Justin Martyr was Trinitarian

In regard to the video by Dale Tuggy (a Unitarian) that Yahya Snow (a Muslim) put up; (over at Paul “Bilal” Williams’ blog, Paul is also a Muslim, a British Muslim who had an evangelical experience before becoming a Muslim, but started studying and believing liberal theology and that really messed him up.  If a person is truly converted, liberal theology would not bother them so much as to cause them to give up their faith in Christ; and they would not convert to Islam.  As 2 Peter 2:22 points out, the nature of that person was not changed.  Jesus said one can claim to know God and call Jesus “Lord, “Lord”, but it is possible that they never knew the Lord truly and genuinely. Matthew 7:21-23; see also 1 John 2:19)  The first step of Satan’s temptation to Eve was to subtly doubt and question God’s word, “Did God really say . . . ?”  (Genesis 3:1-8) That is what liberal theology and liberal scholarship does; it starts slowly with doubts about God’s Word, the Scriptures.  But a true believer can read and study liberals and be vigilant against their subtle lies and attacks and find victory as long as one is also truly regenerated (John 3:1-10), and has a hearty devotional life in the Word and by submission to God each day, trusting in God’s sovereignty and wisdom and goodness.

In regard to this video by Dale Tuggy, who is a Unitarian and has dedicated himself to attacking the doctrine of the Trinity; Tuggy claims that Justin Martyr was not a Trinitarian. Justin Martyr is one of the earliest Christian writers after the NT was completed.  He lived from around 100 AD to 165 AD.  He was executed by Rome for his faith in 165 AD.

Dale Tuggy quoted one passage in that video.  Even that passage can be taken as affirming the divine triad of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and distinguishing between the persons, even if he did not use the word “person” or other terms for the same substance in the oneness of God between the persons. (like Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14)

There is a lot more in Justin Martyr’s writings that show he indeed was Trinitarian, and distinguished between the Father and the Son and yet also understood that the Son is the same nature as the Father. The passage that Dale Tuggy quoted shows that Justin Martyr understood the three persons in a triad of some kind of equality in power and status and nature and worship, which even Dale Tuggy admitted; even without the words like “homo-ousias” and “persons” (hupostasis) – The concept of the Trinity is communicated even without using the words, “Trinity” or “homo-sousias” (same substance) and hupostasis (person).

There is much more than this, but this is sufficient for now; as I don’t have time to type up more, etc.

“And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him.” [Matthew 11:27 – shows a high Christology in Matthew] Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said.” [ shows Justin Martyr knows John 1:1 and the teaching of the whole Gospel]

[My comments in brackets]

“The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, [against modalism] are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63

See at
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxiii.html

Posted in Apologetics, church history, Deity of Christ, Development of Doctrine, early church history, The doctrine of the Trinity, Theology, Theology of God | 2 Comments

Answer to the census during Qurinius’ governorship question in Luke 2:2

Posted in Apologetics, Historical reliability of the Bible, Reliability of the Bible

The Truth of the Nicean Council (325 AD) and Arian Controversy- 318-381 AD

So many mis-conceptions and lies are repeated about the Council of Nicea of 325 AD, it is necessary to constantly revisit the review the facts of it. Be sure to watch the video, a good 9 and 1/2 minute summary of the Council of Nicea, and be sure to read Dr. James White’s article, “What Really Happened at Nicea?” also. (linked to in the article)

Apologetics and Agape

Paul Bilal Williams, a British convert to Islam, has reposted an article on the Council of Nicea by Unitarians, that is very skewed and inaccurate.  (No longer there, since Paul Williams deleted that blog.)

The Unitarian source is inaccurate and skewed.  These 2 statements make the article not credible.

1.   “It was 325 A.D. at Nicea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius . . . “

2.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, of one substance with the Father.”

Both of these statements are inaccurate.

Paul needs to get up to speed and be more scholarly and read this book.

I wonder why Paul Williams didn’t let my comments through, which documents more accurately the events of the…

View original post 1,500 more words

Posted in Apologetics, church history, Council of Nicea, early church history, Nicea, The doctrine of the Trinity

Earliest New Testament traditions confirm the Deity of Christ, the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ.

This is a debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Shabir Ally on the Deity of Christ and the earliest NT writings/traditions.  Dr. White did an excellent job of showing the earliest traditions / writings do demonstrate that the earliest followers of Jesus believed in His Deity.  Dr. White draws from what modern scholars note are the earliest strands of tradition – James 2:1, 1 Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:5-8; and all through the gospel of Mark.  Scholars consider James one of the earliest NT books written, 1 Corinthians was written in 55 AD, Philippians 62 AD and has the hymn to Christ which goes back earlier, and most scholars believe the gospel according to Mark is the earliest gospel that was written.  This is all demonstrated even without using the gospel according to John, even thought it is also “God-breathed” Scripture and a fourth testimony and historically reliable to the real historical Jesus.

