Debate - Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Dr. Michael Brown

[Music] you [Music] good evening everybody welcome to our fire church people as well as students at fire school of ministry and most hearty welcome to all who are visiting with us tonight for the debate between dr. Michael Brown and dr. Dale dougie the organizer of tonight's event kingdom of God ministry and missions would like to thank dr. Dale Tuggy and dr. Michael Brown for debating the important question of is the God of the Bible the father alone kog missions also thank fired church for hosting the event and the following sponsors 21st century Reformation for the video work and the Church of God General Conference and restoration fellowship for funding this debate also for your interest there are some books in the back for sale if you're interested in a subject or in our speakers over on that back counter in a corner of the room near the entrance we're going to have a debate on the subject of whether the father alone is the God of the Bible we'll begin with opening statements each will present for 20 minutes it'll be followed by 12 minute rebuttals then there will be a cross-examination which will be seven minutes apiece in four segments alternating speakers closing statements for each will be five minutes and after that we'll have some time for a question and answer period and we will ask everybody to ask questions alternating their questions to each speaker so everybody gets the same number of questions asked so take good notes prepare yourselves and be ready to ask the tough questions that you didn't hear asked during the debate because sometimes the Q&A can be the most exciting part of a debate okay so we're gonna introduce our participants the question is is the God of the Bible the father alone the person answering yes to that question will be the first to speak and that is dr. Dale Tuggy dr. Tuggy as a PhD from Brown University he is the producer and host of the Trinity's podcast and the author of what is the Trinity formerly a professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia for 18 years he has published scholarly papers on various Trinitarian and nontrinitarian Christian theologies he resides with his wife and children in Middle Tennessee where they attend higher ground church a congregation within the Church of God General Conference and after death dr. Tuggy speaks dr. Michael Brown will follow he is the founder and president of ask dr. Brown ministries and fire school of ministry in Concord North Carolina he's also the host of the daily nationally syndicated talk radio show the line of fire as well as the host of the apologetics TV show answering your toughest questions which airs on the NRB TV network he is the author of more than 30 books holds a PhD in Near Eastern languages and literature's from New York University and has served as a visiting or adjunct professor at seven leading ceremonies we're going to adhere to the time requirements strictly which should be posted within the view of the speakers on the back wall and we have a back up timer in the front row by the camera so we either way you should be able to know how much time you have left and we will begin with dr. Tuggy would you please step up and make your presentation welcome I want to start by thanking kingdom of God Ministry of missions for organizing and sponsoring the debate and also the other sponsors 21st century Reformation restoration fellowship and the Church of God General Conference which is the denomination of my church higher ground Church in Whitehouse Tennessee finally my thanks to dr. Brown for being willing to debate this important topic and to fire church for hosting this event I was born into an independent charismatic church in 1970 and I was born again and baptized in that church in 1978 and it's an honor for me to be here with you my thesis is that the God of the Bible is not the Trinity because the God of the Bible is the father alone the New Testament is just as monotheistic as the Old Testament but it also tells us who this one God is and contrary to Catholic traditions in the New Testament the one God is not the Trinity in the New Testament this one God is the one Jesus referred to as our Father in Heaven the one Paul calls God the Father in the New Testament the one God just is the father and the father just is the one God they are one in the same this is the defining thesis of any Unitarian Christian theology and it's contradicted by any Trinitarian theology a Trinitarian thinks that the one God is the tri-personal God but no one thinks that the father is try personal the Trinitarian says that the one God is the Trinity and so the father gets demoted to being in some sense one-third of God whether a part of God personality of God a mode of God or a person within God the Trinitarian theory requires that the one God is not numerically the same as the Father but rather he must distinguish the one God the tri-personal God from the Father but here fourth century speculations clash with plain New Testament teaching we can observe this identification of the one God with the father in every New Testament author they rarely state this commitment because it was not then disputed but occasionally they express it clearly in John 17 through three Jesus reveals his belief that the father is the only true God and if the father is the only true God that no one else is in first Corinthians 8 Paul tells us that while the pagans believe in various gods as far as we Christians are concerned there is one God the Father in John 8 54 Jesus says to his Jewish opponents if I glorify myself my glory is nothing it is my father who glorifies me he of whom you say he is our God right the god of the Jews the only God you know an Old Testament and New Testament is the one Jesus calls my father in acts the message preached to Jews is that the god of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus in Judaism and in the New Testament the one God is understood not to be a human being but rather a God in fact the only God in contrast Jesus is everywhere in the New Testament portrayed as a real man in John 8:42 scribes himself as a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God the New Testament Jesus is not God rather he is God's Messiah his special human agent called the son of God Paul writes to Timothy that there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus and this one God Paul thinks is the father the New Testament explicitly states seven times that the father is Jesus as God and Jesus is portrayed as calling the father my God in seven other places these father as Jesus as God's Tech's are not the subject of significant interpretive translation or textual disputes in the New Testament like you Jesus is subject to the unique God the Father the skiis is's not taught to be the same God as the father or any God at all there's only one God the Father and he is Paul says the head of Jesus is Christ I want to spend the rest of my opening statement comparing two hypotheses in the light of six indisputable facts about the New Testament the two hypotheses are first that these authors believe the one God to be the father alone second hypothesis is that these authors in the New Testament think the one God is the Trinity if a fact is just what we would expect given the truth of one hypothesis but that same fact would be surprising given the truth of a rival hypothesis then that fact confirms the one hypothesis over the other notice that this procedure does not presuppose Unitarian theology it doesn't presuppose any controversial thesis whatever first fact all four Gospels feature a mere man compatible main thesis this is the thesis that Jesus is God's Messiah while this thesis is plainly and repeatedly stated throughout these books it's highlighted at certain key moments in the first three Gospels Jesus privately asks his disciples who they think he is and their leader Peter replies you are the Messiah and towards the end of the fourth gospel John states his main thesis these signs are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah the son of God and that through believing you may have life in his name wait that's it nothing about Jesus being God God the Son having a divine nature being the god man Jesus has second person of the Trinity this simple thesis only mentions the man Jesus is uniquely important role as God's Messiah saying nothing at all about his alleged deity is what we'd expect if the author thinks the one God just is the father it's not at all what we would expect if he were a Trinitarian and this confirms that these authors are Unitarians not Trinitarians second fact in the new testament the word god nearly always refers to the father and no word in the New Testament refers to the Trinity no word was then understood to refer to the if the New Testament authors were Trinitarians we'd expect them to sometimes use the word God to refer to the Trinity but they never do and we'd expect them to somewhat spread around the title God around the three of them often calling the Sun or the spirit God in addition to the Father but this is not what we see in the New Testament God is nearly always the father all textual scholars agree on this in a small handful of cases no more than eight in the whole New Testament it can be argued that God refers to the son the term God refers to the son but we know that in biblical terminology a human who is subject to God can be referred to and/or addressed using the title God Jesus makes this very point in John 10:30 for quoting Psalm 82 we also see it in Hebrews 1 through 9 quoting Psalm 45 while many latter-day readers suppose that only the one God should be called God biblical authors don't assume that even so all New Testament authors are very stingy about applying the word God to anyone other than the father this would be very surprising if they were Trinitarians but it's just what we'd expect if they hold that the one God is the father alone it's vanishingly unlikely that the New Testament authors believed in a triune God and yet had no word or phrase by which to refer to that God the very fish the very first thing a Trinitarian will do is to coin a word or phrase to refer to the triune God as such they didn't need to use the word Trinity they could just coin a new use of the word God they could talk of the heavenly three or the triple God the divine three etc but we don't see any term or phrase in the Bible which was then understood to refer to a tri personal God these authors lack of any word or phrase for the Trinity is exactly what we'd expect if they instead held the One God to be the father alone in some New Testament God terminology reflects their thinking that the one God is the father and so not the Trinity fact number three in the New Testament only the father and the man Jesus are worshipped one would expect Trinitarian authors to authorize model or portray worship of the Trinity as a whole or at least the worship of all three persons of the Trinity Father Son and spirit but there are exactly two objects of worship in the New Testament God and the human son of God this is plainly seen in Revelation four and five one might worry that two objects of worship means two gods but Paul explicitly teaches in Philippians 2:11 that the worship we give to the exalted Jesus is to the glory of God the Father Jesus is not a second God rivaling God rather he is God's human son and it honors God when we worship Jesus his exaltation to God's right hand implies that all must worship him not as God not confusing him with his and our God but rather as the exalted Son of God it's not a case as Paul says in Romans 1:25 of worshiping the creature rather than the Creator Jesus being a man is a creature yes but in worshipping Him we thereby worship the Creator the one God who raised and exalted him this pattern of worship will be quite a shock if the New Testament authors were Trinitarians first we'd expect to see the holy spirit worshiped at least once second we'd expect the son to be an ultimate object of worship like God so that worshipping Him isn't to the glory of any other third we'd expect to see the triune God worshiped somewhere anywhere it never happens nor do we see the later Trinitarian idea that the son the father and son are two persons within God so that somehow they should count as the same God the actual New Testament pattern of worship disconfirms the theory that the New Testament authors are Trinitarians and like our other facts it confirms that they are Unitarians fact number four the God that God is triune or tri-personal is never a clear assertion of any passage in the New Testament core Jewish theology is always assumed in the Gospels Jesus is an extremely confident and opinionated man who taught as one having authority if he had believed there needed to be a correction or an addition to standard Jewish teaching about God we would expect him to say so he never gets around to telling us that God is three persons in one essence in conversation with one of his fellow Jews in mark 12 Jesus simply quotes the famous Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 basically the statement that God is unique and he gives no hint that the Jews of his day misunderstood it John tells us that God's eternal word comes to us most fully in this man and Paul tells us that Jesus is the very wisdom of God I suggest that we take Jesus seriously as a theologian he teaches that God is our and his father but he never teaches that God is a Trinity neither do Paul Peter John or the author of Hebrews make this a teaching point they teach at length about things like resurrection the second coming of Jesus food sacrificed to idols and how Christians should behave but at no point do they inform us that Jewish monotheism is somehow too stingy because it can finally be told that God is multi personal this would be a shocking omission for Trinitarian authors but these are not Trinitarian authors fact number five there is no trace of any first century controversy about whether or not Christian theology is truly monotheistic everywhere Trinitarian theology goes it creates controversy particularly at first and especially when interacting with rival monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam its opponents commonly denounced it as confused try theistic not a genuine variety of monotheism or as akin to pagan polytheism after all the Nicene Creed describes the father and son as quote true God from True God which sounds on the face of it like two gods but no such controversy occurs in the first Christian century the reason is that there were not any Trinitarians at that time the main New Testament era era controversies are about whether or not Jesus is God's Messiah whether and whether or not Paul as Paul taught non-jews could be fully acceptable to God without full Torah observance but there is no whiff of any controversy about God being multi personal if Christians in the New Testament era were Trinitarians this would be very surprising how could their Jewish opponents fail to notice but it's exactly what we'd expect to see if back then Christians thought that the one God is the father alone fact number six no New Testament author lifts a finger to limit or qualify clear implications of the sons limitations New Testament writings explicitly assert that Jesus got his mission his authority his message and his power from God no writer shows any embarrassment about Jesus's dependence on God in these ways even though for a Jew God does not take orders from anyone and God does not get his authority message or power from any other nor do these authors make the convoluted distinctions beloved by some Trinitarians that Jesus was subordinated as man but not as divine moreover Jesus tells us that he didn't know the day or hour of his return although God did these authors are unembarrassed to imply that Jesus at that time knew less than God hence they're consistent portrayals of him as learning asking questions even feeling anxious about what's going to happen like us the New Testament Jesus puts his faith and trust in God they even quote him without comment as implying that God is good in some way that Jesus is again the New Testament is explicit that God is immortal whereas it's also explicit that the man Jesus died happily his God then raised him and made him immortal in contrast we should think that God is essentially immortal and this not because of any other the New Testament always portrays Jesus as a real man he has a real human mom although according to Matthew and Luke not a human father rather God miraculously made Mary pregnant Jesus the angel in Luke 1:35 says is begotten in Mary by God as with ordinary human reproduction it's assumed there that Jesus was brought into existence at some point in that miraculous pregnancy he's not portrayed as having traveled from some other realm and entering into Mary's womb of course the one God by definition is eternal he never began to exist how can these authors sit back while the reader infers that Jesus came to exist in this miraculous pregnancy notably no New Testament author shows any concern any concern to assert the eternal existence of the Son of God unlike partisans of the Nicene Creed since the 4th century New Testament authors don't say anything to rule out that Jesus came into existence do you think that some New Testament passage teaches Jesus's pre-existence I'll remind you that he's supposed to be a real man a descendant of David but for the purposes of this debate I'll grant you that Jesus existed before the world was created that would make him really really old but notice that existing before the creation of the cosmos does not imply having always existed that's just not a New Testament teaching that Jesus always existed all these apparent limits on Jesus are simply left to stand in the New Testament this is wildly unlikely if the authors are Trinitarians but it makes sense if they simply had no need to argue for