Exegetical Surrejoinder πρὸς Edward Dalcour (I)

*Below we offer the first in a tetralogy of exegetical surrejoinders to Edward Dalcour’s most recent attempt to spin away from his previously noted textual mistakes concerning John 10.30.  Although Dalcour omits much of my original article for his readers and hence the context of my statements (all the while throwing a tantrum about “context”), below, I respond to each of his claims categorically. Dalcour’s assertions are delineated in *black with my rebuttal immediately following in *blue (as here).  I refer readers to Dalcour’s article HERE for corroboration.

*It should be noted that I have repeatedly challenged Dalcour to public debate on the topics of biblical monotheism-Christianity and soteriology.  After initially agreeing to meet in public polemic platform he has subsequently ignored all offers.  Of course, after the poor performance he produced in his debate with Elder Nathan Dudley (HERE), I fully understand his reluctance.   Dalcour is simply not a good debater and I was honestly embarrassed for him at the debate listed above (his hands were literally shaking and he seemed as nervous as a cat).  Hopefully the following refutation of Dalcour will be edifying to the body of Christ.  Enjoy!

(Dalcour): The Footloose Theology: A Refutation of Oneness-Unitarian Roger Perkins on John 10:30

*I’m not quite sure what “The Footloose Theology” means (?).  Here Dalcour’s non-sensical title is indicative of how poorly written both his book and this article are—grammatically, exegetically and theologically.  As Dr. David Norris once simply commented, “We’ve read his book and it’s poorly written.”  As we demonstrate below, similar to his editing errors which are all through his article Dalcour fares even worse with his textual, lexical and theological claims—to an embarrassing extent.

(Dalcour):  Oneness-unitarian advocate, Roger Perkins, has again attempted to deny the person of the Lord Jesus in his recent so-called refutation of my very brief article on the “Son of God”– Read it Here.

*Not surprisingly, this ad hominem charge is easily turned around:  Tritheist Edward Dalcour (more fondly called Eisegsis Ed) has once again attempted to relegate the Lord Jesus from His biblical identification as God Almighty (I John 5.20; Revelation 1.8; etc.) to a mere “second of three divine eternal persons.”  As has been noted by many, along with Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter RCC)—that he actually fancies himself as opposing—Dalcour repeatedly uses blatantly polytheistic language in both his presentations and debate.

*That is, Dalcour openly uses phrases such as “God was with God,” “Elohim was with Elohim,” “One Yahweh acts on behalf of another Yahweh,” etc.  Thus while he claims to “refute” Mormons and the RCC, he actually holds hands with them in their identification and terminology of God’s supposed “identity.”  Of course, we have pointed out before the core commonalties that these non-Christian groups all share in their war against the biblical testimony of God.     

(Dalcour):  Not at all surprising, in his struggle against biblical Trinitarianism, Perkins voluminously responds to my brief article instead of dealing with a fuller presentation of passages such as John 10:30 contained in my book, *A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism* (Get it here), or the countless other exegetical and scholarly works by other authors, which is also contained in the book.

*First, we would be quite curious where we can actually read of this “biblical Trinitarianism” on the very pages of the Bible:____________?  I am astounded every time I read this claim and think, “What ‘Bible’ are they using?”  If the doctrine of the Trinity is “biblical” surely Dalcour can point us to the verse that enunciates such an obvious doctrine (?).  Biblical Christians await this passage from Trinitarians with great anticipation—and indeed, we have been waiting for approximately 1,800 years now!

*Second, classic Dalcour, he attempts to deride me for not posting his “fuller presentation” of John 10.30 from his book—while he omits the vast majority of my article in this very piece!  Further, I have written extensively on this blog from Dalcour’s book and all one has to do is simply scroll down to view his many blunders.  Moreover, I have equally and exhaustively addressed “other scholarly works” on this blog.  Dalcour just never seems to learn and puts his foot in his mouth at virtually every turn, as we shall soon see.

