1 Peter

Response video for Dale Tuggy and James White debate:
• Dale Tuggy and James W...

[@ShirazMia-y2e]

Context is King. Historical setting important. Such a fluent and natural commentary . Thanks Sean .

[@thomas.bobby.g2918]

Contextualism is a religion not compatible with NT religion. The Apostles do not use verses from a previous Levitical religious tradition "in context". The Apostles use verses from a previous tradition without respect to what the previous tradition intended by the same verses. So "context" is not only not-King it is anti-King. That is to say contextualism is anti-Christ.

[@ArtorGrael]

@@thomas.bobby.g2918 People use literature all sorts of ways. When Lincoln quoted A house divided against itself cannot stand he was using house to mean the divided states not the NT context. But it sounded cool.

[@thomas.bobby.g2918]

@@ArtorGrael Thank you for your reply. Sentences are the containers of meaning. Every sentence has a meaning that depends only upon it's form. Declarative sentences are either true or false. Every declarative sentence is either true or false and this is precisely why contextualism is false. The truth of a single declaration stands or falls on it's own. "A house divided against itself can not stand" is true or false no matter what sentences precede or follow.

[@ArtorGrael]

@@thomas.bobby.g2918 The more I know the less i believe i know.,,james white is the opposite; he is always very sure of his every impulse.

[@thomas.bobby.g2918]

@@ArtorGrael I am not convinced Wolfie [JW] can tell you what the Gospel of Salvation is. Cyril was a a swindler and I deny his monstrous hypostatic-union dogma. I am nevertheless some sort of trinitarian. The kind that knows that without an exclusively human being, Jesus, there is no Christian Belief.

[@MainPointMinistries]

I agree Shaun. If you asked most Christians who 1Peter <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="195">3:15</a> was referring to, they would unanimously say Jesus as Lord (i.e. ruler) like a king. Not Jesus as Yahweh. I would also like to mention that Tuggy's explanation of Hebrews <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="70">1:10</a>-12 was very helpful from a "Non-trinitarian" perspective.

[@Sirach144]

I noticed he said that. 😊

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

Peter applies YHWH from Isaiah 8:13 in reference to Jesus in 1 Peter 3:15. Thus, Jesus is YHWH.

[@Sirach144]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 Paul also applies Psalm 45 to Jesus in Hebrews 1. Does that mean Jesus is David or Solomon?

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@Sirach144It means Jesus is YHWH. Neither David or Solomon were ever referred to as kyrios in the New Testament based ion an OT text about YHWH.

[@Sirach144]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 These words were uttered to them. Don’t you think the Jews would’ve found that scripture odd had they thought that it was calling David or Solomon God?

[@EnHacore1]

Very nicely explained how Lord here does mean Jesus is God. Agree 100% that if White's interpretation is correct, then this is an argument for modalism, which White refutes. I don't even understand why White wants to use this verse in his interpretation to explain the trinity, it makes zero sense, as it implies modalism 😮

[@ephraimmuppidi3435]

Sean, thank you for the nice explanation.

[@dboulos7]

Thanks Sean, I love your work.

[@ArtorGrael]

Thank you Seaaaaaan!

[@marisakennedy777]

I see this as yet another example of Trinitarians accidentally proving Modalism in their desperate attempt to prove the Trinity from scripture.

[@janosterud4188]

Excellent explanation. Thank You 😊👍👍

[@Roz-zi1ye]

I have to say this is a pretty weak argument coming from White. I can't even see the connection.

[@Thewatchman303]

Thanks for this and in particular simply putting the verse in context (v18). I also think this passage simply echoes the rallying cry of the NT - that we profess Jesus the anointed one as Lord just as Peter did on the day of Pentecost. To declare / confess / sanctify the anointed one as Lord means that we believe jesus is the promised prophet like but greater than Moses, the exalted human lord and high priest of psalm 110, the anointed one of psalm 2/Hebrews 1, son of man, son of God etc. all these titles are wrapped up in confessing / sanctifying the anointed one as Lord whereby (and therefore) we submit to Jesus as our supreme Lord over human emperors or human teachers - and we live our lives according to way Jesus taught us to.

[@voymasa7980]

Acts 2:36, yeah, God made Jesus both Christ and Lord

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@voymasa7980 Made does not necessitate being created.

[@voymasa7980]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 you seem to have missed the point. The point is that Jesus was not innately or already Lord and Christ, but rather was poieo lord by God (implying God, not "one person of the Trinity", a separate being than Jesus). This isn't talking about whether God created Jesus but rather whether Jesus was Lord in the sense that JW would say with his syllogism of all Kurios are Yhwh

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@voymasa7980 Jesus has always been Lord/ YHWH (Acts 2:21).

[@voymasa7980]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 you read that (erroneously) into the text. This is literally the section where Peter says that God poieo Jesus lord and Christ, so if your reading is correct, Jesus always was Yhwh but then also God made him Yhwh. That's a contradiction. You may ask "how could Jesus not be Yhwh and we still call on the name of the Lord to be saved"? (You reading it as a direct yhwhist text rather than say as a proper midrash). Philippians 2:9-10 shows that God *gave* Jesus the name above all names.... to the glory of God. It is excepted that God is not placed under Jesus for this bowing; see, 1 Cor 15:27. So, Peter isn't saying in Acts that Jesus is Yhwh. Continue to read the text and let it speak for itself, rather than taking 2:21 and making up your own context for it

[@Dizerner]

For us, there is only one Lord. Beautiful library though.

[@ArtorGrael]

Peter never struck me as a subtle guy.

[@ArtorGrael]

As it turned out Dale didn't do well. He is more naturally a researcher than a litigator.

[@johnspartan98]

How about exposing White's "I AM" theology?

[@eddieyoung2104]

I'm used to the KJV which reads 'the Lord God' in 1 Peter <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="195">3:15</a>, and I wasn't aware of the alternative reading of it. So, wouldn't this difference make it an unclear verse for White to use as evidence, as it could just be argued that Peter wrote 'the Lord God' and not 'Christ as Lord'? But, that aside, Sean gave a helpful exposition of the passage, and brought out Peter's intent clearly. Also, if Peter was portraying Jesus as YHWH it would contradict his earlier words in Acts <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="142">2:22</a> '...Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know'. I find it a strange idea, that Peter believed YHWH was a man of Nazareth, who himself needed to be approved of YHWH. In effect, it would have Peter saying 'YHWH of Nazareth, a man approved of YHWH... by miracles and wonders...which YHWH did by YHWH'.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

Don't skip the previous verse -> Acts 2:21 which teaches Jesus is YHWH (cf. Joel 2:32).

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="500">8:20</a> because Jesus is not the Father, but this doesn't prove that Jesus is not YHWH for Peter already taught that in 1 Peter <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="195">3:15</a> (cf. Isaiah <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="493">8:13</a>). It is irrelevant how many are unaware of what Peter has done in applying a YHWH text in reference to Jesus because it doesn't negate that Peter in fact did so.

[@jordandthornburg]

The problem is Jesus differs from Yahweh in both the old and new testaments which means, just by logical default, he cannot be identical to Yahweh.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@jordandthornburgProving Jesus is not the Father, but this doesn't prove Jesus is not God. He is Lord/YHWH (1 Peter 3:15; cf. Isaiah 8:13).

[@jordandthornburg]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 no it proves Jesus isn’t Yahweh since Yahweh just is the father. You can’t be someone and differ from that same someone. Thats just obvious.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@jordandthornburg1 Peter 3:15 (cf. Isaiah 8:13) proves otherwise.

[@jordandthornburg]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 It can’t prove otherwise unless you assume the NT writers wrote logical nonsense. They didn’t write nonsense so it doesn’t prove that. You can’t differ from yourself. No Bible verse ever will or could prove otherwise.

[@ArtorGrael]

The trinitarians cannot speak of the Trinty very long without slip sliding into modalism or some other trinitarian heresy. That is why White always adopted the dominant position ,

[@ArtorGrael]

Sean you should talk about St Thomas More sometime. Henry VIII was his Rome.

[@Sirach144]

The quality was so horrible. I couldn’t even hear what they were saying.

[@gregm5111]

The feed from First Lutheran Houston had a much better sound quality. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4Crl5yso8aqY8k

[@Sirach144]

@@gregm5111 Thank you!!