the deity of Christ because like other Jews other Jews they believed in exactly one deity God the Father we should be good Protestants and reject even old and prestigious human traditions when they conflict with clear biblical teaching there is such a conflict here the Bible teaches that the one God is the father alone later traditions since the late 300s ad have said that the One God is not the father but rather the Trinity so much the worse for those traditions in my view we should learn our theology from the Lord Jesus and his hand-picked apostles in conclusion you might wonder who is this guy how did I come to these views the answer is I was born and raised in Trinitarian churches although they were Bible oriented evangelical churches we didn't particularly talk about the Trinity except when we sang that one God in three persons Blessed Trinity him but it was never really a subjective a sermon I started to actually look into it carefully when I was a graduate student at Brown and I just assumed up well look obviously all Christians believe in the Trinity there's some crazy cultists running around and some arrogant rationalist who don't who don't believe in things that understand so I'm just gonna figure this out Christian philosophers were trying to work out a way to understand the standard formula that God is three persons in one essence and they started working out five or six different theories about that and I said well one of these has got to work this has got to be true it can't really be contradictory and I was pretty surprised to learn that they all had pretty serious problems this drove me back to the New Testament what really shocked me is that the arguments from the New Testament to the Trinity were very weak and then I started to look into the history of it I discovered that there have been since the Reformation Protestants who thought that this is one more Catholic development that needs to be rolled back in light of the Bible and so it took me about 10 years to really fully make up my mind about I was very very slow again I thought one of these theories had to work but they don't thank God the Bible makes sense thank you thanks so much everyone for coming out tonight thanks for tuning in to the live stream and thanks dr. Tuggy for your comments which I am super eager to rebut just for the moment let me point out that's not a Catholic bone in my body everything to me is what scripture says the fact is dr. Tuggy claims that Jesus is simply a glorified man and I want to declare in the clearest possible terms that the Son of God of the Bible the one we rightly worship is God is infinitely more than a glorified man to make him into a glorified man is to deny the clear and consistent Whiston witness of scripture to make him into a glorified man is to neuter the gospel since the idea that a glorified man died for our sins is hardly a demonstration of the immeasurable love of God to the contrary when God sent his son to pay for our crimes he was giving of his very self so again I'm eager to her but dr. Toby's opening comments and it's clear that a lot of his difficulties come from the fact that the son took on human form hence praying to the Father and having the father as is gone but for now on my opening statement I'll lay out the clear scriptural case that the son is fully divine and since there's only one God then God must be complex in his unity simply stated this one God has revealed to himself to us as father son and spirit and if we accept the testimony of the scripture this is the only fair conclusion now for dr. Tuggy and others this is a logical contradiction but the day we can fully wrap our minds around the nature of God is the day we've reduced him to our level thereby making a God in our own image the God of the Bible is marvelous and transcendent without beginning without end rightly called in Judaism the ain self the infinite one and according to the scriptures clearly complex in his unity when we accept the biblical witness or we try to create a God based on our own limitations and perceptions in the Old Testament the Lord stated categorically that he would share his glory with no one as written in isaiah 42:8 i am the Lord that is my name my glory I give to no other nor my praise to carved idols yet we see in the New Testament revelation 5 that massive glory and honor are given to the son is revelation records then I looked and heard around the throne and the living creatures in the elders in the voice of many angels numbering Myriad's of Myriad's and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voice worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing and I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and then the sea and all that is in them saying to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever and the four living creatures said amen and the elders fell down and worshiped either God has gone back on his word and another created being is sharing in his unique honor and glory or the son is one with the father equally God and note here that all creation worships the Lamb meaning that he himself is not created having interacted with religious Jews for the last forty seven years I can assure you that if the son did not share in the divine nature to worship Him like this would be blasphemous that indeed would be detracting from the worship of the only God and engaging in some form of idolatry this is not like one candle lighting another candle without the first candle losing its light this is like the second candle becoming predominant in this case having millions of people praising and glorifying Jesus and this to this day around the world often without mention of the father if the son is not God then he has taken glory from the father what makes us all the more interesting is that throughout Isaiah 40 through 48 God repeatedly says to himself I am or I am he translated into Greek as a go a me yet that is the very language Jesus uses of himself and John most decisively in John 8:58 truly truly I say to you before Abraham was I am NOT I was but I am so not only this Jesus sharing the father's glory but he identifies himself with the eternal God saying I am or I am he also declaring his eternal pre-existence and just as the lord says in isaiah 40:8 12 i am he I am the first and I'm the last so also in the book of Revelation both the father and son are called the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last so revelation 21:6 speaking of the father who says I am the Alpha and the Omega the beginning in the end then revelation 22:13 where Jesus says I am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last the beginning and the end also see revelation 1:8 he is clearly and unequivocally identifying himself with Yahweh know created being could utter such words only the eternal God could say I am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last the beginning and the end the son is the eternal God that's why in the Old Testament Yahweh's words remain forever I say a 40 but in the new testament of this jesus words that will remain forever Matthew 24 the Lord declared in Isaiah 43 11 I I am the lord and beside me there is no Savior you throughout the New Testament Jesus is hailed as our Savior either he's one with God or there's more than one true Savior Paul leaves us no doubt referring to quote our great God and Savior Jesus Christ in Titus 2:13 that's the most obvious and clear sense of the Greek Jesus is our great God and Savior we also learn from the same section than Isaiah that when Yahweh created the universe he did it alone as written in isaiah 44:24 i am the lord who made all things who alone stretched out the heavens who spread out the earth by my self if the New Testament tells us explicitly that the Sun was involved in creation in John 1:1 Jesus John uses the language of Genesis 1:1 in the situation saying that the word was in the beginning an ark a just like in the beginning God created Genesis 1:1 and explaining that what God was the word was and he continues all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made in him was life and the life was the light of men and John tells us it is this preexistent word this word through which all things were created which became flesh and dwelt among us John 1:14 that's why John the Baptizer explained that Jesus ranks before me because he was before me come one that's why Jesus said he was from above that he came down from heaven that he came from God and was returning to God John 3 John 6 John 8 John 13 that's why Paul wrote in first Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God the Father from whom all things from whom are all things and for whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and through whom we exist even more emphatically he wrote Colossians 1 for a by him speaking of the son all things were created in heaven and on earth visible and invisible whether Thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him and he is before all things and in him all things hold together the text is clear the son is eternal the son is uncreated all things were created through him and for him you really have to gay engage in a hopeless series of exegetical gymnastics to deny the plain sense of these words and remember in Isaiah Yahweh said no one was with him when he created the universe yet these texts say he created all things through his son that can only mean one thing the father and son are one God and that's why Jesus explained that it was his father's will John 5 that all may honor the son just as they honor the father there are other texts which explicitly point to the son's eternal pre-existence and John 7 five Jesus prays to the Father and now father glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed once again the text is clear John also tells us in chapter 12 that when Isaiah saw the Lord's glory meaning Yahweh in his glory and Isaiah 6 it was the son of God he saw the one who suffers and dies in Isaiah 53 Isaiah saw the son of God and the son was called Yahweh that's why Paul tells us explicitly in Philippians 2 that Jesus existed in the form of God yet emptied himself and became a servant dying for us and that's why Paul uses a text speaking of Yahweh and Isaiah 45 23 where God swears that every knee will bow to him and every tongue swear to him and applies the verse to Jesus saying that every knee will bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord if the Sun is not deity that's blasphemous and it cannot possibly be to the glory of the Father just think of the verse we referred to an angel rather than Yahweh it's unimaginable note also that Paul uses the example of Jesus in Philippians as an example of humility he didn't take what rightly belonged him namely the privileges of deity but rather emptied himself on our behalf he who was eternally God came to earth as a servant to die for us that's why Jesus said that he often longed to have mercy on Jerusalem but it was not willing Matthew 23 he was the one wooing his people throughout all Testament times that's why Hebrews 1:8 quoting from Psalm 45 7 says to the son your throne O God is forever and ever yes the son is God and has an eternal throne and no one in the New Testament is designated like this other than Almighty God himself by the way the plain sense of the Hebrew and Greek is apparent and I'll gladly get into that if there's any debating of the translation and not only so Hebrews continues quoting from Psalm 102 a psalm about Yahweh the creator of the universe Hebrews continues quoting from Psalm 102 and applying these words to the Sun and you Lord lay the foundation of the earth in the beginning and the heavens of the work of your hands they will perish but you remain they will all wear out like a garment like a robe you'll roll them up like a garment they'll be changed but you are the same and your years will have no end the Sun is the eternal creator the one who always was and always will be that's what scripture states we don't need to play games with this text and try to make it say something that's not saying the text clearly and indisputably speaks of the Lord creating the heavens and the earth which will ultimately were out but he the eternal Lord will remain the same it hereis applies this to the Sun and Psalm 102 makes frequent reference to Yahweh yet the Sun the psalm is referred to the Sun in Hebrews 1 not only so but the Greek speaks of the Lord creating the universe in the beginning our coasts there's no denying the plain truth of these words and Hebrews makes the consistent argument that the Sun is greater than the angels yet in first century Judaism the very context of these words there is no one higher than the Angels then God himself that's why Isaiah said and 9:6 that one of the Messiah's titles would be mighty God yet it's Yahweh and I say at 10:21 who's called mighty God that's why Thomas said to the risen Jesus my Lord and my god the text is totally clear and that's why Paul wrote in Colossians 2:9 that's the whole fullness of deity dwelt in bodily form in Jesus Peter is clear as well writing in second Peter 1:1 about the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and it's very likely that Paul speaks of Jesus is God in Romans 9:5 well it's most likely that in 1st John 5:20 john states that jesus christ is the true god that's why jesus could say that the father was in him and he in the father john 14 that's why paul identifies the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8 that's why Paul pray to the father and son together in first Thessalonians 3:13 saying now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you and he uses a singular verb in the Greek for the Father and Jesus and why else would Paul include Jesus and a prayer to the Father let alone pray to the father and son using a singular verb in the Greek unless they're one 2nd Thessalonians 2 Paul puts Jesus first uses the singular verb again now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace comfort your hearts that's why prayer is offered directly to the son in the New Testament Stephen praised him in acts 7 Lord Jesus receive my spirit we're taught to pray Maranatha which in aramaic means our Lord come and John calls out to him in revelation 22 even so come Lord Jesus Jesus even told us to ask him for anything indeed do it in John 14 that's why in Revelation 22 we read that the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the New Jerusalem and his servants will worship Him not them but him God in the lamb one divine being in one throne that's why in revelation 22 reread that the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the New Jerusalem and his servants will worship him not them but him God on the lamb one divine being and in the end one throne not two they will see his face not their faces and his name not their names will be on their foreheads to review there's no question whatever that the son is eternal preexistent and fully divine the one through whom all things were created and the one who was worthy to receive praise honor and glory and to whom prayer can be directed that's why he's called God in a number of texts and that's why we worship Him as God one with his father and that's why when Jesus returns to the earth and his feet touched the Mount of Olives as promised in acts 1:11 Zechariah tells us that it will be Yahweh's feet that touchdown Zechariah 14 and that's why we baptize in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit a glorified man has no place between the father in the spirit in fact as we look at the scriptural evidence we see that lying to the spirit is lying to God acts 5 that the spirit can be grieved Isaiah 63 Ephesians 4 that the spirit teachers guide speaks intercedes appoints leaders and bears witness many scriptures for all of that that the Spirit is manifest through wisdom and knowledge and that the Spirit is eternal the Spirit is also God that's why Paul could speak of the love of the Spirit and that's why Paul could invoke this benediction the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all 2nd Corinthians 13 and note you have fellowship with a person not with a thing that's why Christians concluded that God was trying 1 God made known to us his father son and spirit in the New Testament the father is primarily known as God the Son is primarily known as Lord and the Spirit is given various titles to explain his working mission although he sometimes called Lord - as in 2nd Corinthians 3 that's why Jesus could say things like this in John 15:26 but when the helper comes whom I'll send to you from the father the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the father he will testify about me and that's why blasphemy against the spirit not against an impersonal force but against God himself was a damnable sin you are damned for sinning against a divine someone not just a powerful something and it's only when we understand God's try unity that we can understand how people saw God in the Old Testament if the Bible says no one's ever seen God the Father remains hidden it is the son who makes him known that's why Jesus could say if you've seen me you've seen the father and that's where he could say all things have been handed over to me by my father and no one knows who the son is except the father who the father is except the Son and anyone to whom the son chooses to reveal him you cannot say that God created the world through a glorified man or that a glorified man Hebrews 1 is the radiance of God's glory and the exact expression of his nature that's why Jacob in Genesis 48 to strive God as the God before whom my father's Abraham and Isaac walked that God who has been my Shepherd all my life long to this day the angel who redeemed me from all harm this Jacob had created the one true God with the angel who redeemed him this was his way of describing the previous its pre-existing son who appeared sometimes in the Old Testament is the angel of the Lord Jacob encountered unto