Trinities

This episode consists of our opening statements. In my opening statement (slides here), I first briefly explain why a trinitarian should not want to identify Jesus and God. I assume that when my opponent says that “Jesus is God” he means that Jesus is fully divine/has the divine nature. I then explain a terrible problem of the official Christology of the Council of Chalcedon in 451: the implication that the divine nature of Christ is a someone (self, person) and the human nature of Christ is another someone (self, person). They try to fix this by asserting that there is only one someone there, but that’s no real solution. I then explain how later, the fully developed Chalcedonian catholic tradition does solve this problem by saying that Christ’s “complete human nature” (human type of body + human type of soul), is not, because of its “assumption” by the divine nature/eternal Son/Word, a human person. But this clashes with the clear New Testament teaching that Jesus is a man/human person. It is no help to say there there is a “human” person here, meaning a divine person who now bears some mysterious relationship to a human type of soul and a human type of body which don’t compose a human person. The problem is only exacerbated by the sixth ecumenical council in 681 at Constantinople, which seems to make each of Christ’s natures a person/self/someone by saying that each has a will (an ability to choose). Against this messy, catholic Christology I set out the clear New Testament teachings that the one God is (only) the Father himself, and that Jesus, his Messiah/Christ, is a miraculously conceived man, a human person born to Mary who did not have a biological human father. Properly trinitarian (tripersonal-God-involving) ideas seem to have originated in the latter half of the 300s, and so are alien to the thought world of the New Testament. Against various later speculations, the New Testament Jesus is the Messiah (a.k.a. the Son of God), a man, not an additional, lesser god to the one true god (the Father), or the same god as the Father, or a “divine Person” in an imagined triune god. I then explain five qualities which according to the New Testament Jesus has which rule his being fully divine. About Dr. Bird’s claim in his book Jesus Among the Gods that the New Testament Jesus is an ungenerated or unbegotten god, I point at that this is contrary to catholic traditions that say the Father “eternally generates” the Son. He also says there that the New Testament Son is supposed to “a Jewish god,” but, I object, that would make him the Jewish god, and so, the Father/Yahweh. I then lay out four lines of evidence that the New Testament authors did not think Jesus to be fully divine, and rebut Dr. Bird’s claim that early Christian theology should be seen as “incipient trinitarianism.” Dr. Bird says that he holds Jesus to be the second Person of the Trinity because this is what best makes sense of all of Scripture. The Bible teaches monotheism, that there is, strictly speaking, only one god, the creator, Yahweh. He points out that the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo rejected the possibility of a human becoming a god and the possibility of God becoming a human. He suggests that if Philo had read John 1:1-14 he would have accepted all but the final verse. The author of the Fourth Gospel, Bird says, believes that Jesus in the eternal, divine Son, the Word–not (only) a man attested by God. The one God is known through his actions and is said in the Old Testament to create by his word and by his wisdom. Also, “the angel of the LORD” seems to be both God himself and someone else–a contradiction, or maybe a merely apparent one, a paradox. New Testament authors, he suggests, did not consider Jesus to be only human. In particular, the give him religious worship. They all thought Jesus to be “divine”–the only question was: In what sense? As Thomas said (John 20:28), Jesus is his god. Jesus is worthy of our worship. Paul closely associates together Jesus and God, often mentioning them together. Engaging with Jesus is engaging with the divine. Jesus in the New Testament doesn’t claim to be God, Bird argues, but texts like Mark 1:1-3, where the author applies a Yahweh text to Jesus, imply that he is Yahweh returning