talking about what you wrote with regard to ‘morphe’. Please read what I wrote. When you’ve done that you’ll be in a position to comment accurately.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn,

  You only quoted part of what I wrote about the triads. You took that one part out of context and ignored the rest, thereby distorting the point I was making.

  You claim that you were talking about what I had written concerning morphē, not aiōnes, when you criticized my selection of lexical reference works. But here is what you wrote: “You refer to ‘Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer’ in agreement with you, but your selection of lexicons is curious.” Your quotation of “Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer” can only come from one place in what I wrote: “As I pointed out in my rebuttal, the only scholarly comment specifically on Hebrews 1:2 that you quoted (Marvin Vincent) also disagreed with you! I also quoted four additional lexical reference works (Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer) that also all disagreed with you.” As you can see, the words you quoted came from my discussion of aiōnes in Hebrews 1:2, not morphē in Philippians 2:6-7.

  As for why I cited the lexicons I did on morphē in Philippians 2:6-7, the answer is right there in what I wrote:

  “With regard to morphē, I specifically agreed with the scholars whom you cited on its meaning. This is what I said: ‘I actually tend to agree with Strimple, Decker, and other recent exegetes who conclude that the meaning of morphē is “appearance.”’ Ironically, several lexicons favor ‘nature’ as the meaning of morphē, some specifically citing Philippians 2:6-7 as an example (e.g., Friberg, UBS, Louw-Nida). Again, this shows that your dogmatism about the meaning of the word is unjustified, but in any case I agreed with the scholars you cited and with their understanding of the word’s meaning.”

  Note that in the above paragraph I cited only three of the four reference works mentioned in your quotation from me, showing that this was not the paragraph you were quoting.

  I happened to have those three lexicons easily at hand at the time, so I cited them as quick examples. By saying “several” rather than “all” lexicons, I was clearly allowing for the fact that some lexicons do not favor the meaning “appearance.” My point was a modest one: the lexicographical reference works do not all line up neatly on one side of the issue, so Dave’s dogmatism on the matter was unjustified.

  Now, let’s have some straight talk from you. I have documented for you that Dave erroneously claimed that “world” was a mistranslation in Hebrews 1:2. Do you agree that he was incorrect on this point? I have documented that his criticisms that I made errors concerning the meaning of morphē and aiōnes and that I failed to cite reference works were incorrect. Do you agree that these criticisms Dave made were inaccurate and unfair?
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Rob,

  You only quoted part of what I wrote about the triads. You took that one part out of context and ignored the rest, thereby distorting the point I was making.

  Sorry Rob, that was your argument. Read it for yourself. You claim that the third of the referents is God on the basis that the others are also, not on the basis that you had previously proved the third referent was God. You’re making your own argument entirely redundant.

  Your quotation of “Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer” can only come from one place in what I wrote…

  Yes that’s right, I grabbed the wrong quote, sorry. You can see however from the context of what I wrote that I was talking about ‘morphe’. Look at what I wrote. You clearly went straight for the quote and ignored the context (ironically).

  My point was a modest one: the lexicographical reference works do not all line up neatly on one side of the issue, so Dave’s dogmatism on the matter was unjustified.

  If you want to make a point like that, you need to actually make it, instead of saying ‘One translator’s handbook, one out of date lexicon, a derivative work, and an NT focused lexicon, disagree with the authoritative professional lexicons’. Which is what you should have said if that’s the point you were trying to make. Dogmatism on the definition of this word is justified, as you can discover very easily by spending some time on B-Greek and B-Trans (it comes up about once a year).

  I have documented for you that Dave erroneously claimed that “world” was a mistranslation in Hebrews 1:2. Do you agree that he was incorrect on this point?

  First I need to read what he wrote, in context. I’ve already told Sam I’ll be bothering Dave about what I perceive to be errors in his handling of the lexical sources, and if I find that your criticisms are legitimate I’ll certainly be…
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Rob, I had to guess what you meant by ‘UBS’ because I am used to hearing it referred to as ‘Newman’, due to the fact that UBS also publish Louw/Nida’s lexicon and a range of other products under the ‘UBS’ title.