and just as Paul prayed to Jesus and the father as one using a singular verb so also here Jacob appeals to God and his redeeming angel one being in the singular as well as a Jewish follower of Jesus has always been pressure on me to deny what Scripture probably teaches mainly that Jesus the son is eternal deity and that God's unity is complex but because the word is so clear on this I could not and would not yield to this pressure and by the way there's far more evidence I could bring from the Old Testament to support this time doesn't permit so I urge each of you to fall down at the feet of the glorious Sun and worship Him as God this will please the father who sent his son to be the savior of the world and who continues to work among us by his Spirit and after Paul laid out God's extraordinary plan to save both Jews and Gentiles and Romans 9 through 11 he wrote these incredible words from the Old Testament as well oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God how unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways for who has known the mind of the Lord who has been his counselor who was given him a gift to whom to him that might be repaid for from him and through him and to him are all things to him be glory forever amen so let's stop trying to put the infinite and eternal God into the tiny box of our limited Minds as if we ourselves could figure out or define him or reduce him to a mathematical formula and let's instead worship are trying God with reverence and awe that is humility and that is wisdom thank you all right that's gonna be tough to address a machine go down a lot of verses there but I'll address some of them we can talk more of them in discussion like many dr. Brown attempts to derive some sort of Trinity Theory from the Bible dr. Brown is an unusual Trinitarian he habitually avoids traditionally required language about God being three persons in one essence he substitutes his own novel formulations that in some way the Lord's unity is complex or that God is complex in his unity I agree that God is complex in his unity but I'm a Unitarian Christian in my view God is good and God is wise that is a sort of complexity in the one God he has many different praiseworthy qualities but this just shows that dr. Browns vague formulations do not clearly Express any traditional Trinity doctrine he sets the bar way too low to succeed in his project and if he's going to stand by that traditional language that the father and son are two persons in the one God I think he needs to tell us what he means by persons I think I understand what he means I've read a lot of his work and heard a lot of his presentations and so I'll tell you now about all the Jesus and the Old Testament stuff we can talk about that maybe more later but as the eminent scholar James Dunn says quote there is no evidence that any New Testament writer thought of Jesus as actually present in Israel's past either as the angel of the Lord or as the Lord Himself and quote I would add that they could not have thought this because they all held that Jesus was a real man a literal descendant of David who therefore came to exist in part and indirectly because of David and David lived after the time of Moses as it stands dr. Brown's multi personal God or his Trinity is saddled with a problem common to some other Trinitarian and modal as' the ologies as I've discussed in my book what is the Trinity in elsewhere some Trinitarians interpret these three persons not as selves not as intelligent agents but rather as something like modes personalities or manifestations of the one divine self in other words manifestations of God they think of God as one person in other words this one God lives his life in three ways at once as father as son and as spirit in contrast other Trinitarians think of these persons as selves three intelligent agents who enjoy a wonderful interpersonal relationships and who and love one another and cooperate with one another for them the Trinity is literally Ave and not a he and sometimes they they get poetic about an eternal dance of three perfect friends or something like that now it seems to me that dr. Brown is on the oneself team that he really thinks that God is a single self if this is his theory he's free to correct me then that theory goes hard against the grain of the New Testament these authors teach many things about the Son of God and his God which logically require that they are two different selves they are respectively son father son of God God submitter superior revealer of God the God revealed prayer pray ye obedient master us are obedient servant and master mediator and high priests and in the god who's mediated to profit versus the God who sent the Prophet Messiah anointed one versus the God who anointed him chosen king of the chosen people versus the one who chose both the people and their king and power II empower the one sent the sender dead man at one time razor of that dead man exalt T exalter earthly teacher of divine wisdom and the source of that wisdom sacrifice and sacrifice er recipient of sacrifice none of these pairs of roles make sense unless Jesus and God are two different selves these person to person or self to self relations can't be pulled off by personalities or modes of a single self like happy Trump an angry Trump or Michael the dad and Michael the teacher the solution is clear both the old and new testaments apply the term father to the one god he is a single mighty self and he has revealed himself most fully to us in these last days hebrews 1 says through his unique son god and his son are respectively a god and a very special man let's side with a new testament hearing let go of contrary speculations now the passages that he threw out there all too quickly are he's cherry-picking ones that he thinks that are really obvious kind of slam dunk and they focus on pre-existence pre-existence really isn't to the point and i'll tell you why the way that he's reading john 1 the rate the way that he's reading 1st corinthians 8 the way he's reading colossians 1 these are the descendants of the lagos theorists of the late 100's and on in church history the lagos theorists were influenced by Plato the philosopher who they treated kind of like a sage almost not just intellectual and in Plato's Timaeus he says that the transcendent being could not directly interact with the material world it's I don't know why that's impossible but anyway it isn't possible and so in order to bring about the material world the transcendent source has to first bring about some in-between being that's neither created nor uncreated and only through this in-between being can he interact with creation some of these early theologians were impressed by this and then they looked at John 1 and they said AHA that must be the lago the lagos of john 1 and a lot of ordinary Christians said what we only believe in one God and you know you're talking about two gods and they literally did they talked about a greater and a lesser God or first God in the second God and they said that the first God created through the second and lesser God and common Christians commonly rejected this they were not impressed by this theory they said look the Bible says God created alone now his idea in reading these passages that there's an ultimate creator and then there's like a hands-on creator and it's this pre-human son this eternal divine person that supposedly is the hands-on creator baby look for God to be creator is for God to be the ultimate source of all else and the in-between guy isn't that so even on this theory you've got not exactly a creator in the sense that God is creator you got this kind of instrument guy in there and that's not the same thing John one is a lot that could be said about that the most important thing to see about John one is that it never says that the word the law goes is Jesus it taught it starts off talking about God's eternal Word that's with him and through which he created all things you're supposed to now think of lady wisdom and proverbs chapter eight who's with God while he's creating and then you know God's Word is the light of the world and so on it comes to his own which is uh the people of Israel and gets rejected and now finally in these last days the word became flesh and dwelt among us and then what he's saying is that God's eternal word is revealed to us through this man and there's plenty of precedent in intertestamental literature in particular for what you could call a non-literal incarnation so God's wisdom leaping down from heaven like a warrior God's Torah becoming in booked on earth and things like this and it's actually very understandable that way Colossians 1 I think is about what Paul calls Jesus's new creation notice it doesn't say that Jesus created the heavens and the earth which is the normal way that you'd express creation in one sentence it says he created all things in the heavens and in the earth and then it tells you what those things are and it looks like it's kind of reordering the unseen and the seen powers the powers in the church and the powers in the angelic realm and it's pretty clear that the whole context there is in Jesus's exalted state post resurrection my Lord and my god in chapter 20 look this doesn't really there's no that's not trouble for my view either way because as we know beans other than God can be called God as is seen in Hebrews one quoting the psalm and so maybe Thomas is calling Jesus his God but let's read the rest of the chapter shall we because John then tells you his main thesis which is that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah and that's very surprising if his real point is that Jesus is God okay and also you have to connect it with what went earlier in John Jesus says if you've seen me if you've seen the father and he says the father is working through him and so on and neo now Thomas finally gets it he realizes that God is in Christ that they are one and that they're about the same business and that God truly is working through him I think it's a double confession like the early church did of the one God oh and also the one Lord as you see in 1st Corinthians 8 now what about this I don't I'm not going to give my glory to any other well notice what part of that chapter says my glory I give to no other this is isaiah 42:8 nor my praise to idols right he's not going to share his glory with any of the other alleged deities okay but we know that God gives his glory to another it that's the exact thing that happens in Revelation 5 it's the exact thing that happens to the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 to him was given Dominion and glory and kingship Jesus thanks God in advance for the predestined glory that he's about to get John 17 22 he says the glory that you have given me I have given them so yes God does share his glory he shares it with Jesus dr. Brown I think is making a popular assumption and it's not something that can be assumed it's not a biblical teaching and it's not self-evident like one plus one is two so that's not something that could be assumed in any argument as far as I can tell there's there's nothing that can be said for other than it fits with traditional Catholic and Protestant theorizing this is the thesis that you can only worship someone if they have a divine nature now it doesn't say that anywhere in the Old Testament God says only worship me who were the potential worship 'is there God the God of Israel and the gods of the nations yeah out of those only worship God now in the New Testament the context is different he's now brought his son onto the scene that that old rule is still in force you're not supposed to worship the alleged gods of the nations right but this is precisely what it means to say that he exalted his son to put him in that exalted position is to imply that we all have to worship Him and that is the only reason cited for worshiping Jesus in the New Testament however you interpret Philippians 2 I wish we have more time to discuss that is therefore he's worshipped because of his exaltation also look at the reasons cited for worshiping Jesus in Revelation 5 contrast them with the reasons cited for worshipping God in Revelation chapter 4 okay my time is up thank you alright I must say I'm quite disappointed in the rebuttal time I was accused of machine-gunning verses and then rather than engaging the verses most of the time eight nine minutes was spent just telling me why I was wrong that's a disappointment as for the engaging of the verses oh boy that's a real disappointment to say that Colossians 1 is speaking of a new creation when the text says that all things were created by him and he exists before everything and in him all things hold together Wow and to dismiss a mountain of evidence of the Old Testament which dr. Tuggy surely knows is there by quoting a scholar James Dunn who says no New Testament writers thought of Jesus being there or the son being there in the Old Testament let's engage the text but how about that statement from dr. Dunn what do we do with it 1st Corinthians 10 the rock that was with the children of Israel in the wilderness Paul says was Christ Matthew 23 Jesus the one through the Old Testament who is constantly trying to woo his people John 12 that when Isaiah saw the Sun he saw Yahweh the Sun in Isaiah 6 and that's the one who suffers and dies for us and Isaiah 53 of course the New Testament writers speak of the Sun being present in the Old Testament the idea that there's any connection there with Catholic theology to me is a complete distraction from the issues here and this idea that it's 4th century tradition let's just demolish that right now Polycarp a disciple of John died in 155 wrote about our Lord and God Jesus Christ Ignatius another disciple of John who died in 117 Jesus Christ our God our God Jesus the Christ when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life the eternal the invisible who for our sake became invisible the intangible the unsung who for our sakes suffered these were the apart the disciples of John they understood Justin Martyr died in 165 Christ being Lord and God the Son of God Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ and on and on he was God son of the only unbegotten unutterable God Melito of Sardis died 180 it says because they slew God one of his writings here in the ass of lion 130 the one excuse me died in 202 he himself is in his own right beyond all men who ever lived God and Lord and King eternal and the Incarnate Word Christ Jesus is our Lord and God and Savior and King Clement XIV Alexandre died 215 he alone being both God and man Tertullian died in 225 Christ is also God Hippolytus died in 235 the logos is God being the substance of God God the word came down from heaven Origen died - 54 was incarnate although God and planted the younger Roman governor between a 111 and 113 says that it was the custom of the Christians to sing a hymn to Christ as a god what dr. Tuggy ends up with this multiple gods no problem for Thomas to say to Jesus my Lord and my God but he didn't mean God the same way Hebrews 1 speaks explicitly of the son as God but that's he's not the same as that God only problem is that Hebrews 1 goes on to quote a psalm about Yahweh the creator in Psalm 102 and refers that to the son he who is endless he who was there at the beginning so dr. Tuggy now has multiple gods and he worships a man is gone and there's no problem with that I worship God and God alone to worship anyone else the way God is worshiped is idolatrous that's not just speculation that's Scripture and the idea that billions of people could give praise and honor and glory to the lamb and that doesn't take away from the father's glory long that's one of the biggest issues my Jewish friends have and those who know Jewish literature quite well that's one of their biggest issues because they don't recognize Jesus as God they feel our worship of him is i don''t rest's what about john 17:3 where jesus refers to the father is the only true god what remember john 1:1 has told us that the word was God as many Greek scholars say the best way to understand it what the word was gob was and it doesn't say what dr. Tuggy says in John 1:14 remember he said the word never says that the word is Jesus quite remarkable statement what's the saying John 1:14 not what dr. Tuggy said that the word was revealed through him but rather the word became flesh that's the way it's written the eternal son the word became flesh and that's why he worships his father that's what he prays to his father that's why he has a father that's why he looks to the vog because he took on flesh the man Christ Jesus prays to his father in John 10 he said that he's one with the father and in John 14 he said the father's in him and he's in the father so what is it when he says to the father that you're the only true God well he is praying to his father who was the only true God it doesn't say that he's not doesn't say the son is not if you want to use logic that let's go to Jude verse 4 where it says that Jesus is our only master and Lord well if that's the same logic then the father is not our master and the father is not our Lord so if you're gonna try to use that argument it absolutely defeats itself we were told that Jesus never teaches that God is a Trinity well verses like John 15:26 which I read and by the way I intentionally did not machine gun versus I could have quoted scores and scores and scores were verses rather I explained and quoted verses and I did my best to lay out the meaning of them as well John 15:26 when he speaks as the father and then the son and the spirit and each one having its specific role you say well why doesn't the Bible tell us that we shouldn't worship the spirit well it does say blasphemy against the Spirit is the woman forgivable sin that's pretty weighty it does speak of the Eternal Spirit in Hebrews the ninth chapter I've shown you that lying to God is lying to the spirit that the spirit