*Third, the majority of Dalcour’s earth-shattering book (according to him) is not “exegetical,” but rather historical.  All one has to do is count the page numbers for each section to clearly see this.  I have indeed started a point-by-point rejoinder to Dalcour’s work.  However, in all honesty the information therein is so easily refuted and skewed that I soon lose interest – and two open heart surgeries in the last 1.7 years has not helped matters much.  In fact, Dalcour’s book is so rife with misleading statistics that I actually named the rejoinder “The Fallacy of Neglected Aspect”—since Dalcour willfully omits so much contrary data (as he does below).    

(Dalcour):  If I were Perkins, I too would rather deal with a short (about two pages) article than be forced to interact with an expanded exegetical treatment made be myself, and so many others throughout history. – – To read Perkins’ article go here.

*If I were Dalcour, I, too, would rather deal with an exceedingly shorter version of my “voluminous” (his selected term above) refutation to his typical textual blunders as shown in John 10.30 than to deal with each rebuttal.  As noted, this is classic Dalcour methodology:  Demand of your opponents what you yourself do not practice—a natural outgrowth of his “Calvinism” cult-think.

*Below, Dalcour repeatedly claims that I ignore the context of said passage, when, in point of fact, the very context is what refutes his eisegesis of the text—as I specifically pointed out in the article.  Of course, if Dalcour would not cherry pick which sections of my piece he opts to deal with and post the entire article this would be clearly demonstrated.  

(Dalcour): In fact, not one, not even one, noted scholar, grammarian, or standard lexicographer in Christian history has ever agreed with the customary Oneness interpretation of Isa. 9:6; Mal. 2:10; Matt. 28:19; John 1:1; 10:30; 14:9; 17:5; Col. 2:9 et al.

*Has Dalcour never heard of the logical fallacy Argumentum Ad Populum?  This is an elementary flaw in argumentation methodology that asserts that a proposition must be true because many people believe it.  If the populace determines our belief system as Dalcour intimates above then he would have been right alongside the masses screaming, “Not this one, but Barabbas!” (John 18.40)

*And, specifically who is doing the “noting”—Trinitarians like Dalcour?  I suppose that Dalcour would have us believe that there was a consensus of theology among these same lexicographers, grammarians and scholars?  In fact, Dalcour appeals to Dr. Joseph Thayer quite often—who openly rejected the Trinity doctrine, that Jesus was God, taught baptism for the dead, denied the visible second coming of Christ and Dalcour’s doctrine of eternal Sonship!

*Here’s a quotation from the Publisher’s introduction to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:

“A word of caution is necessary.  Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes.  The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy.”

*Under the verb translated “are baptized” (βαπτιζόμενοι) in I Corinthians 15.29, Thayer says:

on behalf of the dead, i. e. to promote their eternal salvation by undergoing baptism in their stead, I Corinthians 15:29.

*Won’t Dalcour’s LDS brethren be happy to see that he has apparently made the switch—since he emphasizes the personal-theological conclusions of these lexicographers (should we now expect to see missionary Dalcour riding around the neighborhood on his bike?)!

*Further, would Dalcour have us believe that all of these self-same scholars arrived at his “Calvinism” views?  If so, was it the exact same flavor of Calvinism that he embraces (since the variables are myriad within Calvinism).  If not, then his entire point above is moot.

*Interestingly, as I point out in my non-Christian-cults classes, every one of these movements has a supplement to what the Scriptures themselves actually say.  Mormons have the Book of Mormon, Doctrines & Covenants, etc.  JW’s have their poor NWT and the Watchtower magazine; the RCC have Papal Infallibility, Vicar of Christ, Mariolatry, etc.  The “Reform” movement has their creeds & councils—which no one dare to question.  Of course, this is often done while providing lip service to the terms sola-scriptura and tota-scriptura—yet denying the same in practice (as Dalcour reveals immediately below).    

