Bill Schlegel Videos

Post Reply
User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by darinhouston » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:25 am

These short videos deal very briefly with single verses that are rarely addressed by Trinitarians. We tend to focus on the Trinitarian proof-texts and rarely discuss those verses which are more "difficult" to a Trinitarian perspective. They come up, but we rarely stay on topic and stick to these verses in their own context. Some of them may well have straightforward answers, and documenting that here has value.

This might be a good place to start a "tighter" discussion of these verses.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUqW ... l03yTJbTiG

Here is the short list
1 Timothy 2:4-5
John 17:3
John 20:17
John 20:30-31
John 14:1
John 8:40
Acts 2:22
Acts 2:36

His "summary of these videos"
Schlegel wrote:1 Timothy 2:4-5
The Apostle Paul wrote that the truth is that there is one God and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus.

The apostle differentiated between God and Jesus the Christ. Christ Jesus is not God, but a man.

If the Apostle Paul thought that Jesus had to be God or a God-man to atone for our sin, or to be our mediator, why would the apostle write that the one mediator between God and man is a man?

This verse, and many others like it, is a clear statement that for the Apostle Paul, a man (not a God-man), Jesus the Messiah, was the true and sufficient mediator between God and man.
Schlegel wrote:John 17:3
If God is a Trinity, and if Jesus is God, why would Jesus Christ say in John 17:3 that the Father is the only true God?

And why would Jesus Christ differentiate himself from God, not including himself in his description of the only true God?

Trinitarians and those who believe in the deity of Christ say that the Gospel of John is the main book in the New Testament that presents Jesus as God. Yet, here in the Gospel of John, Jesus says that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus, distinct from God, is the Messiah.

Doesn't John 17:3 contradict the idea that God is a Trinity, and that Jesus is God?
Schlegel wrote:John 20:17
The Lord Jesus Christ has a God.

As recorded in the Gospel of John 20:17, soon after he was raised from the dead, Jesus told Mary Magdalene "...go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

If Jesus is God, how can he have a God?
Schlegel wrote:John 20:30-31
Many Christians who believe in the deity of Christ claim that the Gospel of John is one of the main books, if not the main book in the New Testament that says that Jesus is God.

But this claim contradicts the purpose statement of the author of the Gospel.

The author of the Gospel of John says he recorded the signs (miracles) that Jesus did so that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..."

Shouldn't the author know why he wrote his Gospel? Do deity of Christ believers know better than the author why he wrote his Gospel?

For a fuller explanation of the purpose of the Gospel of John see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw44JRTIiV0&t=0s

and here:
http://www.onegodreport.com/john_11_and ... l_podcasts
Schlegel wrote:John 14:1
Many people think that the Gospel of John is the main book in the New Testament that declares that "Jesus is God".

If that is the case, why would Jesus, on the night before he was crucified, differentiate between himself and God by telling his disciples, "...believe in God. Believe also in me."?
Schlegel wrote:John 8:40
In John 8:40, Jesus said that he was "a man that told you the truth that I heard from God".

The Gospel of John is said to be the main book in the Bible that proclaims that Jesus is God. Yet in this Gospel Jesus says he is "a man that heard the truth from God".

Why did Jesus differentiate himself from God in this Gospel? If Jesus was God, or a god-man, why would he say he is "a man"? Isn't that being deceptive?

Church doctrine for hundreds of years has been that Jesus is "man but not a man" because if Jesus was "a man", he would be two persons (a divine person and a human person).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus said that he was a man who heard the truth from God. Jesus' statement contradicts the "deity of Christ" claim.
Schlegel wrote:Acts 2:22 and Acts 2:36
In the first recorded sermon of the Apostle Peter after Jesus was raised from the dead and exalted to heaven, Peter says nothing about believing that God is a Trinity, or that Jesus is God.

Rather, Peter insists that Jesus was a man attested by God by signs and mighty works that God did through him. Jesus was put to death, but raised from the dead by God. And God MADE Jesus both Lord and Christ.

If Jesus was God, why wouldn't Peter say so in this sermon? And if Jesus is God, why would Peter ever say that God MADE Jesus Lord and Christ (Messiah)?

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by commonsense » Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:16 pm

darinhouston wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:25 am
In John 8:40, Jesus said that he was "a man that told you the truth that I heard from God".
Darin, I agree. To me Jesus was a man who was one with God in the Spirit. He was in spiritual union with God, just as the New Testament writers explain it. Jesus' words were not His own, but they came from God and we are to obey, just as He obeyed and was raised up.