  I am not criticizing ANLEX as a lexicon qua lexicon. I am simply identifying its limitations. ANLEX provides lexical glosses on NT word usage. These glosses are chosen by the editors. Its function is to provide generally reliable NT lexical glosses for those who do not have access to the authoritative and exhaustive historical lexical works (BDAG, EDNT, LSJ, TDNT, Spicq), but not to identify lexical definitions through historical research. It is a student lexicon, with a range of simplified meanings. Where its gloss differs from the definition in one of the professional works, it should not be relied on.

  Its gloss on Philippians 2:7 exhibits more theology than lexicography:

  μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (1) form, external appearance; generally, as can be discerned through the natural senses (MK 16.12); (2) of the nature of something, used of Christ’s contrasting modes of being in his preexistent and human states form, nature (PH 2.6, 7)

  I have a lot of respect for ANLEX, but it is a supplement and I use it as such. Much of what I wrote above also applies to Louw/Nida. It’s an excellent work which I use regularly, but it’s a translator’s handbook with a range of glosses, not a historical lexical analysis.

  The problem is that when we look at BDAG, EDNT, LSJ, TDNT, and Spicq, we don’t find ‘nature’ listed in the semantic range of ‘morphe’. This is significant, because they all cite extensively from the relevant Greek literature and because they are all dogmatic on the point on which you say we shouldn’t be.

  I need hardly note the inconsistency of ANLEX, Louw/Nida and Newman in glossing ‘morphe’ with one meaning in Philippians 2:6-7, and a completely different meaning in Mark 16:12. The…
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Rob, you are beginning to see the problem with dealing with Fortigurn. He can’t interact with your exegesis of the texts and can’t accurately represent the statements of those whom he interacts with. Not only has he misrepresented you, but he also misrepresented what I said and what Nick Norelli said. That is why Nick stopped wasting time with him since he saw that he is not serious and doesn’t care to represent people’s beliefs or statements accurately.

  To top it off he goes on these arrogant rants about scholarship and being published in peer reviewed journals even though he himself is not a scholar. This means that per his own criterion we should ignore him and not take anything he says seriously since he is an amateur. Don’t waste your time with him Rob you have better things to do.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam, you’re giving the impression I promote my own ‘scholarship’, and that I claim I am published in the peer reviewed literature. I have never made any such claim, and I have specifically eschewed any such claim.

  If you think that citing relevant scholarship is arrogant, or that I’m arrogant because I prefer to take seriously a relevant peer reviewed journal article over someone with a Bachelor of Homeopathy, you’re entitled to. Just don’t take that attitude to university.
• cherylu

  2010-06-02

  Fortugurn,

  Here is an entire paragraph out of Rob’s article from his conclusion that speaks about this whole issue of triads:

  “Dave and I agree that the Father is God. We agree that the Holy Spirit is at least an aspect of God (Dave thinks the Holy Spirit is God’s power, I think the Holy Spirit is God). Thus, we agree that two of the three referents in this common NT triad refer to God or an aspect of God. There is some force to the argument, then, that the third referent in this triad is also God. I have argued in rounds two and three of this debate that the Son is in fact God and in round four that the Holy Spirit is a divine person. I have further shown in this round that the triadic passages in the NT often provide additional confirmation of the essential deity of the Son or of the personhood of the Holy Spirit or both. These passages therefore provide substantial support, within the larger context of the biblical teaching already examined, for the doctrine of the Trinity.”

  If you read the whole paragraph, it is obvious that he is saying that, “within the larger context of the biblical teaching already examined,” these passages “provide substantial support” for the Trinity. Notice he says, “there is some force to the argument, then, that the third referent in this triad is also God.” And he then goes on to speak of how he has already shown that the Son is God and that the Spirit is a divine person.