(Dalcour):  In point of fact, early church Fathers collectively, important Ecumenical Councils and resulting creeds, all recognized biblical scholarship has always been against the theological assertions made by modalistic/Oneness advocates.

*Ahhh yes, here it is – the Reform mantra itself!  The usual appeal to those all-authoritative “councils” and “creeds” of men.  Moreover, again, who is doing the “recognizing” concerning this “biblical scholarship?” Answer: Trinitarians!  This would be identical to Oneness believers claiming that no scholarship was to be recognized outside of Oneness Pentecostals!  We wonder how that would square with Trinitarians?

*If Dalcour does not understand such elementary fallacies as Argumentum Ad Populum—since he makes this freshman mistake at virtually every turn—he likely is not familiar with the concept of circular argumentation.  Dalcour very often reaches his desired goal from the starting line!

*And, we would be interested to know if Dalcour accepts all of these same “early church Fathers” writings?  Shall we begin posting some of their actual quotations?  Further, scholarly quotes abound to the fact that many of these early writers were ontological (contra merely functional) subordinationists in relation to God and His Son.  

*In fact, Dr. Daniel Wallace acknowledged in an interview a few years ago that the Trinity doctrine emerged after the writings of the Apostle Paul (HERE).  Dalcour can stomp his foot insisting that the Trinity doctrine is “biblical” until doomsday – that will never make his claim evidential.

(Dalcour): Disregarding Context:  First, as clearly seen, Perkins (as well as Oneness advocates across the board) has an annoying routine of basing the entirety of his arguments on a single word possible meaning, hence engaging in word fallacies over and over—while the entire contexts are dismissed and/or ignored.  This is esp. seen in his unitarian view of John 10:30, as we will see.      

*Not surprisingly, as anyone can “clearly see” the context of John 10 was my very source of appeal—and specifically what refutes Dalcour’s eisegesis of this unit of passages.  This is nothing more than Dalcour’s typically unsubstantiated assertions and diversionary tactics.  He does not offer any actual evidence or demonstration of this charge.

*Moreover, since Dalcour commits both logical and grammatical fallacies at virtually every turn in both his writings and presentations, we would think he would discard the word “fallacies” as quickly as Bernie Sanders would drop the term “conservative!”  Perhaps I should send Dalcour a copy of D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies?    

(Dalcour): A glaring example of this is in Perkins’ assessment John 10:30, Perkins in his article, he spends most of his time trying to tell us (Christians) what a text “cannot” mean, rather than what it does mean.

*Actually, I demonstrated from the grammar, context and grammar to the Christians the errors of Dalcour’s claims – and in hopes that Trinitarians will see his mistakes and become biblical Christians.  My rejoinders against Dalcour have quite obviously been intended to deal with his mountains of repeated textual miscalculations.

(Dalcour):  In other words, Perkins, does not provide a positive affirmation as to the actual meaning of v. 30;

*Here are my quite clear words in the article below that Dalcour is referring to:

Moreover, as intimated above, Oneness believers agree that there is a subject-object distinction in John 10.30-33.  And the context actually defines this distinction for us:  “You, being a man, make yourself God.”  The problem the Jews had with Christ’s assertion was that He was a visible “man” claiming to be the invisible “God.”  In John 10.30 both the 1st person pronoun translated “I” (ἐγὼ) and the noun translated “Father” (Πατὴρ) appear in the nominative case, singular number.  The speaker was a visible man (subject) claiming to be the one invisible God (object)—hence the contextual subject-object distinction.

*Outside of actually quoting the surrounding context, the reaction of the original hearers and the specific grammar—we are not quite sure how else to explain this for Dalcour (?).  In 10.33 the noun translated “man” (ἄνθρωπος) appears in the ordinary nominative case (subject of the verbs “being” [ὢν] and “make” [ποιεῖς]), while the word rendered “God” is an accusative case noun.  We don’t know how to make this any clearer for Dalcour.     