to Zion. Again, in Mark 2 we see Jesus forgiving human sins, which only God can do. And in Mark 14, before the high priest, Jesus claims that he will be co-enthroned with Yahweh, so that Jesus has divine authority. And John 1 teaches that God’s Word is one and the same with the man Jesus. Philippians 2 teaches the full deity of Jesus and says Jesus is worthy of worship–and so we see that Jesus participates in the divine identity. In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Bird says, Paul gives a revised, duality-including version of the Shema. And in Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is a representation of God’s own being, not a mere man. This Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father, enabling us to have a relationship with him. His opponents understood (John 10:33) that he was claiming ontological equality with God. Thus in Revelation 5 we see the Lamb getting the same worship that was given to God Almighty in the vision of Revelation 4. But Jesus does not deserve that worship unless he is fully divine. It would be blasphemy to worship Jesus if he were a creature. Jesus’s full divinity is also implied by prayer to Jesus. Of course, it took mainstream tradition a few centuries to work it all out. But Bird cites Eusebius the historian, Melito of Sardis, the Sibylline Oracles, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius of Antioch as early recognizers of the deity of Christ. He also mentions two pagan testimonies of the early worship of the Son–yet more support for “early high Christology.” Bird says that he’s not impressed with analytic theology, but at any rate, many analytic theologians are trinitarians, such as Oliver Crisp. He says that he is an exegete, historian, and theologian, suggesting that he is more qualified to answer historical questions about early Christianity. In his view early Christians closely associated Jesus with God and thought Jesus was “from the same source of divinity.” Trinitarian theology, he suggests, is not so much taught in the Bible as it is a hermeneutic, a way of reading it, a way of making sense of what the Bible as a whole affirms and denies. He points out that it does better, for instance, than modalism when it comes to reading the accounts of Jesus’s baptism. Contrary to what I said it my opening, Dr. Bird says we should think and take comfort in the fact that God was and is one of us, mentioning this 1990s song. In this way, he says, God moved from empathy to sympathy. This was far greater, he says, than sending “a super-human Messiah” to help us. Finally, while conceding that some early Christians may have thought something like what I presented, he suggests that the closest analogue to the Christology I presented was the Christology of the pagan Neoplatonist and critic of Christianity Porphyry, who acknowledged Jesus as (only) a pious and wise man. Bird’s Christology, he suggests, far better fits the Bible and the facts of history. Which side put forward the better opening case, and why? Leave us a comment below. Here below is the UCA-produced video. Special thanks to Canterbury Christadelphian Hall for hosting and recording this debate, and to UCA Podcast host Mark Cain for his expert help in producing the audio for this episode and for the video. https://youtu.be/tJKFqF7lYKY?si=KIfP2ez2tekxkztH Links for this episode: Dr. Michael Bird’s YouTube channel Dr. Bird’s blog, Substack Bird, Jesus Among the Gods (interview on Transfigured) Bird, Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. Ehrman, Bird, and Stewart, When Did Jesus Become God? podcast 270 – Origen's “one God” podcast 348 – Novatian's On the Trinity – Part 2 – Two Thieves and Three Arguments podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way? podcast 391 – Jesus' Temptations and Ours – Part 1 – Luke 4 podcast 392 – Jesus' Temptations and Ours – Part 2 – Things Apologists Say podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool's Gold” podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don't Know Tuggy, Nicaea at 1700: Myths vs. Reality podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies biblicalunitarian.com Catholic Theologian Hans Küng on New Testament theology This week’s thinking music is “Ignite! (instrumental)” by Lemon Knife.