If Jesus was an example for us to follow, how would that be possible if He was not a man?
People who claim that we can't be righteous, or that it is impossible to obey God and keep His word, therefore Jesus had to do this for us, aren't hearing what the Bible is saying.

The way I see it, Jesus was a man and he obeyed God, therefore we have no excuse.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3381
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Post by steve » Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:55 pm

I have to say that I am not among those who believe that an acceptance of the trinity doctrine is of primary importance for salvation or for walking with God acceptably. Nor do I know whether other trinitarians (I am one) neglect verses like those given above—or why they would do so.

The trinity doctrine is not threatened in any way by statements of distinction between Jesus and His Father. In fact, it is written into every formulation of the doctrine (I do not endorse any particular formulation) that this is exactly what we would expect the Bible to say.

I am surprised, at this site, to still find criticisms of the trinity (or any other well-known doctrine) that so thoroughly miss the point. The doctrine of the deity of Christ is not adequately represented by the simple declaration that "Jesus is God." If that is all that was being claimed, then verses distinguishing Him from His Father would be problematic. I have held to trinitarian theology for fifty years and it never occurred to me to be uncomfortable with any such statements—because they go along perfectly with the historic trinitarian belief. To say, "There are Bible verses that speak of Jesus as a man—not God" is simplistic in the extreme. Did anyone ever suggest that Jesus was not a man? Does any trinitarian see any reason to question that? Trinitarians welcome wholeheartedly the humanity of the Son of God. If we did not, we would be included in the category John defines as antichrist (1 John 4:3).

Such ignorant criticism of the trinity as I have encountered all my life, including here, would be like me debating an evolutionist and saying, "Evolution is clearly wrong because I have never seen a gorilla give birth to a human baby!" Obviously, any knowledgeable evolutionist would condescendingly reply, "True—and no evolutionist would ever suggest that you should see such a thing, nor that any such thing ever happened."

When people set out to overthrow a near-universally held, historical doctrine, they might be expected, at the least, to first acquaint themselves with that doctrine, before they seek to make arguments against it. All my life I have encountered people determined to overthrow the trinity, and, to a man, none understood what trinitarianism even claims (at least in the form I have always accepted it). Of all the qualified people I have debated across any doctrinal aisle, I have seldom encountered one more unfamiliar with the position they seek to undermine than I find among the anti-trinitarians. I mean this as no insult. However, it is a bit embarrassing to a sympathetic debater like myself when an opponent leans so heavily upon arguments that miss the target completely.

I have not entered the fray here on the forum lately on the topic of the trinity. This is because I believe very many things more vital to our Christian concerns than to fully understand this subject. If it were as important to God that we understand it, as it is to some people, one wonders why the Bible does not ever explain it. I do not enter the discussion now to begin engaging the non-trinitarians. I already know their position better than they apparently know mine. I will engage anyone, however, who will listen to my lectures on the trinity and the deity of Christ, and who thinks there is a biblical argument against anything I there affirm.

Blessings!

https://thenarrowpath.com/audio/topical ... rinity.mp3
https://thenarrowpath.com/audio/topical ... Part_1.mp3
https://thenarrowpath.com/audio/topical ... Part_2.mp3

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by darinhouston » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:55 pm

Well, yes, I actually do believe that some traditional Trinitarian dogma denies that Jesus was "a man" and it is this belief that this video snippet is rejecting. Traditional Trinitarians would generally not deny that Jesus had "humanity" or a "human nature" along with his "divinity" or "divine nature" (clear dogma). But, whether Jesus was actually a "human being" or "a man" in all that entails is indeed a point which I believe has been denied by historic Trinitarian scholarship. I do understand that Trinitarian scholars have refused over the years to accept the term "human being" with reference to Jesus and it is these to whom this passage is brought to bear. But, the point in this video has less to do with the term "a man" I believe than the clear distinction Jesus makes between on the one hand himself as a man and on the other hand God. That's "not nothing" and is at least as reasonable of a verse to point out, I think, than the proof-texts Trinitarians dogmatically assert as incontrovertible proof that Jesus is God, plain and simple (as in "that settles it").