(Dalcour):  nor does he explain how it relates to the context of chapter 10;

*As any one can plainly see above I have specifically quoted both the context and grammar of this unit.

(Dalcour):  or explain WHY Jesus, as recorded, uses a plural verb and not a singular verb denoting Him and His Father;

*Below Dalcour attempts to spin away from the natural force of the masculine singular adjective translated “one” in Mark 12.29 (εἷς – which he erroneously identifies as a “pronoun” twice in a clip I post below) by petitioning two verses that he thinks rehabilitates his Trinity doctrine.  This he does by appealing to what he considers a consistent usage of this particular adjective—although we’re not quite sure how he surmises that two verses set the precedent for hundreds of clear passages (?).  Of course, such hermeneutical fallacies are quite common among agenda-driven Trinitarians like Dalcour (as we shall soon display).  As we demonstrate below, the boomerang effect of his evasion tactics relative to this adjective are devastating to his desperate endeavor to maintain this unbiblical dogma.

*Likewise, in my blog refutation of Dalcour’s eisegesis of John 10.30 and his earth-shattering plural verb argument, I quoted several passages that supply the singular verb modifying both God and His Son that Dalcour is always complaining about—and that he completely omitted from his current article.  Here are the actual quotes from my original article that Dalcour omits from his audience’s consideration:

“There are numerous NT passages where a singular verb modifies the Father and the Son of God as the same subject:

I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.  (Revelation 21.22; NASB)

“The Greek verb translated ‘are’ (ἐστιν) in this text is the ‘singular verb estin’ that Dalcour requests above explicating both God and His Son.  If a plural verb describing the Father and the Son quantifies as two divine persons—why does not a singular verb modifying the same subject equal a single divine person (esp. when this passage contextually describes the singular ‘temple’ of Heaven)?

Trinitarians typically attempt to dodge this dilemma by stating that Revelation 21.22 is not syntactically parallel to John 10.30 and hence does not apply to the debate (as Dalcour does below).  However, this is a subtle shift in argumentation to evade their obvious inconsistency since no appeal to syntax was marshaled from the Trinitarian camp in the original assertion.  This is nothing more than the usual effort by Trinitarians to spin away from their discordant appeals.  The exegetical fact remains that a singular verb modifies both the Father and the Son of God in Revelation 21.22 as the vast majority of reputable translations clearly affirm (e.g., ESV, NASB, BSB, NKJV).  Why the double standard from Trinitarians?  Inquiring minds want to know!

“Just for good measure, a couple of additional passages where singular verbs simultaneously modify both the Father and the Son of God as the same subject:

Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you.  (I Thessalonians 3.11; Berean Literal Bible)

Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς κατευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς·  (NA28)

“The Greek verb rendered ‘direct’ (κατευθύναι) above appears in the aorist, active, optative, 3rd person, singular form describing the activity of the Father and Jesus.  Will Trinitarians be consistent in their verbal appeals at this point?  Or, will they now offer the usual spin-away-from-it tact?  I prophesy the latter!  

Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.  (2 Thessalonians 2.16-17; NASB)

Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς καὶ δοὺς παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν ἐν χάριτι, παρακαλέσαι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας καὶ στηρίξαι ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ.  (NA28)

“You guessed it!  The four verbs (two in participial form) embolden above used to explicate the action of the same subject – God the Father and Christ – are all singular, not plural.  Where are all the blog posts and lectures from Trinitarians concerning these singular verbs that modify God and His Son?  Why the deafening silence?  Not to worry, we will shout it from the proverbial mountaintops for them!

“Moreover, as intimated above, Oneness believers agree that there is a subject-object distinction in John 10.30-33.  And the context actually defines this distinction for us:  ‘You, being a man, make yourself God.’  The problem the Jews had with Christ’s assertion was that He was a visible ‘man’ claiming to be the invisible ‘God’.”

