Sunday, 13 October 2013

Response to savedbybaptism's arguments regarding the Trinity and other issues.

This article is dedicated to refuting arguments that a Unitarian heretic brought to me.

savedbybaptism or BibleTeacher is a unitarian on Paltalk who has a habit of coming into a room and condemning the people as whores of Satan and various other terms.

What this article intends to do is deal with his arguments and refute them.

John 11


Firstly I shall tackle John 11. It has been abused by savedbybaptism where it recalls the death of Lazarus.

If my memory serves me correctly, savedbybaptism tried using this text to demonstrate that Jesus himself cannot be God because he died and because scripture doesn't say his soul lived on.
savedbybaptism's methodology when it comes to scripture is that he demands an explicit verse when you make a point such as "Show me the verse where it says God the Son and God the Holy Spirit".

Anyway, let's look at the following texts from John 11:
"11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” 12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”"

Firstly, these were the texts that savedbybaptism used to deny Jesus as God because of this text.
What's funny is that the New Testament elsewhere speaks of people who are alive even after they are dead. They died, but they didn't cease to exist. If I assumed sbb's point correctly, he is assuming that death means ceasing to exist.

As I have said before, Death in a Christian context doesn't mean ceasing to exist, death is biological cessation. It is not heresy to say God died provided death is correctly defined. Jesus as the God-Man did NOT cease to exist, the unitarian if I recall admited that Jesus went to Sheol. If he is in Sheol, Jesus would still be fully conscious and communiate with others who were there. It is only heresy to say that God ceased to exist, not to say he died.

Whether or not savedbybaptism holds the view of soul sleep, Although I am uncertain about what he believes regarding this, but appealing to the texts where someone has died doesn't refute Christ being God.

Also, there are other texts that speak of Abraham, Issac and Jacob are alive though they are dead. Death occured with the OT saints, but they didn't cease to exist.

In addition to that, Jesus went to the underworld or Sheol when he died and he didn't cease to exist, He was full conscious and communicating which can be found 1 Peter 3:19. Jesus, as the God Man, DIED, but he didn't cease to exist. I know I am repeating this point but I need to hammer this point home.

Furthermore, After the resurrection, where did the saints in Abraham's bosom go? To heaven. Thus they were still alive, even in Sheol. Lazarus went to Sheol as well and Christ raised him.
Jesus used sleep as a euphenism for death, but that doesn't mean he said that they were not conscious, like the doctrine of soul sleep teaches.

You don't need an explicit referrence which is cut and dry, you just need to look at the context. 

Romans 16:16


There are arguments that are so ridiculous and absurd that you wish you didn't have to address them.
It is  savedbybaptism's constant claim on paltalk that his church goes back to the time of the apostles and he often appeals to Romans 16:16 to try and justify this abject stupidity.

Let's briefly look at the verse.
"Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings."
It is claimed by savedbybaptism that his denomination the Church of Christ goes back to the time of the apostles based off this text. However, every student of the Bible will agree that a passage has to be read within it's context. You can make the Bible say what you want with the common abuse of certain texts out of their context. A text out of context in isolation from cotext is always a pretext as the saying goes.

Let's look again at Romans 16:16 in it's context from verses 1-16

"16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a][b] of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. 3 Greet Priscilla[c] and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. 6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among[d] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test. Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. 11 Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew. Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord. 12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other brothers and sisters with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the Lord’s people who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings."


The churches that are mentioned within the context are a specific group of churches who are sending greetings to the Roman Church (not Roman Catholic I hastily add) and they are to greet the saints whom Paul has commended. 

As we can plainly see from the context what we have from savedbybaptism is a gross misuse of the verse as well as ridiculous anachronism. 

Yes it was a silly argument to address and there are others to address that are worthy of one's time, but hey, Why not have a little fun and a little laugh in your apologetic.

Trinity Texts

In this section I shall be quickly responding to a few arguments brought to me by savedbybaptism. 

The first is regarding Luke 13:16 where it says the following:
"14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”
15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”
17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing."

His argument against the Trinity using this verse was this. If Jesus is God why didn't he call them sons and daughters, he called the woman a daughter of Abraham and if he was God he would of called them "My son like a Catholic priest", He calls them brethen instead. That's the jist of his argument.

Well, why should Jesus call them sons and daughters? He is not the Father. savedbybaptism assumes unitarianism which is the Father alone is God and Jesus is not. Assuming Unitarianism doesn't prove that. As I have stated before, The Father is the only true God, but not to the exclusion of the Son or the Spirit. However, this argument is in adequate and the better one is that the phrase " The only true God" can be understood in the sense that the Father doesn't derive his existence from anyone or anything, whereas the Son and the Spirit derive their existence from the Father. The concept is known as autotheos. The Son and the Spirit are just as eternal and equal in essence to the Father, but derive their existence from the Father. .Furthermore, the subject of being children of God is irrelevant to the context of the passage in question, it is referring to healing on the Sabbath, That's all. No detriment to the Trinity at all.

Next is Matthew 10:40. In that verse it says:
"40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me."

The verse in question refers to if you welcome Jesus, you welcome the Father also, and if you welcome the disciples, you are welcoming Jesus. In this verse, it doesn't make the apostles God whatsoever. Jesus being sent by the Father is doesn't damage Trinitarianism, Amen, Jesus was sent by the Father, but from where? From heaven, not as an angel, but as God the Son in eternity past with the Father.

Next the subject of John 1:1, sbb often abuses the Strongs concordance to try and say that "Jesus is the Logos, he is the spoken word". However, even though Jesus is the Logos, it is not merely a spoken word, The word is identified as a person. Words only have a given meaning in a given context, and the context of John 1:1 says the Logos is a person, let's read it.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

That's what it says, The Word was already existing, there wasn't a point of origin. The Word exists FACE TO FACE with the Father, What a mere utterance was face to face with God? No, The Logos, a person was face to face with God and lastly, the WORD WAS GOD or THEOS WAS THE LOGOS, God was the Word. It is clear that the Word was WITH God and WAS God. Sounds like Trinitarianism to me. I will also post an article in the description below that responds to Anthony Buzzard on the subject of John 1:1 which would be an interesting read for you. http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/Scholars_Buzzard.htm

Next we move on to Philippians 2:5-11, which demonstrates that not only was Jesus in nature God or in the form of God (morphe theou), he lays aside his divine perogatives and takes the form of a slave. Let's read:
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father."

A great testimony to how the Son of God who is not the Father, humbled himself and took the form of a slave. 

One of the claims sbb made was that Moses was in the form of God, But he didn't show any evidence of this. If he is referring to Moses being made a God, That just simply means that Moses was made God's representative. 

As for his argument regarding 1 Timothy 2:5, that issue is addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-tovia-singer-on-did-authors.html


Hebrews 1:8-12 is addressed here in this article




I'll mention Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 briefly here while I am at it. In the New Testament, it is common for the Father being God and Jesus being Lord as their primary designations. Do these negate the Father as Lord or the Son as God? Absolutely not. Also, Even if you want to argue that Lord is used of angels it depends on CONTEXT.as I have clearly stated in a previous video. Jude refers to Christ in his letter as the only Soveriegn Lord, does that mean he excludes the Father from being Lord? Of course not. There are commentaries that speak of this issue which i'll post in the description below.



Now, I hope I have addressed savedbybaptism's arguments and hope that this has been a blessing to you in annihilating the points that were presented to me. sbb, if you are reading this, If you want to refute me, actually make a response and send it to me.
 

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment