"Merry Christmas, pieces of s***!"

Hey all,

I'm guessing that title got you? Well, those aren't my words. Our very first podcast was on swearing and the building up of the body through our language. In it, we addressed BadChristian podcast's article on why swearing isn't against the Biblical mandate. They come from the perspective that words can shift meaning, and therefore there can't be words that are universally "wrong." We gave some good counter arguments. Some people have posted our podcast on their website and tweeted it to them asking for a response. We haven't heard from them. 

Today I read this. 

https://twitter.com/xbadchristianx/status/679742105372258304

Now here's what gets me. I've heard people making the arguments found on their blog for a real long time. Those who make the arguments always seem to bring up the idea that swear words don't necessarily tear people down. Then I read stuff or hear stuff like this out of those same people. 

The kicker here is that their tweet completely undermines their article. The article uses this specific word and tries to point out that the "sh" word means the same thing as "crap." But if we replace one with the other, "Merry Christmas, pieces of crap," does that help at all? Does that make it less offensive? Is this the picture Christians are to have of Gabriel saying that he brings glad tidings of great joy?

The thing here is the demonstration of inconsistency in the application of what they're teaching. The response? Don't look to BadChristian for Spiritual guidance and growth. As a matter of fact,  is listening to them at all beneficial? That's not for me to decide. However, being that our podcast is not strictly apologetics or debating, but is trying to steer towards growth and maturity through sound theology and exegesis, I do want to make an analogy here. 

A couple weeks ago I was doing some Christmas shopping. I wandered into the Christian bookstore and was appalled at the selection I found there. Heresy and heretics line the shelves, intermingled with some really good and trustworthy authors. The analogy here is that when you follow people like this, who call themselves Christians, advertise their Christianity, but look like the world, and seemingly have no concern for the growth and maturity of their listeners- it's just like walking into the bookstore. You need to keep your guard up, because it's always the most dangerous when you feel the most comfortable with dropping your guard. I fear for those who drop their guard with BadChristian and come to think that BC represents the face of mature Christianity. 

God Bless and Merry Christmas,

Mike Senders

The $1M Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Hey all,

So after going through the podcast on John 1:1, I realized we missed (or maybe only partially answered) one gaping hole in the Jehovah's Witness'argument in John 1:1c. 

 

It goes like this:

Argument: Because the article is missing before θεός in 1:1c, the English should be rendered "a god."

$1M question: Does adding the article make 1:1c Trinitarian?

Answer: Definitively no. 

John 1:1c-  καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

As we argued in our podcast episode, in a statement of equality, there is no direct object. By placing the article before λόγος (logos- Word), λόγος then becomes the subject of the sentence. So, if we place the article before θεὸς (theos- God), like-

καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

What happens is that you've now forced both nouns to act as subjects by making both definite, and therefore interchangeable. So, John was pretty clever. What he did was safeguard against a Modalistic reading. In Modalism, God the Father is the same Person as Jesus. So in Trinitarian terms, they are "One Person, One Being, two manifestations." This isn't Trinitarianism, and certainly isn't biblical.  

So, the facile argument made by Jehovah's Witnesses can't be solved by simply following what they say should be done. Which means the argument falls on its face. Following the rest of our arguments through, the only answer for understanding John's prologue properly is to read it in a Trinitarian manner. 

"Holy, Holy, Holy, merciful and mighty!

God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!"

God bless,

Mike Senders

Greek learning materials

Hey all,

In our last podcast we mentioned some great resources for learning Biblical Greek, so here are the links to find he items we mentioned. 

http://www.dts.edu/itunesu/

The first resource we want to mention is Dallas Theological Seminary's Greek I and II courses at iTunes University. DTS has a wonderful selection of classes to choose from aside from Greek. The files are in video format, and are direct recordings of actual classroom lectures. Course requirements and material lists are provided so you even have the opportunity to follow homework assignments on your own if you wish. 

http://www.billmounce.com

The second, and primary resource is William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek and the accompanying workbook. This is a classroom text that is easy to read and understand and along with the workbook provides practice exercises in translation. DTS, mentioned above, uses Mounce for their text and together the two work well together because the instructor makes comments about Mounce's text for further helpful clarification. Mounce also has other resources available such as a DVD set, flash cards, and charts to help with learning. 

http://www.dailydoseofgreek.com

The next helpful resource is more for those who already know some Greek and need a primer to help stay in practice. Daily dose has short videos on individual verses of scripture going word by word through the Greek to help with parsing and syntax. 

Well there ya have it, some helpful resources for learning and keeping up with Greek studies. Make use of resources, more knowledge and understanding of our scriptures always helps. 

God bless,

Mike Senders

That Thing About Person vs. Being...

Sooooo.... on the last podcast we discussed a bit of Trinitarianism. The whole Person vs. Being thing that confuses the heck out of everyone and their brother. Plus, like we mentioned, if you're going to be a heretic, you're probably going to fall on this issue. So, we'd like to help you out a little.

What is Being? Being has to do with existence. It's something's "is-ness." Tables have being. So do cows, christmas trees, telephone poles, dogs, squirrels, and hygrometers (I like random. Random is fun.). So, being has nothing to do with Person. Something can have being without being a Person. Ideas, however, do not have being. Only "things" have being. So computer programs, the theory of relativity, or temperature (another random list) do not have being. Once again, Being has to do with existence, the state of "be-ing" (makes sense).

Person is a little more complex. Being a Person does not necessitate humanity, but it is does require some things that animals do not possess. Will, thought, power, determination, etc., are all requirements of person. So, animals don't qualify because they don't have a will. If you disagree, watch a few episodes of Cesar Milan. They run on instinct, top to bottom- and if you know how instinct operates, you can control them (you whisper to them).

So now that we've got some simple, working definitions, let's look at how to apply them in regards to common misunderstandings regarding the Trinity. I'm going to try my darnedest to exhaust every possible combination.

One person, no being- This isn't possible. Maybe an AI but without a body. Crazy sci-fi stuff.

One being, no person- This would be something like a table. It exists, but is not a person.

One being, one person- This is what we call Unitarianism. Human beings are Unitarian. We possess one existence, shared only by one person. Theologically, Arians, Unitarian Universalists, Modalistic Monarchians, and Muslims are all Unitarians.

One being, one person, split between multiple persons- Schizophrenia. This is where you have multiple minds within one mind. Theologically, this is represented by Modalism. In Modalism, God is One Being, One Person, but he manifests himself in three different ways- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since this is the case, a Modalist can say de facto that Jesus is the Father. They're the same Person. This is also similar to, but not exactly, like the analogy of, "I'm a father, a son, and a brother, but only one person." That has to do with different roles played at different times.

Multiple beings, one person- Hive mentality. This would be something like bees or ants. They all (sorta) share the same mind, information is passed between all beings to reach a sort of equilibrium, but they don't share their existence.

One being, one person divided into multiple parts- Partialism. This would be like the Greek myth of Cerberus. In this, three separate persons divide the one person, and consciousness is not shared. This is different than schizophrenia described above in that the multiple parts all operate simultaneously without reference to each other. In schizophrenia, only one person manifests itself at a time, and therefore the being is subsumed by only a single person in turn. Partialism is like Cerberus in that there is one being, one person and the multiple persons sharing that person are like the multiple, living heads on Cerberus.

Then, finally, there's Trinitarianism. This is One Being, Three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal Persons. The Persons are not confused, intermingled, shared, or divisible. Since their Being is shared, the act of One Person can be attributed to all three, though responsibility terminates only on one member. They also are One in will, determination, and purpose via shared Being; however, distinction in Person allows for a distinction in role and/or participation. Shared Being and distinction in Person also allows for perfect relationship. A shared Being means that the multiple Persons can never be at odds with one another, yet a distinction in Person means that, well, they're not the same Person and so therefore can experience one another. Mind boggling.


Well, there you have it. Hope that helps a bit. Trinitarianism is a confusing subject, and its no surprise that so many people have a hard time with it. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to post in the comments section! If you happened to bump into this article on accident, follow the links on this page to listen in to our podcast!

God bless,

Mike Senders

PDF Presentation for John 1:1

Hi all!

Our next podcast which will be released in the next few days will be a little content heavy. We'll be discussing John 1:1 and the issues surrounding the Jehovah's Witness' translation of 1:1c as "a god," which will mean that we're going to have to get into the Greek. To help with that, we're providing a visual with this one so you can follow along with if you want. You can find a downloadable .pdf presentation of the material here: https://www.academia.edu/17325446/Primer_on_Jn_1_1. We hope you enjoy the podcast, and the presentation. As always, feel free to ask questions or leave comments in the responses.

God Bless,

Mike Senders