  I agree with Rob. As far as I can see, you took what he said out of context. I didn’t reread the whole article so I don’t remember if you could have gotten the impression you did in it elsewhere, but that is certainly the case that you have taken him out of context if you are looking at his concluding comments.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  cheryl, read what he wrote in the paragraph you quoted:

  I have further shown in this round that the triadic passages in the NT often provide additional confirmation of the essential deity of the Son or of the personhood of the Holy Spirit or both.

  He is not saying ‘I use the passages which speak of the son and Holy Spirit as God to interpret the triadic passages as references to the son and Holy Spirit as God’, he is saying that the triadic passages are additional confirmation of the conclusion he reaches in other passages.

  That means that he has to have an independent method of determining that these triadic passages refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God. How does he do that? In precisely the way I’ve quoted.

  If Bowman was really saying ‘I approach the triadic passages with the preconception that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, and thus have no need to exegete the texts to this purpose’, then not only would he be begging the question but there would be absolutely no point in him constructing a logical argument that the passages in and of themselves identify Jesus as God.

  The fact is that Bowman made the argument that because he assumes 2 out of the 3 are God, then he has a very good reason for claiming the 3rd is also God. That is what he wrote.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Rob, this is for your viewing pleasure.

  http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-3-rob-bowman-on-jesus-christ-continued/#comment-32657
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Thanks Fortigurn for proving my point by your recent “response.” Here is some friendly advice. Make sure you take the time to actually read what is before you before commenting since this will (hopefully) prevent you from blatantly distorting and misrepresenting what people write.

  And thanks for also proving why Bowman shouldn’t waste time on you.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Cherylu, don’t waste time on Fortigurn since he can’t help but misread and distort the statements of others. This is typical of those who are involved in cults and sects since you will notice that even Burke was guilty of the same thing. Do what Nick Norelli did and which I am going to do from now, ignore him.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Oh come now Sam, after I’ve gone to all this work preparing those lexical definitions for which you asked? Do you still want them? I have the document here, over 100 pages of reading for you.

  And I seriously doubt you’re going to ignore that link I just gave Bowman. Read that and then tell me I’m misrepresenting Bowman.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Yep, I still want them since I am going to use it against you and Burke. I will use them against you to prove that your complaint against Bowman regarding the lexical sources he referred to was nothing more than a smokescreen. So please send that file my way!
• cherylu

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn,

  But what you are forgetting from that quote of Rob’s are these two statements: “There is some force to the argument, then, that the third referent in this triad is also God.” And this one, “These passages therefore provide substantial support, within the larger context of the biblical teaching already examined, for the doctrine of the Trinity.”

  You are forgetting the “some force to the argument” and the, “within the larger context,” statements he made. They do quailfy the one you quoted.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  cheryl, that doesn’t affect in any way the point I made. You’ve completely cut that first sentence right out of the argument in which Bowman placed it. That was his conclusion at the end of his premises. Read the sentence before it. He says that since 2 of the 3 referents are God, then there’s a good case to be made that the third is also God. It’s an invalid argument from statistics, there’s no exegesis here.

  You’re still not dealing with the fact that Bowman made an independent logical argument for identifying Jesus as God on the basis that two of the other three referents in the triad were God. That was the argument, and he said that gave additional support to his other arguments.

  Sam, it’s clear you still haven’t decided exactly what argument you’re going to make, but that’s ok I can wait. Meanwhile you can go here:

  http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15185
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Foritgurn, your arrogance is repulsive and is simply a symptom of your cult and the origin of your faith (cf. John 8:44). You titled the section where your file appears Because Sam Shamoun Doesn’t Have A Lexicon, which only confirms what I have been saying about you being a master of logically fallacies. This is simply your way of covering up your ineptness of doing Biblical exegesis.

  I didn’t ask for your lexical sources because I don’t have any but because I wanted to use your own sources to embarrass you and to show that your criticism of Bowman was nothing more than a cover up.