In this short video apologist Wes Huff confidently dishes out a bunch of mostly standard apologetics “answers” designed to sooth worries about “the doctrine of the Trinity.” In this reaction video I interact with Huff’s claims, clarifying what he’s saying and why, pointing out what he’s doing and not doing, and how he fails to engage with the seemingly non-trinitarian theology of the New Testament. He’s right that it is Christians and not only non-Christians who have various worries about what is imagined to be one single doctrine. But as I discuss, his answers should not soothe Christians concerned about (1) how one can supposedly derive a Trinity doctrine from the Bible, and (2) how Trinity speculations seem incompatible with the theology of the Bible. Links for this episode: Video version of this episode podcast 397 – Debunking Wes Huff's Viral Trinity Moment with Michael Temperato podcast 107 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. on triadic New Testament passages – part 1 podcast 62 – Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible Dale Tuggy – Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold” – Mainstream Christian Theologies – Late 100’s to Early 200’s Dale Tuggy – Christian theologies in the year 240 podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed” fulfillment fallacy: the Bible teaches that David is God fulfillment fallacy: the Bible on another previous life of Jesus This week’s thinking music is “Slinky” by Mr. Smith.

A befuddled student asked apologist Wes Huff about how to make sense of the Trinity. Huff’s answer has gone viral (also here and here). Obviously, Christians are enjoying and sharing Huff’s answer. But how helpful of an answer is it? Is this an answer that is going to help a thinking Christian love God with all her mind? Does it point her to the relevant biblical teachings? Unfortunately, as Michael and I explain, for a number of reasons Huff’s answer is not helpful to the informed, Scripture-loving truth-seeker. Just after the 48 minutes mark (52 minutes in the video below) I challenge Wes Huff to a debate on whether the one God in the New Testament or the Father alone. For these reasons, he probably will not debate me. But the Christian public who relies on Huff’s Trinity “answers” needs some better information, and to hear the unitarian Christian side of the case. If he does decide to accept the challenge, here is my recently updated starter pack for understanding my views. As we recorded this video, I thought that perhaps it’s unfair to critique Huff’s Trinity thoughts based on an off-the-cuff answer. So in the next two episodes I’m going to interact with two other videos where he states his views at length and fully rehearsed. Perhaps those will fare better? Here’s the video version: https://www.youtube.com/live/6Ipw3TUSVyE?si=X81aJZpvMt36OmMh Links for this episode: Michael Temperato’s YouTube, Tiktok, Instagram Tuggy, What is the Trinity? Stanford Encyclopedia, “Trinity” What Would It Take To Convert You Back To Trinitarianism? ? R. T. Mullins’s interview of William Lane Craig on his own Trinity theory Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology? Unitarian Christian Alliance Youtube channel Unitarian Christian Alliance Unitarian Christian Alliance – Conference near Sydney, Australia, March 2026 podcast 137 – Daniel Whitby's “Mystery and Revelation Inconsistent” The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel – Dale Tuggy, Benjamin D. Sommer on Gregory of Nyssa’s On Not Three Gods podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment podcast 262 – The Trinity before Nicaea? podcast 249 – Tuggy vs. Brown debate – The God of the Bible is the Father alone McIntosh, ed. One God, Three Persons, Four Views podcast 388 – Yes, “the Trinity” is a Problem – Part 2 podcast 387 – Yes, “the Trinity” is a Problem – Part 1 The Standard Opening Move Why I’m Not a Buddhist – Dr. Dale Tuggy podcast 76 – Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho – Part 3 podcast 75 – Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho – Part 2 podcast 74 – Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho – Part 1 This week’s thinking music is “Going Rogue” by Grumplefunk. Other videos in this UCA series: https://www.youtube.com/live/d0nXXVtuU3c?si=gCfoT5pqfw_3_pR9 https://www.youtube.com/live/1lkBSlYRa3E?si=WpCjMtSPndZE4gqm