[@NotMyOwn-xd5iu]

I look at Christ as being about the Father and not Jesus. Because it is the anointing of the Father. Jesus would not be considered Christ without anointing of the Father, and also there was a couple, hundred people anointed in the name of the Father, take, for example king David, but does anyone call him David Christ? To me the scripture should read Jesus anointed of the Father. the word Christ set by itself, I look at it as anointed of the Father , after all, Jesus deflected everything to the Father concerning who is God.🤷🏻

[@ArtorGrael]

To trinitarians like White, here is a list of meanings for God/the LORD The Triune God, pre-incarnate The Father The pre-incarnate Son The Spirit (of God) The Father with the pre-incarnate Son The Father with the Spirit The pre-incarnate Son with the Spirit The hypostatic union The Triune God, including the hypostatic union The Father with the hypostatic union The Spirit with the hypostatic union The divine essence shared by the persons Jesus in his human nature AND it really goes on further but I am tired.

[@PRHC38]

That’s ok but God’s name is not Yahweh it’s Yehovah.

[@humblejoes3263]

Well ya there’s all that but maybe just another NIV poor translation. ESV translates that verse as “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy…”

[@apologeticswithoutapology]

Tuggy lost horribly get over it.

[@cc3775]

The only one that lost is the one who believes in the false triune god

[@apologeticswithoutapology]

@@cc3775 right.

[@apologeticswithoutapology]

@@cc3775 dale tuggy, “The Trinity is hard to understand so it’s not true.”

[@cc3775]

@@apologeticswithoutapology God is never described as triune. Jesus nor the disciples try to make a case for a triune God.

[@pj1683]

​@@cc3775"God is never described as Triune" yes because God, in terms of "is" of identity, is the Father. As the Creed says, "I believe in one God the Father..." The question is never "is Jesus the Father"; the question is always "is the Word in John 1 and in the OT created or uncreated." That's why Gregory of Nyssa says that we don't call Christ God when enumerated with the Father. Christ is God in the sense of predication, he is homoousias, but not identical to "the" God. So while I think many of us who subscribe to classical, monarchical Trinitarianism can agree with Tuggys critique of modern Trinitarianism with all of its weirdness and inconsistencies, his critiques never really, at least to me, really seem capable of dealing with the actual substance of the historic arguments of the Cappadocians and the Greek Fathers. I'm really looking forward to Tuggy and Dr Bransons responses to one another in their upcoming book, although I have a feeling Dr Branson will be the only person who's dealing with the actual doctrine of the Trinity taught at Nicea and Constantinople 1...

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

Jesus is Lord but never LORD.

[@Mikha335]

Joseph Smith believed that Jesus was LORD. At least he did until Nauvoo, and then never made that mistake again.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

Jesus is LORD (Acts 2:21).

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 :It does not say "Jesus is LORD." It simply says that those who call on the name of the Lord. Indeed, some translations say "LORD" in recognition that this is an allusiont to the OT call on the name of YHWH. Indeed, if you continue reading from verse 22, you will see that the author of Acts differentiates between God and Jesus. One is the immortal God, the other is the mortal , miracle working man who was put to death and raised from the dead and made Lord by his God.(Acts 2 : 22; 23; 2430; 32;36) Jesus is never called LORD, only Lord.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@JosephSmith-ph4xr All the letters in the Greek manuscripts are capitalized so your point is moot. Proving Jesus is not the Father (Acts 2:22) does not prove Jesus isn't God. Acts 2:21 demonstrates Jesus is God.

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

@@kardiognostesministries8150: Firstly, I refer to English translations. (LORD refers to YHWH). Secondly, if ever there was a chapter in the Bible to show that Jesus is someone other than God, then it is Acts chapter 2. The passage contrasts the immortal living God with the mortal man, Jesus. It contrasts the dead Jesus with the living God. (Acts 2 :22- Jesus is a man approved of God who worked miracles through him). God resurrected the dead Jesus. (Acts 2 : 24; 32) Jesus is made lord and Christ by God(Acts 2 : 36)

[@AVArgo-yy5mh]

I dislike White a lot...yet he won lol