  Moreover, your comment about me not deicding what argument I wanted to make only further confirms that you either can’t read proeprly or are being deceptive and that you have no shame to twist the words of virtually everyone that you dialogue with.

  Again, thanks for proving my point time and time again and for demonstrating where your religion ultimately steps from (cf. John 8:44).

  Now that I got these smokescreens out of the way time for me to expose you by quoting from your file.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn,

  I have explained my reasoning concerning the triadic statements in the NT and how they relate to my overall argument. Your attempt to characterize me as using the triadic statements in an independent deductive proof of the Trinity simply is wrong. You have not succeeded in showing that I stated my own argument badly, and I consider myself the world’s foremost authority on what I meant. So with all due respect, I have no interest in hitting this particular ball back and forth across the net with you any longer.

  I’m glad you see the problem with Dave’s handling of aiōnes in Hebrews 1:2. Thanks for addressing this point.

  You wrote:

  “Yes that’s right, I grabbed the wrong quote, sorry. You can see however from the context of what I wrote that I was talking about ‘morphe’. Look at what I wrote. You clearly went straight for the quote and ignored the context (ironically).”

  This doesn’t help you. Assuming you meant to talk about morphē, what you said in the “context” of that quote was also incorrect. Once again, what you wrote was the following:

  “You refer to ‘Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer’ in agreement with you, but your selection of lexicons is curious.”

  Now, ignoring that you “grabbed the wrong quote,” to what end did I cite Friberg, UBS, and Louw-Nida? Was it because they were “in agreement with” me on the meaning of morphē? No; exactly the opposite is the case. Those lexicons disagree with my understanding of the meaning of morphē! I explained this very clearly and repeated it for you. Here it is again:

  “With regard to morphē, I specifically agreed with the scholars whom you cited on its meaning. This is what I said: ‘I actually tend to agree with Strimple, Decker, and other recent exegetes who conclude that the meaning of morphē is “appearance.”’ Ironically, several lexicons favor ‘nature’ as the meaning of morphē, some specifically citing Philippians 2:6-7 as an example (e.g., Friberg, UBS, Louw-Nida). Again, this shows that your dogmatism about the meaning of the word is unjustified, but in any case I agreed with the scholars you cited and with their understanding of the word’s meaning.”

  As you can see, I explicitly disagreed with these lexicons. Thus, your statement, “You refer to ‘Friberg, Louw-Nida, UBS, and Thayer’ in agreement with you,” is incorrect, not only in having “grabbed the wrong quote,” but in your assertion that these lexicons agreed with me.

  Fortigurn, you’re obviously someone who has spent some time with biblical scholarly resources, if nothing else. You’re clearly intelligent and seem fairly knowledgeable. Why hide behind a pseudonym?
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Fortigurn, in the file you produced here is one of the definitions given for aion by the first lexical source you used:

  3. the world as a spatial concept, the world.

  And here are some of the verses listed which bear this meaning:

  Created by God THROUGH THE SON HB 1:2; through God’s word 11:3.

  Now let us see what the next lexicon on your list. On p. 36 we find:

  2. aion as World.

  And guess what it lists on p. 37? Yep, you guessed it, Hebrews 1:2!

  The plural aiones shares the change of meaning. Hence the aiones of Hb. 1:2 (di hou kai epoiesen tou aionas) and 11:3 (katertisthai tous aionas rhemati theou) are to be understood spatially as “worlds” or “spheres.”

  Your third source on p. 49 says:

  5. It is possible that the perception of the world’s time as being filled with the history of this world led to aion having the meaning world (as it did in the case of ‘olam; cf. Sasse , TDNT I, 203f.; E. Jenni, ZAW 65 [1953] 29-35)… According to Hebrews God created the aiones (in 1:2 through the Son, in 11:3 by means of God’s word)…
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  So far the very sources you compiled confirm Bowman’s point while refuting your buddy Burke.