speaks and acts and has all these other divine attributes but the whole role of the Spirit is to point people to Jesus and then Jesus points to the father so that's the spirit is doing his work the fact that we're not called explicitly to worship the spirit separately is because the spirit is doing his work to point everyone to Jesus who then glorifies the father and doesn't Paul use Trinitarian formulas by speaking of God Jesus spirit and invoking all of them in a benediction and don't we see God's complex unity when Paul prays to father and son together using a singular verb that breaks with grammar when we're told where is the New Testament controversy about the deity of the son well the Gospels record these things the Gospels speak of Jewish leaders getting upset because Jesus is making himself equal with God but we don't have any first century literature outside of what's in the New Testament and the disciples of the Apostles plainly speak about Jesus is God and we know that there's all kinds of controversy that exists about that for centuries because of that very thing oh let's just see here we're told all four Gospels state that Jesus is Messiah and you simply have to believe that well it's also said that he's the son of God and that sonship is given definition elsewhere not just a glorified man and I do need to clarify from dr. Tuggy if he believes that the son did not come into existence until he was conceived in his mother's womb or if he believes he's pre-existing I wasn't clear from his presentation but Jesus says plainly in John 8 that he came from above and unless you believe I am he you will not have eternal life what does he mean by that we've seen the I am I am he statements where he absolutely connects himself with the father with Yahweh of the Old Testament we are we are told that Jesus is a creature but claims that we now worship God through a creature friends that is idolatrous if we're not worshiping the one true God if our loyalty and love is given to someone else we are called on to love God with all of our heart soul mind and strength if that gets divided between God and somebody else it's a divided heart it is idolatrous also if if we take apart this statement you can only worship someone who has a divine nature he denies this dr. Tuggy denies this and finds it to be an unscriptural concept so not only does dr. Tuggy have several gods he's got God the Creator and then he's got God he acknowledges seven eight times in the New Testament the son referred to as God so he's got this other God who's also called our Savior who's also called our Lord who's also worshipped in the exact same way that God has worship remember John 5 that all men onto the son as they honor the father so now you have two different gods one of whom is the creator one is created and they're both worshipped equally that's idolatrous that's polytheism all I want to do is hold the biblical monotheism my roots go back to the Bible and to a Jewish heart not to some later traditions and I'm not here to dispute Creed's if dr. Tully wants to dispute that with the creedal scholar great that's not my issue my only issue is what scripture says let's also recognize that the verses speaking of Jesus is God where he's referred to as our God and Savior you you cannot separate those who say well that's just like Elohim could be used of an earthly judge in the Old Testament something like that no you have no such usage anywhere in the New Testament when these referred to as God it's in the sense of Savior Lord Redeemer deliverer 1st Corinthians 8 says for us there's one God the Father and one Lord Jesus you say well then obviously Jesus is not gobble by that same logic then the Father is not Lord now what Paul does in 1st Corinthians 1 and many scholars recognize this top New Testament scholars as that he takes the Shema the words of Deuteronomy 6 here o Israel the Lord is our God the Lord alone he takes those words and he now breaks them down applying to father and son right there so we can debate the logic of this you know I've got printouts where where dr. Tuggy has a syllogism and others were but the syllogism and back and forth I didn't come to do that that's not my field nor did I come to defend church statements I came jealous for the honor of the eternal son jealous for the one who came down to earth and died for us I came jealous for a full revelation of the love of God who demonstrates his great heart for us not by sending a glorified man to die for us but by giving of his very self his own son his own unique son coming into this world I'm jealous for the testimony of Scripture and those who have held two different views I urge you tonight step back and reconsider the witness of the word thank you we're now going to go into a cross-examination stage if two debaters will come up to the podium we're gonna have us for seven minutes dr. Tuggy will cross-examine dr. Brown and for seven minutes dr. Brown will cross-examine dr. Tugg tugger and then they'll do it another time and after that we're gonna have some closing statements dr. Tuggy you're first maybe you could help us out with this a little bit just to understand your views if you could just fill in the blank in this sentence the Father Son and Holy Spirit are three fill in the blank in God it's not something that scripture exactly defines so that's more of a credo statement I would rather just say what scripture says that the Father Son and spirit or God and that's how God revealed himself to us some say persons but that's using human language to describe God just say it's three aspects of the same God again we're limited by human language in describing on I'd rather use New Testament language you know without the son in spirit or all eternal God mm-hmm okay so you just saying they're all God mm-hmm just using difficult language that's all did I understand you to say that you think Jesus and the father are the same God that the father and son are one God yes okay so God God can be used for example to speak of father son the spirit God can be used to speak of father son or spirit because all three are God so God can refer to God in his try unity or God can refer to the father son of Spirit all are equally God yep right again just trying to use biblical language that's that's all I'm good at right so you would agree that let's say a minute after Jesus breathed his last on the cross Jesus was dead and would you agree at that moment that the father was alive the father was always in life and the son was always a lot but the human body of Jesus died okay so the eternal son so when we speak of Jesus we're speaking of the one who is both God and man who is fully God and fully man so the man died the spirit never died that the the son never died okay so there's a man I mean there's a man I think that's pretty self-evident description in other words you don't crucify a spirit so Jesus again we believe that this is fully man the man Christ Jesus so he was born as a baby he didn't make believe that he was crawling or make-believe he was learning too while he was fully man and that's that's what Philippians 2 is telling us finally he existed in the form of God and this is an example of humility for us right he existed in the form of God but he emptied himself he stripped himself of his divine privileges and came down to earth as a servant fully man suffered as a man died as a man roses a man and also always the Son of God right so you just said that the body died on the cross which I'd not I don't know what it is for a body to die other than if it's just the same thing as a man to die then you said a man died on the cross it sounded like you also think there's this other self there the eternal son do you have two sons do you have a man and do you also have this eternal spirit no one God one one one man I'm not I'm I don't think I follow the question but to be clear to be clear you said that a man Jesus hangs on the cross he says father into your hands I commit my spirit so I'm assuming you believed that he had a spirit he wasn't just a physical being only had a spirit right yes I do assume that right and the spirit didn't die right right okay but you but dr. Brown you said that the father and the son are the same God and you at one time you've got that same woman and alive and that's just nonsense you can't be dead no not yet why I think it's much much better if you didn't put words in my mouth I never said the son died I never said the son didn't die and now you say I said he did die so I don't find that helpful I mean I think we get better progress if you quote me accurately rather than say things I didn't say yes there's only one son in the New Testament and that guy died nothing could be clearer in the New Testament so did you spirit died you said father into your hands I commit my spirit well this is my questions okay and ask me that in a minute all right everyone remember the question yeah okay so it's not clear to me to all that you're a Trinitarian rather than just a modal list it just simply collapses this and the father and to just kind of different manifestation same beam not what's the difference between your view and modalism God is eternally Father Son and spirit is eternal God is eternally Father Son and spirit nothing ballistic in anything ever wrote as you know yeah that's I mean some theologians won't call that modalism but it is alright so we agree I'm not a motorist yeah do you own rate you you you threw out a bunch of not not as they define it you throw out a bunch of little quotes from early church fathers do you think any of these ever mention a triune God your quotes were just calling Jesus God mm-hmm that's all that's all I focused on they use language which contributes to Trinitarian thought their words I'm really unconcerned with what term we actually put on it and in other words if someone insists on using credit aryan terminology that's fine but that's never been my battle and just as a Jewish believer I've always just going back to Scripture and presented what scripture said my point was to demolish your argument that you mentioned right out of the gate that this is Catholic tradition so so these what's very clear is that the the one that these fathers spoke of the disciples of the Apostles absolutely reject at your position if they were here they would have been shouting out loud no no that is not what we believe not what the hell - yeah they were logos theorists they thought that there was a second god and when they called Jesus God they were not collapsing into the same God as the father they're very clear that they think that the one true God is the father whatever presentation on this it's called the lost history of Unitarian theology yeah in any case though to repeat they spoke of the eternal invisible uncreated one coming down that's that's the one god that's not being a logo serious and the fact is that they didn't believe in two gods you have no problem believing in two gods they were monotheists so that that's a big difference there I hope you asked me about that if I believe in two guys dr. Brown where do you see in the New Testament as a reason cited for worshiping Jesus that he's divine or that he's God what was personally stated like this is why we worship Him right well again the focus is on he did for us and therefore he's worshipped for that reason however we don't have many many other verses saying worship God for these reasons so do we do we not worship Him because he's holy did we not worship Him because of no so there's specific statements but other statements explicitly say that everything was created through him that before Abraham was he he is it cetera so that's sufficient in that regard I guess we switch roles now okay so I hope you're enjoying this as much as we are okay so let's let's revisit Hebrews wanna I've read some of your explanations on this when you say it says of the Sun your throne O God is for ever and ever what gives you the idea that that's a different God than Yahweh because it just said just before that that God your God has exalted you so clearly the word God is being used in two senses we have to distinguish two gods from two who are being called God okay you know better than I do that in Old Testament they would sometimes refer to the king of Israel as God know your throne O God is altered you right so that one example is when he's the Messiah that's incarnate they did not freely speak of the king of God god forbid you don't think the original context of that was like a coronation type song nation psalm right but it is going beyond than the one so you realize there's more to it but it's probably you don't find it confusing to say that there's god the god and then the next verse you can speak of god another god and you worship that God but he's not really God that's not confusing yeah let me let me explain this a little bit more length okay in the New Testament there's an ax there's unequivocally one God and we are told repeatedly who that is it's the father it's not the son now what you're saying is there can only be one called God not in the view of Old Testament readers which all the New Testament writers are they know that sometimes another being can be referred to as Elohim in Hebrew and it's no problem to say there's one God and one Lord yes as a matter of fact the term Lord has become more ambiguous in the New Testament because based on psalm 110:1 the lord says to my lord a term used for humans sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet so now the Lord in some context it can be the proper name of God like they substitute that for the name of God in other contexts it's clearly Jesus and it's not their way of hinting that Jesus is the Lord Himself it's this new usage God has made him both Lord and Christ you don't have any problem saying that there's two gods that that one is called God and another is called God and and we worship both but that's not confusing just a yes or no suffice they're they're both called God they're both work I don't say there's two gods I say there's one God but they say all guys say the term very very rarely in the New Testament the term God is ambiguous the term Lord is much more ambiguous and this is why on some occasions New Testament authors will further specify which Lord they mean they will say the Lord God or they will say the Lord Jesus the Lord Jesus Christ etc they're doing that because they realize there could be confusion about who they're meant and that's why they're generally very clear about separating them how our God and Savior Jesus Christ is unambiguous but he was one goes on to quote from Psalm 102 a Yahweh Psalm that speaks of in creating in the beginning creating the universe in the beginning and his days will have no end that's Yahweh that's that's not this other God that you're referring to that's that's Yahweh who created the universe in the beginning and whose days have no one that's explicitly applied to the Sun Hebrews 1 right so Hebrews 1 we need to read it in the context of the whole book okay and the argument on the face of it would be really weird if there's this background assumption that Jesus is God himself or that he's fully divine has the divine nature if you thought those things you wouldn't waste 30 seconds arguing that Jesus is superior to the Angels okay but he sets off on this long course of argument showing that Jesus is superior to the Angels I think it's clear enough that the context there is of new creation it doesn't say Jesus created the world you need to read this in the context of the New Testament in every single New Testament passage where it's totally uncontroversial that it's Genesis creation that's talked about it's the father for instance when Jesus says he created them male and female he's referring to God the Father there okay so creation is whenever it's really explicitly discussed as attributed to the Father I think this has got to be new creation his his whole topic here is the theme of the exalted Jesus exalted to God's right hand he does not confuse Jesus and God in the way that you're doing in fact he says that to provide atonement Jesus has to be made like his brothers in all ways but but it says in do you have a problem with Paul's doctrine of new creation hang on since it's my turn to ask you the questions Psalm 102 is completely unambiguous there's zero ambiguity in it it's Yahweh created the universe in a beginning yes you're saying that's a future creation a new creation I'm saying this is okay and that's somehow evident in Psalm 102 I'm saying that this is a is one of many many cases where a New Testament author takes an Old Testament passage and says it has a second meaning or a new fulfillment in Jesus all the famous prophecies are like this not like this not saying at the beginning his future saying that a past event of creation is a future event of new creation there's no PS on the face of it if it wasn't in the context of this big argument that Jesus and his exalted state is superior to angels you might think well that's got to be the original creation but in the version that they're reading they read it as which was a Greek translation they think it sounds like God is talking to someone else and so he he applies that to me so he got it wrong and they forgot it in the Greek that's quoted it wasn't you know you could you can you can heap that criticism on New Testament authors but they think they have a right to give an inspired interpretation which is not the original intention or the older interpretation so it doesn't trouble you that dr. Tuggy is right and Hebrews got it wrong perhaps the better logic would be the Kentucky has it wrong and Hebrews has it right wouldn't that be the the more biblical and humble approach sir with all respect dr. Brown I'm reading Hebrews one in context and I'm making those two verses you're talking about I'm making them fit in right it's talking about Jesus's exaltation let all the angels of God worship Him well you wouldn't have to tell