To me, one of the highest statements of Christ and His Deity is in Mark 2:27-28 where Jesus claims to be the Lord (kurios = Yahweh in lxx) of the Sabbath Day – a claim of being the creator and thus equal in nature with God the Father, Yahweh-Elohim of Genesis 1-2.

But Shabir says we have to go with the earliest layers of tradition, so ok, we can play that game too.

We also had an interesting discussion here at Paul William’s blog where Paul quoted Shabir Ally said  –

“The true Jesus of history has to be sought mainly in the earliest layers of the tradition.”

Shabir Ally

Not only does Dr. White demonstrate early tradition for the Deity of Christ, but the earliest traditions embedded in the NT are about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ also:

All scholars agree that the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 is from the earliest tradition – within a few months after Jesus’ death, and the resurrection and ascension.

James D. G. Dunn on the apostle Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 – “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Jesus Remembered, page 855. (some online sources that are quoting this, say the page number is 825, but I have the electronic version of Jesus Remembered and it is on page 855.

Interesting that Paul Williams’ favorite NT scholar affirms 1 Corinthians 15!

1 Corinthians 15:1-11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Posted in Apologetics, Deity of Christ, Historical Jesus, Islam, Muslims, Shabir Ally

Was Matthew 27:9 a mistake?

Abdullah, a Muslim wrote:

However, the proof that your bible got corrupted can be shown by material evidences. In fact, we don’t need any manuscript to prove that. Just look to the stories from Mark to John, and how they got developed. You cannot deny that, Ken.
Then who said that NT is the words of God? Jesus? His disciples? None! It was not known for them. In fact, you can see the errors inside them as any book written by human such as( Mtthew27:9).

Regarding Matthew 27:9, it was not a mistake, as the quote includes words from both Jeremiah 19:1-13; Jeremiah 18:2 and Jeremiah 32:6-9 and Zechariah 11:12-13.

“The whole point of the quotation in Matthew is directed toward the purchase of the field. The Zechariah passage says nothing at all about purchasing a field; indeed, it does not even mention a field at all.” (Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 345.) see the emphasis on the field in Matthew 27:7-8, which gives the context of verse 9.

“Matthew is therefore combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and Jeremiah. But since Jeremiah is the more prominent of the two prophets, he mentions Jeremiah’s name by preference to that of the minor prophet.” (ibid, page 345)

“A similar procedure is followed by Mark 1:2-3, which attributes only to Isaiah, a combined combination from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In that case also, only the more famous of the two prophets is mentioned by name.” (Ibid) A similar Jewish practice is seen in Luke 24:44, where the “Psalms” stands for all the poetic and wisdom literature (the Ketovim = writings). Psalms is the largest and more prominent book of the Ketovim section of the Jewish TaNakh canon.

So, there is no corruption from that example you gave.

Development from Mark to John:

Development from Mark to John does not prove no evidence of Deity of Christ in Mark at all, and all and only in John; rather there is plenty of evidence of the Deity of Christ in Mark also even though John is more explicit.

(Mark 1:3 – “make straight way of Yahweh” – shows he was treating Jesus as Yahweh; Mark 1:11; 14:60-64 – Jesus as the Son of God by nature, means He is the same nature/substance/essence as the Father, who is also God; demons call Jesus the Son of God many times in Mark, and Islam believes in demons, only modern skeptics, the modern scholars Paul Williams loves so much, deny the existence of demons. (Mark 1:23-24; 3:11; 5:7)

In the debate between Ehrman and Michael Bird, Bart Ehrman claimed that no one knew Jesus was the Son of God in Mark, yet Michael Bird responded that Mark certainly made it clear several times that the demons knew Jesus was the Son of God! Amazing that Bart Erhman totally ignored those clear passages.

God the Father from heaven calls Jesus His beloved Son. (Mark 1:11; 9:7)

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), a claim to be the Yahweh of Genesis 1-2 and creator of the Sabbath day of rest, and creator of all that came before in creation.

Mark 2:7 – Jesus claims to be God indirectly by being able to forgive sins.

Posted in Apologetics, Deity of Christ, Gospel according to Mark, Islam, Muslims

Dr. White’s report on recent ministry; with analysis of the attacks on Dr. White and his dialogue with Dr. Yasir Qadhi

Posted in Apologetics, Christian Attitudes toward others, Islam, Muslims | 7 Comments

A good summary of the bottom line issues of Creation vs. Evolution

 

See also here on another video about “Irreducible Complexity”

Posted in Apologetics, Evolution and Creation