  This means that your complaint against Bowman for using what you pretty much claimed your defective or outdated lexicons was nothing more than a smokescreen SINCE EVEN YOUR OWN LEXICONS CONFIRM HIS POSITION!!!

  Anyway, I will have more quotes to list from your own file t further expose your smoke and mirrors tactics.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam, you clearly haven’t read the post to which I linked. I already pointed out that Burke’s argument with regard to ‘aion’ in Hebrews 1:2 was invalid, citing the very lexicons I provided you with. Not only that, but I gave you a link to that post. Not only that, but Bowman has already acknowledged this, and thanked me for it. Ironically you didn’t realise that I had already done exactly what you have just done, only I beat you to it.

  It’s further clear that you didn’t read my objection to Bowman’s reference to the lexicons, since I was objecting to his citing certain lexicons for the word ‘morphe’, not ‘aion’. I never objected to his citations of lexicons for the word ‘aion’. You haven’t even touched what I wrote about ‘morphe’, and Bowman has already acknowledged that Thayer is out of date.

  So you have the wrong word, the wrong argument, I already beat you to correcting Burke, and Bowman has already thanked me for it. If you had read my posts, you wouldn’t be in this mess.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Sam,

  I didn’t ask for your lexical sources because I don’t have any…

  Then why, when I asked you if you didn’t have them, did you not answer? It’s clear you just don’t have them, or you could have quoted them yourself. Instead I went to all the trouble to look up all those words in half a dozen lexicons, paste them into Word, convert it to a PDF, upload it, and give you a link. Then instead of thanking me you say I’m arrogant for having first offered you information you didn’t have, and secondly for doing all the work for you gratis.

  As an information management consultant I’m used to receiving plenty of information requests, but usually people at least thank me for them. You’re lucky I didn’t charge you my usual rate.
• Fortigurn

  2010-06-02

  Rob, talk me through this.

  Premise: Thus, we agree that two of the three referents in this common NT triad refer to God or an aspect of God.

  Conclusion: There is some force to the argument, then, that the third referent in this triad is also God.

  Now you’re trying tell me that this is not an inductive argument? So what was it supposed to be? Rephrase it algebraically, as I did, and let’s look at what you were trying to do here. Of course we know what you were trying to do here, because you told us. This was ‘additional confirmation of the essential deity of the Son or of the personhood of the Holy Spirit or both’.

  When you’re ready, you can tackle my application of your argument to 1 John 5:8. Thus far you’ve been unable to apply your argument successfully to any other passages, despite my request, so I’m interested to see what you can do with 1 John 5:8 using this argument.
• sam shamoun

  2010-06-02

  Now let us look at what your lexical sources say concerning the meaning of morphe. On p. 54 we read:

  2. generally, form, fashion, appearance…; outward form, opp. eidos, hekatero to eideos pollai… m. theon X.Mem.4.3.13, cf. Ep.Phil.2.6

  So morphe in Phil. 2:6 means outward form which corresponds to Bowman’s belief that it means appearance.

  Here is what your other lexical source says beginning at p. 59:

  4. The antithetical use of morphe theou and morphe doulou in Phil 2:6f. is crucial for understanding the hymn as a whole. In contrast to the traditional Lutheran interpretation, which relates both expressions to the logos ensarkos, it is generally accepted today that 2:6 refers to the preexistent Son of God, and 2:7 to the Son of God become a man. Any additional interpretation of the pair must be based on the parallelism of 2:6 and 7. The change from morphe theou to mprophe doulou is neither a change of appearance, leaving the nature unchanged (contra J. Schneider, TDNT V, 197: “The earthly morphe is also the husk which encloses His unchanging essential existence”), nor a change in the Son’s nature (Kasemann 72: “The heavenly nature was laid aside; the earthly was put on”). To contrast “appearance” and “substance” ignores the wording of the hymn itself (Schweizer; Hofius 57), which we cannot characterize as a reflection on substance, nor does it anticipate the doctrine of the two natures or deal with a change of “mode of existence”…

  Continued in next post.

Comments are closed.