This final installment includes the cross-examination times, audience Q & A, and our closing statements, of course with my commentary. The cross-examination times are revealing. As we heard in part two, I presented Dr. White with an argument that his interpretation of John 1 implies that there are at least two gods and so should be rejected. In the cross-examination here, I ask which premise he rejects and why, and he says that he rejects this one, because it assumes unitarianism, or that God can be only one Person: 4. To have the divine essence is to be a god. (true by the definition of “divine essence”) But as I explain in this episode, that premise doesn’t assume unitarianism at all, and in fact some trinitarians agree with it, holding that the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Spirit is a god, but also that they’re the same god. Really, White’s favorite “assuming unitarianism” argument is just an irrelevant ad hominem. Also, the lexicons exchange in my cross-ex time has to be heard to be believed. I wrap this series up by explaining which side won this debate and why. Here are the images I refer to in my closing statement which summarize three clashing narratives about Trinity doctrines: what apologists say, what theologians say, and what historians say, that is, what one learns from a deep dive into all the primary sources up to about the year 400 (in other words, the truth). (Thanks to Mark Cain for creating these!) If you want to hear more about these pre-trinitarian theologies check out podcasts 381 and 384 linked below. Links for this episode: James White and fans take note: here are six places in which I obviously do not merely assume that God can only be one Person: podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation, book chapter: “The Unfinished Business of the Reformation,” podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”, opening statement here: podcast 377 – Debate: Is Jesus Yahweh? White vs. Tuggy – Part 1, my opening statement in this debate book, podcast 372 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 1 podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool's Gold” podcast 383 – New Zealand Conference Church History Q and A with Sean Finnegan and Dale Tuggy – Part 2 podcast 382 – New Zealand Conference Church History Q and A with Sean Finnegan and Dale Tuggy – Part 1 Transfigured podcast interview on the debate book podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don't Know This week's thinking music is “Gemini Instrumental” by Pipe Choir.

Rebuttal times, with abundant commentary.

Commenting on my recent debate with James White - part 1 of 3.

Intending that theological language is orthodox/catholic does not make it so.

When canned answers don't work.

Jesus' temptations were custom-made for the Messiah.

Fourteen scriptural reasons Jesus is not fully divine.

Unitarian Christian convictions often come at a price . . .

Is "the doctrine of the Trinity" easily observed in just about any Christian source from the first three Christian centuries?

Sometimes easy answers are . . . too easy.

Did God himself die on the cross for our sins? Must God be a Trinity if God is perfect in love?

A detective not detectiving.

How you can know that no theologian in this era believed in a tripersonal God. And: what views did they hold?

Another day, another round of excellent church history questions from conference attendees.

A wide-ranging Q&A session with excellent questions from New Zealand conference attendees.

Can we find trinitarians in the year 240 AD?

A new book on the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel According to John.

Working through the arguments with an assist from AI.

Mutual interrogations, closing statements, and audio Q&A. In your view, which side won?

A new debate: opening statements and rebuttals.

Some responses and a debate challenge.

Not all engagement is good engagement.

Q & A time, forgiving sins, Cerberus, and some answers critiqued.

Is it true that most ancients lacked the concept of numerical identity?

Four authors summarize their views on the Trinity.

Is the New Testament Jesus "divine," and is he supposed to have two natures?

Exploring a new argument against any sort of catholic Trinity theory.

Can a "mere" human being represent God on the earth? What does the Bible say?

Understanding "the plural of majesty" in the Hebrew Bible.

Cross-examinations, closing statements, and audience Q&A - with post-debate links.

A helpful two-on-two debate from April 2023: opening statements and rebuttals.

How can debating serve the cause of unitarian Christianity?

Evaluating three proposed reasons why God would be motivated to incarnate.

A deep dive on divine attributes, processions, and "social" trinitarianism.

What is "mere" social trinitarianism, and why is it controversial among trinitarian theologians?

Is it the foundational commitment of biblical unitarians that Scripture must be inoffensive to human reason?

Basic questions answered, and a bit of history.

A brief address to and about the Unitarian Christian Alliance.

A thoughtful Baptist confronts his church about biblical vs. later teachings about God, Jesus, and heresy.

You say you've looked into the biblical credentials of "the doctrine of the Trinity." But have you actually read anything by unitarian Christians?

"I had come to this belief truly just through studying the Word."

Did fourth century Christians come to a consensus about "the doctrine of the Trinity"?

Is there a plausible and biblical "doctrine of the Trinity"?

Is the question absurd? Or does it make sense in light of New Testament teachings?

Can a historian conclude that Jesus thought he was God?

Is the "Granville Sharp Rule" + 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 "fatal to unitarianism"?

Some critical thinking about Craig's Trinity theories: his Trinity monotheism and his minimal tripersonal monotheism.

Discussing trinitarian vs. unitarian Christian theologies with Dr. William Lane Craig.