the angels of God that if he was eternal deity would you enough to tell ya they're the angel to worship God throughout the boats real test yes why are they told to worship God it's an exhortation to do what should be done yeah his assumption is that God is the creator and Jesus he says created the ages which I presume is the new age and the following age right I've made all things are made new in Christ this is not tug ease theory this is Paul you have a problem with Paul if you can't believe that new creation coming up I'm good 0 Colossians in Colossians 1 and in Hebrews 1 yeah Colossians 1 is not a new creation back to you sir okay dr. Brown I didn't really understand your arguments that were intended to address my point that the word God uh you know 99% of time means Father in the New Testament don't you think that's strange if these authors think that the father and Son Holy Spirit are all equally God not at all no not strange in the least bit in fact I take pains as you know and volume two of my series on answering huge rejections to Jesus which which we have here to explain that the primary message of the New Testament is that the Father the one true God sent His Son into the world to die for our sins and the the Incarnation be an extraordinary mystery you have hints of it in the Hebrew Bible where Yahweh appears in human form and yet we're told no one has seen him now the son comes as the radiance of God's glory into this world so his primary role is as Lord and Savior and the father's primary role as God and yet the New Testament repeatedly more than sufficiently tells us that he's God tells us that he's eternal tells us that the world was created through him tells us that he's the first and last so there's no ambiguity there in the revelation but no the emphasis is exactly what I expected to be especially from first century Jewish authors makes perfect sense to me I haven't the least problem with it okay different question dr. Brown are you aware anywhere in the New Testament where an author defends his theology or as Christ ology by saying that it's a mystery meaning that it's something that can barely be understood or something that can't be explained or something that appears to be incoherent yeah well if I say mystery if if if I've ever used the word which I believe I do in volume two of my series I mean it in something sometimes yes yeah yeah so I mean it's um in terms of something awesome and overwhelming and extraordinary and inscrutable not logically contradictory or some of the words that you use so I would just say number one in Romans 11 verses I quoted for that very reason Paul just when he looks at God's acts and redemption is so overwhelming says all the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God how unscrew of all his judgments his ways beyond finding out so it's just his wisdom his ways are beyond finding out so I and then in the New Testament the worship that goes to God the constant falling on one's face is saying this holy holy this eternal God I find Oh Majesty God's ways being inscrutable beyond ours yes expressed in the New Testament and that that's the same oh that I have when I come to God yeah I don't think I mean not understanding God's timing in God's ways is that all the same as presenting what seems to be a self-contradictory theology and then when someone points out that it seems to be self contradictory to defend it as a mystery and again the way I pointed out was you said Jesus and the father are the same God and yet they differ at the same time you didn't want to say that Jesus the sorry that you didn't want to say the father and son differed in the sense of dying because you didn't want to grant that the son died of course would you grant that the father and son have ever differed in any way no not not in terms of deity in terms of function role of course and the son comes down to this earth and the father's greater than the Sun but gee if we say Jesus we're speaking of the Sun in human form Sun is eternal Jesus friend did not always exist the Sun always existed but what I find interesting is you're assuming it's self contradictory and now you want New Testament writers to respond to it being self contradictory whereas they didn't find it self contradictory and remember their Bible was the Hebrew Bible when they started they didn't have the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible calls the Messiah Algy Bor mighty God which is explicitly a title of Yahweh in in the very next chapter Isaiah 9:6 then I say at 10:21 mighty God is the Sun and mighty God is Yahweh if that's not confusing unless the Sun is really mighty god I don't know what would be and then we have examples like Genesis 18 where Yahweh appears and Yahweh has an extensive conversation with Abraham and then he's accompanied by two angels when you had that explicitly so you have already these theophanies of these christophany you have God appearing as I mentioned Genesis 48 where Jacob refers to God and the angel that redeemed him so you already had this that wasn't a problem that's why these believers were so easily able to recognize the son as eternal that being said we have controversies in John 5 over the divine nature they pick up stones to stone him and they they say you made yourself equal with God so whether they understood them rightly or not you could say that was a misunderstanding the fact is the controversies existed for sure yeah you don't want to take the unbelieving Jews word for it in John it's it's it's a hammered motif throughout the book that they keep getting it wrong but was why didn't they get it wrong he was obviously say in your view they got it wrong but he was obviously saying things that made them get it wrong now he corrected them every time but not every time sometimes he lets them stay in their darkness but clear enough like John 10 for instance but one more question do you agree with Paul that Jesus is mediator between God and man and if so do you agree that the very concept of mediation requires three selves the one the mediator in the middle and then at least two other parties yeah the man Christ Jesus is the one mediator between God and man absolutely doesn't say the Sun it says the man Christ Jesus because it's the Sun isn't nation searching the Sun from Jesus none - you got - Jesus is there not separating emphasizing it's the man Christ Jesus if it wasn't the Sun in his incarnation he wouldn't that be the mediator so again it seems to me that a lot of the problems that you have simply are not accepting the Incarnation their words everything everything you said about the Sun makes perfect sense when we understand the Incarnation that that the word became flesh doesn't say that the wisdom of the word was manifest but the word became flesh so the one who is the mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus it doesn't say it's just the son but the man Christ Jesus the son in human free and God's wisdom became the Torah you seem to not get that that can be something other than like a spirit taking on a body I don't get it yes it's not a griten dr. Brown he can't be a mediator between God and man if he's the same self as God that's that's just nonsense that's just a thing that God mediates for himself so here actually you know it's just finished here you actually proved the point because you're saying that he was the mediator between man but he's only a man and he can't be the mediator God if he's good no he can be the mediator because he's God and man so actually what you just said all your grimacing your grimacing at your own refutation of yourself there you got there just happened there all right so I guess we we swap one more time okay just waiting for the clock so how could a mortal say I'm the Alpha and Omega the first in the last the beginning in the end I take it that those are ways of asserting uniqueness and so a mortal could say that because as it says he's the firstborn from the dead and he's a new Adam and there isn't ever going to be another one of those he's utterly unique in that way okay hang on so when God says I'm the Alpha and Omega the beginning in the end the first in the last and when Jesus says that they it's they mean two different things even though it's it's within a few verses of each other the identical words on the lips of the father and the son but they mean toe through the different well dr. Brown context is king and it matters so you're talking about right if you're talking to a guy that plays in the NBA and he says I'm good at basketball that means one thing and if you ask me and I brag and I say I'm good at basketball which is false by the way it's just gonna mean something very different right and so when you're talking revelation in no way confuses Jesus and God by the way and your reading of revelation 2 is just obviously mistaken your you claim that there's a his and a he there that refer to one and the same both to Jesus and to God that's a total confusion it they're referring to God and God is mentioned in that context so it says that the throne of God and the lamb are there and his servants will serve Him and serve Him as God in the lamb nope that's an obvious miss reading so I just quoted it how do I have two of minutes here so the throne of God and the lamb will be in it okay there's God oh and by the way there's also the lamb okay God is not the lamb the lamb is not God there are two selves two beans there and the Verte and the the passage continues and his servants will worship Him they will see his face and his name will be on their foreheads right and the very next verse and then you're like a hot says his they got to be the same he which is a way of saying they're the same self that's why I said if you are a trinitarian you're a oneself Trinitarian the very next verse says and there will be no more night they need no light or lamp or Sun for the Lord God will be their light and they will reign forever and ever okay so it's really God who's the primary and the ultimate object of religious worship in the Bible and it's not tug ease theory that worshiping Jesus to the glory of God is what Paul says explicitly because he's exalted the worship that's given to him is to the glory of God the Father yes so reading through revelation 22 it doesn't say what you said it says it does say that there's one throat of gone in the lamb and his servants worship Him who got on the lamb but if we could just continue on this I just right you read it and it said what I said and then but we'll leave it there folks you can read it in the Bible for yourselves easily enough okay um III do have to say that some of this is beyond shocking in terms of trying to simplify things you end up with an unbelievably confusing theology so we focus now on Paul's praying to Jesus and the father using a singular verb so number one do you pray to Jesus and the father and use a singular verb when praying to both which verse are you talking about with a singular verb first Thessalonians 3 in 2nd Thessalonians 2 verses 313 good second Thessalonians 2 let's have those in front of me I don't know if there's a translation problem you did no there's no translation didn't throw out Jude 4 and Titus 2:13 where if you just look and let's focus on Easterns later let's focus on no I do not okay my view about prayer is that the primary and the ultimate object of Prayer is God and Jesus taught us to pray to God however I do agree that there does seem to be some direct addressing Jesus presuppose in the New Testament such as calling upon the name of the Lord or Maranatha like you mentioned and no I don't pray to God and Jesus with one he because that's to confuse them for the same self in the same beam but this would Paul as if there's no she himself in the same beam Jesus can't be a real man or it's one God Father Son and spirit as the Bible says so you don't pray the way Paul prays 1st Thessalonians 3 2nd Thessalonians through the Greek is very explicit you can dig into this as much as you want it's it's unambiguous in the Greek and it's gotten the attention of many a Greek scholar but first Thessalonians 3 or second Thessalonians 2 versus aliens 3 what 313 and the Greek is this before may he strengthen your hearts and holiness those so that you may be blameless before God and father you know the prayer goes and Jesus spent a lot of the Lord Jesus right the progress to Jesus and the father that he may do these things for us it's a singular verb and it's to Jesus and the father and then in 2nd Thessalonians 2 it's - its first Thessalonians 1:3 it's the Father and Jesus and second Thessalonians it's to Jesus and so you don't pray the way Paul prayed to Jesus and the father or the father in Jesus using a singular verb I don't see I mean I think you're reading your own confusion of them as oneself into the text here I don't see Paul confusing them I see you confusing them right he's distinguishing them now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus Christ and direct our way to you both of them - right otherwise you wouldn't say and and may the Lord make you increase I think that's Jesus and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all just as we abound and love for you and may he strengthen your hearts and holiness so that you may be blameless before our god and father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with his Saints so I think that he in 13 is the Lord that was mentioned in verse 12 I think that's Jesus strengthen yeah well tell you what you where is no praying to God in Jesus under 1 he here there there is so tell you what you weren't prepared to address degree maybe in a subsequent time we can chat on the radio about that I'll give you that Liberty Genesis 48 the exact same thing the prayer of blessing the God of our fathers the God was with us the angel who redeemed bless that singular Hebrew and God is referred to as God God and the angel unless God appeared the angel who's this angel to whom Jacob prays along with God in the singular Genesis 48 who's the angel of the Lord take a cap raised in the singular together with God in Genesis 48 yeah I mean this is an interesting topic the angel of the Lord I mean what was the question what do I make of the angel of the Lord that's oh no I'm not going to answer that you've asked that Jacob prays to god of his father's and the angel who redeemed him yeah and praise in the singular to both of them says may he bless ya speaking of God in the angel right so if you take the angel of the Lord to literally be an angel then you can talk to the angel you're talking to God because the angel is on a mission from God and representing God to you if the angel of the Lord has taken to be a theophany then it's really just an appearance of God but it still could be talked about sort of as if it were a different person than God and so these are the yes because the I mean these are the interpretive options open to Trinitarians and Unitarians got it okay thank you dr. dougie you have a five minutes closing statement you may begin when ready there is no one doctrine of the Trinity notice I didn't say the Trinity is contradictory he assumed that I thought that and he said it I don't think there's one doctrine I think there's mandated language and people make sense of it as best they can and some of them basically think that there's three persons three beans there and some of them think it's just kind of three personalities or aspects or something like that but however which way you take it any Trinity Theory is a doctrine of inference tottering a top of mound of doubtful inferences drawn from relatively few scriptural texts in contrast we Unitarian Christians build our theology on explicit and or clear New Testament teaching in my opening statement I quoted some text which clearly imply the the one God is none other than the father my opponent has not explained those away he's just contradicted John 17:3 oh yes well gee there is another one that's true god it's not what Jesus says I'm gonna stick with him I also described six observable facts about the New Testament which would be very surprising if the authors believe in a triune God but which makes sense if they held that the one God is the father alone my opponent is not adequately addressed as powerful and broad-based evidence for some reason it doesn't bother him that the word god is pretty much always reserved for the father 99% of the time he thinks as a trinitarian that's just kind of the thing you'd expect I beg to differ he has at times cited texts which are difficult to interpret he's a time cited text like Titus 2:13 that there are translation problems about those texts and if you translate them the other way it's not a problem so there's a lot going on here and we can't talk about all of the texts but my position is clear and it's what the explicit New Testament one is the one God is the father also there's the Lord Jesus risen and exalted to his right hand who therefore like it says you should worship not as God not as a second God but as the son of God if you think a disciple should accept the theology of Jesus and His apostles and I urge you to open your minds to this important ongoing scriptural Reformation it's a mistake to collapse God and his son into the same self again in the New Testament in various ways they simultaneously differ from one another it doesn't matter whether the difference is with respect to divinity or not a thing can't be and not be the same way at the same time that's just nonsense if at any time we observed that things differ well we know we're really dealing with two things God sent His Son Jesus never sent his son God and Jesus are not the same beam son died on a cross father didn't I don't know about this son that never died that's not in the New Testament it's not mentioned there are meet this there are mutually and loving cooperating pair they're not just modes or something like that still I don't think dr. Brown has really told you what his Trinity theory is as I mentioned the word Trinity is not in the New Testament but what's more important is the idea of the Trinity the idea of three persons sharing one divine essence is not in the New Testament either if it were there it would conflict with the clear New Testament teaching that the one God is none other than the father dr. Brown has muddy the waters by pointing out that early writers call Jesus God yes they do and these same writers tell you in no uncertain terms that the one true God God in the deepest sense of the term is the father around the year 180 some authors do start to talk about the Trinity but by this they just meant this triad this group of three God God's human son and God's Spirit they didn't use the word Trinity to refer to a triune God that only became popular in the last two decades of the 300s ad the idea of eternity is a blatant anachronism if you're reading the New Testament if you think someone there is talking about a triune God that's like saying that Thomas Jefferson discoursed about the internet the majority of Christian theologians have for a long time speculated that God is somehow triune this is striking to be sure but a disciple must allow that scripture can overtake and overturn long-standing human traditions don't rely too much on the shortcut of siding with the majority in the past this would have burned you on many occasions you would have sided with the majority of Jews against Paul and Peter in the year forty five you would have sided with the Catholics in 1520 in both both cases you'd be making a big mistake don't make that mistake now be a good Berean and study the Scriptures to see if what I've argued is really so thank you I do find it interesting that Kentucky had a prepared final statement which said that I didn't respond to a sorry comments before the debate even happened but we'll put that aside I go with the God of the Bible and completely categorically reject the God created by dr. Tuggy he has two gods you can call jesus your God but he's not really the same God you can worship him as God but it's not really the same God you can give him the same glory as God but he's not really the same God when the father says I'm the first in the last the beginning in the end the Alpha and Omega it means one thing but when the son says on the Alpha and Omega the beginning in the first list it means something totally different well I'll stay with the God of the Bible and the plain sense of Scripture which does not need a philosophy professor or anybody to explain to you the scriptural witness is clear the son is the mighty God he's got all these everyone has chapter in verse with an eternal throne he and the father are one the father's in him he's in the Father he's before all things and in him all things hold together all things were created by him and for him he is the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and last years the great God our Savior Jesus the Messiah and we are saved by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus the Messiah he is God over all blessed forever the radiance of God's glory through whom the universe was created now we baptize in the name of the Father Son and spirit there you have it not baptized in the name of God and by the way this Jesus guy who's pretty good but he's not really gone he's gobby's not really God you can call him God but he isn't gone no no baptize in the name of the Father Son and spirit the fact that I'm accused of muddying the waters by quoting the disciples of the apostles who believe that Jesus was eternal deity I don't know what kind of mud that is that's truth verifying bearing witness to what was read and Psalm 102 quoted in Hebrews 1 oh my here are the words this is I'm reading from Hebrews 1 and you Lord laid the foundation of the earth ends up beginning and the heavens are the work of your hands doctor Tuggy says that is referring to another God and a new creation that that's not eisegesis reading something into the text that's not there that's imaginary interpretation and from those of you who came and supported dr. Tuggy reconsider reconsider john 12 which was not addressed not even any point and attempted rebuttal John tells us that Isaiah saw Yahweh Isaiah 6 and it applies that same character that same person to the one who suffers and dies for us in Isaiah 53 it really is unambiguous and most translators and commentators would agree first John 5:20 this refers to Jesus as the true God and we know that the Son of God has common has given us an understanding so that we may know Him who is true and we are in Him who is true in his son Jesus Christ he is the true God and eternal life you know you've heard arguments to try to show what's reasonable and not and and I'm not a philosopher I just stayed with what the text says the plain sense of the text I believe in one God who has eternally existed and made himself known to us his father son and spirit this is a gentleman named vladimir associates who we just sent something over if we want to use some of the same logic quote logic we heard tonight well jude verse 4 says that jesus is the only sovereign and lord of christians that's 1/2 unitarian in this Unitarianism dr. Dougie's position is true these are two sub positions three since only one person is God as such the father and son do not share attributes the father could not possibly be our only sovereign and Lord if the father is not our only sovereign and Lord he cannot possibly be God so either Unitarianism is false or the father is not God well it's it's a cute little layout in syllogism there but I would urge you friends don't buy these bogus ideas that Colossians 1 speaking of the son being before all things and the one through whom all things are created is speaking of a future creation don't buy this nonsense that when the Sun says I am the first and last Alpha Omega beginning in that he doesn't mean that he's eternal God don't believe anyone that tells you when the Sun says before Abraham was I am using the divine word yeah same as you'd have in Exodus the 3rd chapter where God reveals himself don't believe anyone that tells you he didn't mean what he said Jesus meant when you said Paul meant what he said John meant what he said the Bible means what it says the Sun is eternal God the son the father Spirit one God that is who we worship and I will give my blood for that God thank you thank you that was it going to be a time for a question and answer period I my question is for dr. Brown thank you so much for both of you for the interesting debate so my question is that you said that the son is not the same as Jesus but if Jesus didn't say that the son is not the same as Jesus because he's both 100% God in her purse man I think you said that okay the son is Incarnate is Jesus okay okay but from the Incarnation Jesus is part of the Tri triune Godhead yes doesn't that mean that a man is now part of the Godhead which would be blasphemous because a human man is now part of the Godhead and also when you talk about the complex unity of God are you also accepting that if it's complex it could be more than three it's so just that till now God has revealed in three but it could be four or five you know money so holy spirits yeah two questions no the Bible's explicit Father Son and spirit so it's not more than three but I prefer to speak of God being complex in his unity because the Bible doesn't give a simple formulas the Godhead remains the Godhead church there were different conflicts over the centuries about issues and you know that you're joining the the the humanity to the Godhead and their accusations of that but God remains eternal God he clothed himself in human flesh for a time he did it for example in Genesis 18 when he did it when Yahweh appears to Abraham God remained he turn God just clothed in human flesh so there's no problem with that it's it's not joining anything extra to God God is the only one that we worship as God end of subject you can clothe himself in human flesh for a second or for 30 years or forever that's that's up to him but it doesn't make a man into God or join humanity to deity it's not yes dr. Tucker you get to run a Minnesota ad in response yeah I mean I have a lot to say about traditional two natures speculations and they're super problematic some interpret the natures as beings some interpret that and they say that human nature died on the cross some insert interpret the natures as properties so divine nature's just whatever properties are necessary and sufficient for making something God human nature's whatever properties you have to have to be human I didn't get into that whole thing because dr. Brown chose away from this traditional language he just wants to say and what he thinks is scriptural language that the son is God and he seems to think he's the same self as God he doesn't particularly get into this business of natures if you want to know what I think about two nature's theories look at my presentation called clarifying Catholic Christ ologies online you have a question for dr. Tuggy in Genesis 1 verse 26 and also several other places in the Old Testament this language is used to says then God said let us make man let us make man in our image according to our likeness so I'm wondering how you would explain that us right there in Genesis 1 yes thank you that's a great question so I agree with interpreters like the evangelical Trinitarian dr. Michael Heizer that in the context of that time God is referring to basically as heavenly court that attend him notice that he says let us make man in our image and likeness and then he proceeds to do it all by himself and that might seem a little strange some call this the plural of deliberation or it could be a plural of announce I mean here's an analogy you're hanging out of Thanksgiving and my mom says I know we should do let's make a pie and then my mom just makes a pie and there's nothing particularly problematic about that and later on you know he has become like one of us understanding good and evil yes presumably there is what theologians call a textual scholars call the divine Council what we usually call angels so I think that's the best reading I don't think it's like one person of the Trinity talking to another because again whenever creation is clearly talked about in the New Testament it's the father who they're talking about there are of course a small handful of contentious passages Colossians 1 1st Corinthians 8 John 1 where people think oh this has got to be God there's got be two creators one of which who creates through another one right but I I think those are mistaken interpretations they just derive from those Lagos Theory traditions and it's it's really the log-house theory traditions that are the origin of this saying that the seen God the seen Lord and the Old Testament has got to be Jesus because it's absolutely impossible to see the father you see that in Justin Martyr toward the end of his dialogue with try foe the Jew for instance and it's motivated by what I said his platonic views about God that God can't interact directly with creation so he's got to do it indirectly yeah there yeah so some of what what dr. Tuggy said is possible and of course this great scholarly debate about it but what's interesting and Hebrew now say dumb but sell mainly kyboot a new it's not just let us make but in our image in our likeness so are human beings made in the image of angels in the image of God so although the language doesn't prove Trinity it's in harmony with Trinity as for the attacked texts that are allegedly contentious the only contentious because the son has rejected us the creator there's nothing contentious about John one Colossians 1 1st Corinthians 8 or Hebrews 1 nothing contentious whatsoever but another verse that could have been used to support your point and what I've emphasized Genesis 48 15 and 16 the God and who waise my father Abraham and Isaac walked the God who has been my shepherd from my birth to this day the angel who has redeemed me from all harm singular verb blessed the lads so there we have quite explicitly God and the redeeming angel join together as one and addressed in a singular verb very clearly Trinitarian and understanding there it doesn't work in another sense my question is for dr. Brown I'm curious what your response is regarding controversies we know that Paul the Apostle travelled as a missionary extensively as recorded in the book of Acts and he got in a lot of trouble all over and yet there's no mention anywhere of him proclaiming Jesus to be God or issues that any Jew over the last 20 centuries would have with what we would call a Trinity theory so I just was curious if you could respond to that point and tell us how Paul managed to get away preaching Jesus has gone to Jews and not have them ever get upset about that at all well first thing it doesn't give us every reason that they were upset but we know that they were upset from City after City after city and they claim that he was preaching something new some kind of new doctrine and in Acts the sixteenth chapter when Paul and Silas are saying there's a new religion they're preaching Roman law was you can't bring in another God and we also know that the accusations from the outside that the Christians worship Jesus is God I quoted from from planning for example as so we do have we do have evidence that there was controversy over that and we know beginning in acts 9 I believe that he preaches Messiah as son of God but even more importantly his conversion who are you lord first century Jew God appears to him he falls down who are you lord I'm Jesus so right there we have it and once he preached that that was outrageous but also remember that one of the biggest controversies what it was that was going through the Gentiles touch that seems like no controversy at all but it was a controversy then so there is evidence that refutes your point number two there's the explicit reference to who are you Lord not just some other being there and now he's going to live the rest of his life for this Lord and then we have his explicit statements in the New Testament so Acts tells us a certain amount but generally speaking we're going to draw our doctrine from the explicit statements elsewhere in the New Testament acts 20:28 there's debate over this because the the Greek is not 100% clear but it does speak of the God's sheep bought with the blood of his own is it his own blood or his own and son is left out so that's a debatable point but certainly we could make our case just the same through the book of Acts and from early external evidence that Christians worshipped Jesus as a god so do I have one minute yep okay yeah I mean it sounds like listening to that answer his answer is no there isn't any evidence of controversy about Jesus being God or about God being triune I mean what the controversy was about about is about him being the Messiah about the inclusion of the New Covenant with the Gentiles with resurrection they mock that they mock him for that right I mean what you see early Christians preaching is exemplified in what you see in Acts chapter 2 where Peter says Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested to you by God right two different ones there with deeds of power wonders and signs that God did through him right it's the one God acting through this agent as you yourselves know this man wait how can he just say men and leave it there but he does this man hand it over to you according to the definite plan of foreknowledge of God you crucified and killed right the only Son in the Testament is the killed one by the hands outside of the law God raised him up having freedom from death because it was impossible for him to be held in its power this is the big message nothing about Jesus being God there hello dr. tuggin my question is about the new creation that you seemed to have touched upon in John it says that in him the Lagos is indicated was life and that life was the light of men and the light was manifest and I take the manifestation of that light that was in the Lagos to be the man Messiah Jesus the Lord Christ I'm wondering for a biblical Unitarian does this connect with the creation account where it seems as though Adam came out from the Holy Spirit oh I don't understand what you mean by that last part about Adam coming from the Holy Spirit in the Genesis creation which it seems like John's talking about a creation like Genesis yeah and in 1st Corinthians 15 and in Romans 5 mm-hmm we find out that there is a first and a last Adam the first Adam is clearly a man so I'm saying is it possible that this Lagos is sending out coming out from the Lagos like the breath of life went into the man that that God created yes I mean some contemporary theologians call what you just said a spirit Christ ology understanding Jesus as a man whom God gives with the spirit without measure he says in one place and this is why he has the special calling the special powers the special privileges that he does is because he has that calling he has that empowerment by God's Spirit John one we think is a comment on Genesis and it's it's sort of giving an eternal origin to Jesus in a sense I think he's trying to steal this is just my personal speculation I think he's trying to steal early kind of Gnostics Thunder who had Jesus being some kind of heavily Heon hey I'll do you one better God's eternal word which is in this time closely associated with his wisdom by which he made all things that is what we see in the man Jesus the point that dr. Brown can't seem to get his mind around because he's only ever read John 1 in a la Goss theory kind of way is that 1:14 when it says the word became flesh and dwelt among us is not a spirit gaining a bod or something like that it's like earlier statements where God's Word leaps down from heaven God's wisdom you know becomes a book in in the Torah and things like that it's it's for them it's not a difficult thought again they know they're dealing with a man a man who was recently