Certainly, merely using the term "a man" doesn't necessarily imply that Jesus is only a man or a human being, but this verse goes further and is Jesus' own words distinguishing Himself not just from the Father (which He undoubtedly does elsewhere) but from God. Of course, this is not a slam dunk proof-text to stand-alone in refutation of the Trinity, and is a fairly non-controversial passage no one outright would disagree about. But this is an example of what seems to be the prevailing way that Scripture speaks of Jesus -- especially Jesus' own words about himself and his relationship with his Father and with "God." It does sound as though Jesus is being declarative about the point and making it plain that he is to be distinguished from God. Collectively, I do think it is worth keeping in perspective as we review Trinitarian proof-texts.

To be really clear (and I can't repeat this often enough), I do not reject that Jesus is God in "some sense," ("some sense" somehow being a real trigger word for most Trinitarians) but I do reject MOST if not all of the arguments that are traditionally made to prove that he is. Still others are still hard to dismiss for me. Either I'm losing my mind as I get older (which is entirely possible) or most of these arguments only "seem" sound due to their widespread acceptance and the tremendous history and near unanimity in accepting them.

I know your teaching is more nuanced than others'. This is actually a good reminder I have been meaning to go back and listen to them more carefully, but my recollection is that you generally accept the prevailing interpretations of most of the Trinitarian passages and don't seem compelled to question them as you might Calvinist or Dispensationalist proof-texts. With some, you do seem to clearly recognize their ambiguity but are content to see through them based on other passages which seem clear to you on the matter. That's quite fair, of course, but I don't think it's fair to say these are sophomoric arguments. Simplistic in the extreme? Perhaps. But, simplistic doesn't necessarily mean wrong (what is simplistic is others who simply say Jesus is one with the Father and so must be God, Selah -- I know you don't take that approach). This is why I suggested some of them no doubt will have clear answers and objections, though others might not. Discussing them and nailing those down and seeing where the other problems might be is worth the effort, I think.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by commonsense » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:52 am

steve wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:55 pm
Did anyone ever suggest that Jesus was not a man?
Steve, No. We all know that Jesus was a man. And we know that humans are not God. There is a higher authority other than ourselves.
Trinitarians have created a mystery where there is no mystery and have added confusion to what should not be confusing.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5284
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by Paidion » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:06 pm

When a human being begets a son, his son is human like himself.
When God (the Father) begets a son (the first thing he ever did), God's son is divine like himself.
So rather that saying the Jesus "is God" (which sounds as if it is affirming that Jesus is the Father), it is more accurate to say that Jesus is divine (as no other human being ever was).

Although Jesus was born as a human being (and thus became human) , he was in existence long before his human birth. In fact nothing existed prior to him except the Father himself.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by darinhouston » Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:17 pm

Paidion wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:06 pm
In fact nothing existed prior to him except the Father himself.
Paidion, I think I understand the bases for pre-existence, generally, but as to this specific claim -- I'll ask again -- what scriptural basis do you have for that statement?

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by commonsense » Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:04 pm

Paidion wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:06 pm
When a human being begets a son, his son is human like himself.
When God (the Father) begets a son (the first thing he ever did), God's son is divine like himself.
Paidion, It doesn't matter who your biological parents are. God begets sons through the Spirit. When we are born of the Spirit, we are begotten by God, made in the likeness of God.

"We have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him."
"Therefore be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect."
"But we all with unveiled face beholding as a mirror....are being transformed into the same image."

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3381
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by steve » Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:58 am

Perhaps it is a niggling point, but the Bible nowhere speaks of us putting on a "new self" (except in English translations that give little heed to the Greek of the texts where they so render). We have put on the New Man (anthropos), which is corporate Christ—the Body of which He is Head—which has been "created" through Christ's ascension and the coming of the Spirit upon His followers:

Ephesians 2:15—"having abolished in His flesh the enmity [between Jew and Gentile], that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two [believing Jew and believing Gentile]..."

Ephesians 4:24—"that you put on the new man which was created [as mentioned in the above-cited verse]..."

Colossians 3:10-11—"and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where [that is, in the New Man, the Body off Christ] there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all

The Body of Christ is not our "new self." We have been incorporated into Him as organic members of Christ (1 Cor.6:15).

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3381
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by steve » Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:03 am

More to the point of this thread, I have welcomed anyone to critically address the thesis presented in my lectures on the topic addressed here. I don't think they can be refuted from scripture, but I am willing to hear the arguments.

To me, "This does not necessarily mean what it sounds like it is saying," is not a persuasive argument. I would like to hear the reasons that any passage should not be understood to be saying what it sounds like it is saying.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”