born not an eternal being it's kind of bizarre that when dr. Tuggy disagrees with me he assumes I'm not familiar with the position I reject of course I'm quite familiar with these other readings and John one is best read in the memory context the the the word of the Lord in Judaism but of course he is and amazingly dr. Toki said in the sense John speaking of the eternal pre-existence of Jesus hello that was my whole point tonight the eternal pre-existence of the Sun this is reading in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God he was in the beginning beginning with God all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made in him was life and the life was the light of man the light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not overcome it and the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory glory as of the only son from the father full of grace and truth slam-dunk simple just accept what it says you don't need any other philosophy go with the word my questions for dr. Brown one of the qualities of the only true God in first John 3:20 is that God knows all things so the all true God is omniscient now dr. Tuggy brought up the verse mark 13:32 or lord jesus christ himself said of that day and hour no one knows not even the angels in heaven nor the son but only the father so Jesus Christ does not know when the day of children is there for he's not omniscient therefore he's not God how do you answer that well the way it's always answered he said in his incarnation what's the mystery he had a sleep as a human being he got tired and slept yet he eat is a human being he didn't know everything is human being the spirit had to reveal things he said he did the works he did the holy spirit and it's very simple self-evident and and why should it surprise us that the Sun as a human being doesn't know certain things why in the world should that surprise us the Sun is human being had to learn to speak the Sun is a human being had to learn to walk the Sun is human being could bleed so of course this is self-evident the same answer that's that's always given to the question and Philippians 2 tells us what happened so again it's quite clear he exists it in the form of God but he didn't hold on to that as something to use for his own advantage rather he humbled himself if he was just too created being it's not humility to become a created being rather he came down he said repeat I came down I'm the bread that came down from heaven I came from the father I'm from above you're from below he states his pre existence every which way possible as dooth as do the other New Testament authors and if he is the Alpha and the Omega the beginning in the end the first and the last surely he has no limitation in his eternal state his son but as a human being of course still be limited that's an incarnation that's what Philippians 2 tells us and that's the example of humility for us that even though as eternal deity he could hold on to that he didn't he stripped himself of those privileges and became a human being and died for us that is the incredible message of the gospel and to make it just a glorified man who died for us is to completely neuter the love of God and the power of the gospel yea so this is another case where dr. Brown is presenting something as obvious as what as in a way the Bible has always been read this way and it's it's just not obvious at all so he's talking about in Philippians 2 when it says the son emptied himself the traditional answer which he sounded like he was going to give for a second was that the son knows everything as God and his limited knowledge as man which of course is nonsense because if you know something in an eighth if you know everything in a nature you know it and if you have limited knowledge in nature you have limited knowledge so that's just a way of saying it looks like that he doesn't doesn't know everything traditionally they accepted the Creed of Chalcedon they would say the characteristics of each nature was preserved and so he had traditionally they would just say no he was omniscient the problem is that looks like he's then deceiving the people listening to him this idea that he somehow lessened his knowledge in the act of incarnation is a new theory propounded in the 1800s it's called canosa's theory you can look it up no one ever said that before the 1800s hey how you doing my own question is for dr. Tuggy um this is coming out of Matthew chapter 21 verse 15 and 16 it says when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he had done and the children who was showered in the temple Hosanna to the son of David they became indignant and said to him do you hear what these children are saying and Jesus said to them yes have you never right out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes you have prepared praise for yourself that comes out of Psalm chapter 8 verse 2 where David was praying to Yahweh to the Lord and he was ordained and the Bible says that he would aim phrase for himself he was indignant because the people was given Jesus the same phrase that was being ordained that was ordained for Yahweh only that's why he said praise for yourself so how can Jesus and Yahweh or God have the same as that craze and not be idolatry if Jesus was in God okay thanks for the question yeah about them getting the same worship look at the reasons cited for worshipping God in Revelation 4 and contrast them with the reason cited worship being the exalted man Jesus in Revelation 5 now about this Yahweh text being applied to Jesus in the passage cited in Matthew 21 this is a common thing in the New Testament okay but there's a problem here I call it the fulfillment fallacy and it's a beginners mistake and read the New Testament you say the original passage was about this person and then the New Testament says it's applied to Jesus so Jesus must be the same one as it was originally about this is an obvious mistake here's one way you can see it psalm 110:1 is quoted many times in the New Testament the Lord that's God says to my lord said in my right hand etc originally scholars believe this was a coronation Psalm some King may be David it's saying God says to David said at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet they apply this to Jesus okay we cannot conclude that Jesus is David or whoever that original king was it's a new application in a new context that's how they're using the Old Testament I'm sorry if I went past my two minutes no I'm sorry to say the clock wasn't there so I'll set my own watch for a minute yeah great points our perfect point this fulfillment fallacy is something that dr. Tuggy came up with so let's just forget that theory and go with Scripture the only way you can take a text that explicitly talks about praise honor adoration that belongs to Yahweh and apply it to anyone else is if that anyone else is Yahweh otherwise it is a gross this application it is taking glory from the only true God not only so let's remember that courious Lord was used in the Septuagint to translate Yahweh almost 7,000 times so that's where you're seeing Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord in your Bible and Jesus is Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord Lord unambiguous the identification was absolutely there that's why it was scandalous to some but glorious to others rather than call it nonsense let's bow down and worship I thank you for allowing us this form I feel like a family reunion all the faces I see here so thank you I got a follow-up for dr. Brown a follow-up question to the debate question is the God of the Bible the father alone on page 11 of the book aside at volume to answering Jewish objections you write on page 11 to the answer to this question in the affirmative say yes using John 17:3 Jesus himself taught that his father was the one and only God and then you say that Paul taught it clearly the one true God our Father and then he is 1st Corinthians 8 mmm-hmm how does that fit and you restated that today you said the father is the only true God so how does that fit with the your position in the negative yeah you never want to quote an author to refute an author because I don't recall if the rest of what I wrote the whole purpose of writing that was to exalt the son as the eternal god can you show me where I said that the son is not the only true God can you show me where I said that hinted at it anything within a trillion miles of that no no no of course not is it true that the father is not Lord Jude for that our only master and Lord is Jesus so you're gonna conclude from that that the father is not our master God is not our Lord 1st Corinthians 8 we have one God one Lord does that mean that the father is not Lord no so you're you are just as dr. Tuggy is constantly putting words concepts into the minds of New Testament writers to come up with these bizarre things when creation in the beginning is a future creation and first in the last Alpha know maybe beginning in actually doesn't means that you and now have to put words in my mouth in my own book so the simple answer read the rest of what I wrote sir it's all there I never said that the son is not true God never said it never hate that in fact the whole reason I wrote that was to reach out to my Jewish people to help them understand the nature of God's conflicts unity and how father son and spirit are God so you should know that reading it but thank you for the question anyway so I never said that the father is God and the son is not or the father is true God and the son is not never said it never hinted that in fact everything I wrote was the opposite of that thank you for asking yeah I mean look if there's one true God and it's the father that just to say that no one else's if Donald Trump is the one true president the United States than anybody that's not Donald Trump is not currently President of the United States the passage is not ambiguous as for Paul well first of all dude for look up what your translators footnote there's a problem with the translation there he keeps saying that and assuming his preferred translation as for Paul he does not confuse Jesus with Jesus as God he calls in Ephesians 1 the Father God the Father the God of the Lord Jesus Christ okay this Lord has a God over him so he's not being called Lord in the sense the dr. Brown would prefer again they distinguished the Lord God from the Lord Jesus look at the start of all of Paul's letters he sends greetings from the two of them if they were the same self that would be senseless I have a question for dr. dougie in Psalms 49 7 through 10 it says truly no man can ransom another man truly no man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice that he should live on forever and never see the pit so when this scripture is saying that no human being can ransom a human being you know every human is broken and sinful how can it be that if Jesus is just a man that he could ransom us from our sins yeah so it's not a New Testament teaching that Jesus has to be God to ransom or to be a proper person to provide atonement for our sins it is a it is an explicit New Testament teaching that Jesus is a man and that he died and as I mentioned earlier tonight in Hebrews 2 it seems to say that a qualification for providing atonement was that he should be like his brothers and all things and that he should be flesh and blood so I don't take the passage that you're you're citing in Psalm 4 9 to be stating some kind of general theory of atonement that's supposed to control how we read the New Testament New Testament doesn't have a lot of theory of atonement in it it says that Jesus is the spotless Lamb that takes away the sins of the world it compares him to the Old Testament sacrifices it says he's God's precious beloved son and it says we know how much God loves us because while we were still sinners Christ not God Christ God's Christ died for us the man Jesus so they seem to think that he's a plenty precious and valuable sacrifice this theory that he has to be of infinite value because the person that provides Toman has to be of infinite value because sins against God have infinite distance um how the values wouldn't balance out right or something like this this comes from Saint Anselm the medieval philosopher and it's just unheard of in Christian tradition before then before then they would speculate in other ways for instance some of the Church Fathers say that Jesus has to quote be God they mean in some sense have divine nature whether or not it's in the full sense they say Jesus has to be God in that having the divine nature so that he can make us God so he can divin eyes this the idea is you have to have a quality before you can give that quality to another which is not true that's that's a ridiculous speculation but yeah anyway you don't want to put too much value in speculations like an Psalms yes so no speculation God gave his one and only Son and if he did not give of him very self of course he couldn't save the world Scriptures explicit there's one Savior you always said he's the only Savior when Paul refers to Jesus unambiguously in the Greek unless you're gonna try to read something out of it because you're troubled by it he speaks of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and Peter says we're saved by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and of course how else is going to save the world and bring righteous forgiveness for the sins of well the reason the Messiah died for us was so precious is because the Messiah is the Divine Son as for dude for looking at translation notes the terms master and Lord both referred to the same person the construction in Greek is known as the Grandville sharp rule as any Greek scholar here would tell us in affirm pretty simple thank you dr. Brown for answering our questions here in dr. Tuggy yes you could both answer this question it's quite simple probably yes or no was Jesus the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6 yeah that's a mistranslation avi odd either means father forever or father of eternity as in possessor of eternity the king was the father of the nation so a better translation either would be father forever or father of eternity or possessor of a returning the son is not confused with the father the son is referred to as Yahweh the father is referred to as Yahweh God and try unity can be referred to as Yahweh but the size of the father and the father is not the son so Isaiah 9:6 pebbel you hov bravia SAR Shalom I'll be awed there is best translated as father forever or father of eternity as in possessor of eternity but he's not called everlasting father there I'll take a pass I don't have anything illuminating to say about that verse okay dr. Tuggy it's been suggested that unless one believes that Jesus is fully God then one cannot believe that Jesus is fully Savior and yet we represent a people who believe that Jesus is fully Savior that if you don't believe that Jesus died for one sins you that he's fully God you can't believe that he died for one sins and yet we believe médaille de 1 sins that if you don't believe Jesus is God then you're taking glory away from God by worshipping Jesus yet as the people we believe in worshiping Jesus and as Unitarians that ought to be a scarier thought to us then men to others and then it's I'm getting to my question and then to wrap around that it's suggested that in the Old Testament the people at least who knew God best actually thought of him as a plurality of beings that two beings were the one God and also the course they believe in the Holy Spirit I want you to speak to the idea of how essential is it that the way we think about God affects whether we can be in relationship with God no God be aware of God I understand you give respect to the faith and genuine faith of people who disagree with us I'd like to hear you talk about why it is that we can look at it in that way we can disagree and still respect the question is why does it matter whether we understand God properly something like that it matters quite a lot in this case and you know I'm a Unitarian but I'm not an anti Trinitarian if you think the New Testament teaches some Trinity theory go for it I think that's what you should believe however when you look into serious scholarship these traditional proof texts just keep falling and falling there's a big trend in this in the last couple hundred years why do I think it's important to distinguish God from the Son of God well partly it's because Jesus is supposed to be a model for us to imitate and I can't put on my omniscience omnipotence in my immunity to temptation and so on and imitate that but I can do what Paul is talking about in Philippians 2 which as I read it and some other scholars read it this way as well Philippians 2 I think is about Jesus's earthly obedience and in fact that is sufficient to make Paul's point have this mind in you that's like the mind that Jesus had basically he says he served God even through a horrible and painful death Jesus is a model of faith for us and it was gracious of him to volunteer to be that sacrifice dr. Brown substitutes his own formulation that God gives of his own self when Jesus has died dies well I think God suffered to see His only Son be crucified I think that was a horrible thing just as if I saw my only son crucified but this idea that it was God himself that died well no God can't die God is immortal and Jesus is the first of many brothers it says and the author and finisher of our faith so it's important to distinguish them when I was a trinitarian which I was for the first 30 years of my life I did distinguish God in Jesus when I read the Bible and then when I started talking about theology I just immediately confused them back together again of course it's not my own theology to embrace the Incarnation and this is a very serious error tonight it's not a minor there was a controversy with Arian who believed that Jesus or the son I should say was the first created being but to deny that and to just make him a glorified man that's very serious very demeaning to the Sun very dishonouring to the Sun of course it matters what we believe about what if we believed he was a sinning human being could he die for our sins obviously not and how can we have fellowship with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit is some kind of power and not personal and how can you give the same worship to a created being the same glory that you give to a created being without dishonouring the Creator that's hardly monotheistic so I'm not the judge of anyone's salvation here but I would say you're espousing a terribly dangerous position that deeply dishonours the Sun and deeply dishonours the father oK we've been going for 30 minutes we have a lot of questions but if you to agree to respond to any more questions we can keep asking or we can cut it off at any point you guys say we do a couple more one more each one more each so we'll do one more each so sorry for those who you get a chance but perhaps you'll be able to but anyway if we if we go to the end of the line we're supposed to go 30 minutes of trying to stay with that if we go to the end of the line and nobody else okay no more people will add to the line and we'll finish the ones we have okay sounds good yeah sure good evening everybody dr. Chuck dr. Brown is my question I know when the Scriptures when Jesus acts as his disciples who he who he is people say he's John the Baptist Elijah and then didn't he acts as a side but who do you say I am he said it's a you don't Messiah Lord my question is um I'm a I don't know the Bible as much as I probably should but I've been reading it for the last four years or so is there a specific scripture where Jesus explicitly says he's God so first thing the disciples say you're the Messiah the Son of the Living God that's the first thing so what does that actually mean it doesn't mean he's just a man does it mean more than man how do we understand this that's that's the first thing the second thing is Jesus does say that he and the father are one that he's in the father and the father's in him and if you've seen him you've seen the father and he says that he enjoyed glory with the father before the world was created and he also takes on the divine identity by saying I am which was what you always said you having for example in Psalm 50 in Hosea 1 as well that oh yeah I am a going me in Greek so in John 8:58 not only does he speak of his pre-existence but directly identifies himself with Yahweh which of course gets people very upset that are there so here's the issue though if he just said I am God what does that mean does that mean that he's father son and spirit does it doesn't mean that God's no longer in heaven what does it mean so he explained things in a way that God the one true God remains seated and throned in heaven and then he identifies himself in very clear ways with that one true God and that's why the rest of the New Testament authors contrary to what we heard that they are all these controversial texts Hebrews wants non controversial the way dr. Tuggy interpreted tonight it's not controversial it's impossible okay but I could go through the top commentaries tell you what take the the top 30 English translations and look up every verse recited and you'll see it ain't so controversial it's what scholars Greek scholars interpreters understand in fact there's been a wave of recent books written exalting Jesus the Sun as eternal deity in fact through some of the best scholarship on that in recent years but but he does say things enough so that when Thomas sees and resurrected he gets it and he says my Lord and my god clear enough yes so what you're talking about is kind of I think the highlight of the first three Gospels when they explicitly say who he is and he says he's the Messiah in the New Testament son of the son of God that phrase is a title of the Messiah you can tell by the way they use it they kind of interchange them the son of god comma that is the Messiah the Christ this this is one of the facts again that's shocking if they're Trinitarian but makes sense on my view this is their main point they do not make a main point of saying that he is God or has a divine nature now he's referred several times dr. Brown to the I am statements the statement I am in Greek a go a me is an idiom that's very often translated I am he or I am the one the one he is in John is God's Christ God's Messiah and even John 8:58 he thinks this refers to eternal existence before Abraham was I am he is the way it should be translated as dr. Brown knows Jews will talk about predestined things as having always been and that's an example of that yes in this scripture it says for there are three that bear record in heaven the father the word in the Holy Ghost and these three are one which is first John 5:7 yes this used to be a favorite proof text for Trinitarians and all current translations of the Bible say that that verse was not in the original Greek text erasmus discovered this the famous 16th century new testament scholar he discovered that none of the greek manuscripts have that verse the way you quoted it he took it out there was an outcry because how else are we going to prove the Trinity if we don't have this verse that says these three are one and so under political pressure he put it back in biblical Unitarians and other kinds of Unitarians kind of led the charge in the 17 and 1800's saying hey that's not in the text so yeah look at the NIV or the new American Standard New Revised Standard you're probably looking at the King James I'm guessing yep yeah I think we probably agree on this one okay everybody get out your cameras watch this on this point we agreed that first John 5:7 as in the King James is not in the original text however I totally disagree that there was a panic because that was the only way to prove the trinny it's just people thought it was in the Bible and it was a great proof text and it was a beautiful text but but it wasn't and all the Trinitarian arguments that existed in early church history that they didn't need that text well I find fascinating though to go back to john 8:58 jesus said to them truly truly I say to you before Abraham was I am if you say I am he so they picked up stones to throw with him why because he said hey I'm the predestined Messiah before Abraham lived no because he claimed to be the pre-existed eternal God that's why they picked up stones to stone I'm sorry but I got to stay with the word here thank you hey my questions for dr. Brown and it is referring back to whenever you were talking about the angels appearing to Jacob I put Abraham I believe and if the angels of God which appear in the Old Testament as eight if the angel of God which appears in the Old Testament as an agent of God as Jesus does that may thus that make God an angel and in it and if this is so then why would he appear as an angel in the Old Testament and not in his man form as you later say he does in the New Testament yeah thank you for the question so Hebrew mala like Greek Angelus can mean an angel or it can mean a messenger it doesn't speak necessarily of a particular quality of being so there are examples where my loss other than I the angel of the Lord appears and that person thinks they're gonna die because they've been kept they've seen God himself Jacob wrestles with a man Hosea 12 says it's a mile off it's an angel and then he names the place Peniel he says because I've seen God face to face and live Genesis 18 yahweh appeared to abraham and he looks up and there are three men and then it says that yahweh and the two angels as you read the text yahweh has an extensive dialogue with abraham at the end of the chapter the two angels go on to Sodom in the nineteenth chapter so in Genesis 48 Jacob says and in the Hebrew grammar is very very clear anyone that could read Hebrew would have to agree grammatically he speaks of God God and the angel he redeemed all as one and then prays in the Hebrew that that one will bless so Jacob explicitly identifies this angel with whom he wrestled who appeared to him the one who redeemed them as Yahweh as God and then for example in Exodus 23 God says that his name is on his mala his messenger and that that's why he will not forgive their sins so in some cases it could simply be there's an angel bearing divine glory and because of that people were terrified I'm sure dr. Tuggy would believe that was the case where the angel was representing God in other cases it's clear that the people encountered God in the Moloch in the messenger but that's the whole point he appeared in a few instances in human form or angelic form in the Old Testament and then tabernacled among us took on human form and lived among us in the New Testament yeah dr. Brown says a lot about this angel of the Lord and tries to get it to show that God is somehow complex in his writings he makes he makes the point often that how can God both be enthroned in heaven on earth he seems to he doesn't quite put it this way but he seems to suggest unless there are multiple persons or different parts of God or something like that and my reply to that I skipped some of that in the rebuttal because he mentioned 50 other texts but my reply to that is it's very easy for an all-knowing all-powerful God to appear in 47 different ways at once to in some sense be in heaven and be on earth and appear in different ways about this idea that you should absolute eyes this statement that you can't see God and live a leading Old Testament scholar Benjamin summer says what is surprising is how many people discover that there were exceptions to this rule so it looks like in the Old Testament Isaiah saw God Amos saw God Abraham Moses saw God in some sense did they see him not in his full glory did they see a manifestation did they see an angel these are disputed questions but you don't build a theology on the disputed questions hi thank you very much for taking a little extra time with us and for answering a few more questions I really appreciate it this is something that's been touched on briefly throughout the evening but it's valuable enough that I think it deserves to be recapitulated perhaps in a little bit different way dr. Brown this question is actually for you there have actually been a few things that have given me some pause in your view about the death of Jesus I've heard you say that Jesus you know had to be God to pay for our sins and of course dr. tucky has challenged that with well how could God die but dr. Brown you say that the death on the cross was really a separation it was a separation of the body and the spirit but the problem I see with that is that in 1st Timothy 6 16 it says that God can't die says that he is immortal so that means that whatever death is however you want to define death whatever death is God can't do it so that's problem number one and then number two adding another layer of complexity onto that you said many times this evening that the son didn't die now as a Christian that gives me a little bit of pause when somebody suggests that the son didn't die the New Testament says in a few places explicitly that it was the son that the son of God died Jesus himself the person the personality he says I died I was dead God it says gave his son it's the person of his son that's who he gave it wasn't a body it's the death of the person of the son that is valuable enough to be worthy to be the sacrifice of our sins which I which I know you agree with so what do we do with a crucifixion scheme in which number one God can't die and then you say yes that God the Son didn't die so who actually died for our sins how can you help us make sense of your crucifixion sure glad glad to do that allow me just to clarify that when dr. Tuggy just quoted from Benjamin's summer it's the wrong guy to quote because the whole reason Benjamin sum was saying that is because the oldster physician similar to mine and he said some Jews regard Christianity's claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion both because of the doctrine of the Trinity and because of Christianity's core belief that God took bodily form no Jew sensitive to Judaism zone classical sources however we can fault the theological model Christian employment allows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as the Holy Spirit and heavenly manifestation for that model we have seen it's a perfectly Jewish one so as to your question a spirit doesn't die a body dies correct in other words Paul writes in Philippians 1 to be absent that he longs to be with Jesus which is far better that 2nd Corinthians 5 to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord revelation 6 the souls of those beheaded or under the throne of God crying out so we understand that the human spirit doesn't die the human spirit either goes to be with God or to a place of judgment but the physical body dies and we know that and yet we say the person died right someone died here's the obituary when they died what died their physical body so just like God doesn't die a human spirit doesn't die Jesus says in Matthew 28 don't for your people you can only kill the body but God who after he's killed the body can also destroy the soul or the spirit in hell so when Jesus dies for us what dies the physical body what's crucified a physic body and the person lives in that body so when the body dies when the blood is shed you say the person died but that the spirit of that person didn't die so the nature of God within Jesus never died but the physical body died we use that terminology a trillion times or a thousand times a day in terms of you know look at every obituary that's when the physical body died the spirit is either with God or in a place of judgment so yeah doctor some doctor summer who is a Jewish scholar he seems to think that the Trinity is just God manifested in three different ways if you think that I see why you would love that quote as far as I can tell your view is basically modalism except that your modes or personalities are Co eternal they're not one after the other I think that's a disastrous view of the New Testament for the reasons I already said now about who died I talked about this a great length in detail using two nature's theory and a presentation called says mystery of the immortal died the problem is that to die is to lose all or most of your normal life functions you think that the real Sun which took on a body is this divine person and you think that divine life just went rolling along as normal and so that's why you're you're saying that he didn't die you say the body died well to die again is to lose all or more of your most of your life functions to appeal the dualism doesn't help here because we still think that the person in this and the casket is dead whether or not there is a soul that exists that's another point thanks a lot for taking the extra questions he actually took my question so I get to ask another one dr. bond I would just say be very careful in saying that the you like question is productive all for both I'll ask both of you then okay but he gets the longer answer though yes we're going back inside yeah Jesus Christ said I died jesus said it let's not call him a liar Jesus the Messiah Amani mati Jesus the Messiah said I died let's not forget so my question is it's kind of a quiz in the book of Acts let's actually back up to the last chapter of Luke when the Messiah Jesus appears resurrected from the dead what did he go back into the Old Testament to show the Apostles and then he does it two times in Luke chapter 24 and then what do the Apostles in the book of Acts continually go back into the Old Testament to show the Apostles is it the deity of Messiah or is it something else Thanks yeah I mean what they show is that the Scriptures prophesy that the Messiah has to be killed unjustly and then raised and exalted and I quoted earlier Acts chapter 2 dr. Brown is insisting that it's essential to the gospel that you realize that Jesus is God and that God is in some way complex I don't see preacher Peter preaching that I see him preaching that Jesus was a man which is my view and that God raised him and the God he's talking about is the father and my view and Peter's view is that that is the one true God I don't believe in two gods I think the word God can some be up sometimes be applied to up beings other than God which is an uncontroversial statement for a scriptural scholar and I think the word there's the Lord God and there's the Lord Jesus and the New Testament does not confuse them in fact it constantly distinguishes them for us Christians there's one God the Father and there's one Lord I'll just take my one minute to be fair okay thanks please don't accuse me of misrepresenting or misquoting Jesus Jesus on the cross his father into your hands I commend my spirit that he commend his body his spirit and he says I have the authority to take my life back up that's not just a human being and by the way I'm not saying professor summer is a trinitarian as I am I'm simply saying that his views are used in support of our position quite frequently and I'm not Moda list but I do believe you believe in two gods so at least we're clear on that a bottom line bottom line when a person dies we are speaking about their physical body he shed his blood and when Jesus opens up the scriptures to his servants what are they then right afterwards they speak of the divine son the one who was in the beginning the pre-existent eternal one the one who himself is God where did they get that from obviously from Jesus himself thank you thank you can we show appreciation for our two debaters tonight [Applause]

Channel: 21st Century Reformation

Views: 90,138

Rating: 4.688623 out of 5

Keywords: Dr. Michael Brown, askdrbrown.org, Fire Church, Dr. Dale Tuggy, Trinities.org, Biblical Unitarianism, Trinitarianism

Id: Oi300_FvFz0

Length: 161min 7sec (9667 seconds)

Published: Sun Jan 13 2019