*Hence, as usual Dalcour practices what he disallows for others. 

(Dalcour):  or WHY is the neuter “one” used to denote the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

*Dalcour was the one who raised the potential of the masculine singular force of “one” in John 10.30.  Here’s his original quote: “If Jesus wanted to communicate that He was Himself the Father (same person), He certainly would have used the masculine heis (as in Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5).

*Now, as evidenced by both the sloppiness and tone of his article, Dalcour goes into panic mode because his assertion has backfired on him – and he must save face as quickly as possible!  Perhaps he is not familiar with the purpose of a rejoinder, but it is to refute the erroneous assertions of others—not to offer a “positive” argumentation (which, again, was indeed plainly provided in my article).

*However, to oblige Dalcour regarding the neuter of John 10.30, we will once again affirm that two subjects are in view in John 10.30 who constitutes God’s simultaneous existence as “God” and “man” (v. 33) in the person of Jesus Christ.  This is precisely what we have been attempting to inform Trinitarians ever since they invented this doctrine!  As stated elsewhere, of course we “use” John 10.30 since it directly refutes the Triune divinity heresy from the very lips of Jesus!   

(Dalcour): Perkins, for reasons know to himself, decided not to properly address these important issues.  Instead, Perkins merely makes comments based on his personal view and complains about the historic Trinitarian view.  Since Perkins seems bothered most by the historical and enduring scholarly interpretation of John 10:30, I will respond primarily to Perkins’ assertion regarding that passage:  

*First, Perkins explicitly addressed these issues as evidenced by the direct quotes above from my refutation.  Hence, either Dalcour is blatantly dishonest (something he repeatedly charges me with), or, most probably, his religious tradition and pride blinds him to the very words before his eyes – as he does with the clear passages of the biblical data.

*Second, amazingly, the “scholarly interpretations” quoted by Dalcour actually validates the Oneness position unbeknownst to them—viz., their comments on the potential of the masculine singular adjective “one” (εἷς)…which was the overarching point of the whole rejoinder!

*Third, as to be expected, Dalcour’s appeal to uninspired “historical interpretations” serves as but another example of his supplemental data to the inspired biblical record.  As mentioned above every non-Christian movement is governed by such extra-biblical authority in practice (while simultaneously denying the same in confession).

*Perkins is not at all “bothered” by “historical interpretations” of this or any other biblical passage.  Oneness believers are simply held hostage by the Scriptures to deny the doctrine of the Trinity—and we are very serious about eternal salvation.  For this reason we tenaciously teach our children on the dangerous errors of this anti-biblical doctrine in accordance with Deuteronomy 6.4-7 and as commanded by Jesus in Mark 12.29.  

(Dalcour): Oneness people are utterly controlled by their unitarian presupposition.  Thus. every passage, which says or teaches “one God” (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), Perkins (as with all Oneness advocates), must salvage his personal views by forcing unitarianism into every passage—without, of course, proving it from the text.

*Ironically, it is Trinitarians who have some odd infatuation with force-feeding “multiple divine persons” into the text at virtually every turn.  That Trinitarians can somehow cram three divine persons down the throat of ca. nine-thousand single-person-pronouns applied to God—then charge Oneness believers with “presupposition” only serves to further demonstrate their desperate attempts to protect their religious tradition(s).

*Dalcour specializes in such wild-eyed speculations as he seeks to locate the Son of God on almost every page of the OT.  The annoying fact that the OT Jews-Hebrews have never worshiped a Triune divinity seems to get under his skin—hence he swats at shadows of “the Angel of the Lord,” “The Ancient of Days,” etc.  These assumptions are easily refuted by the biblical data itself – but anything to off-set the thorn in his side (note also that none of Dalcour’s repeated Jewish resources conclude his Triune divinity hypothesis)!

(Dalcour): All unitarians, whether Muslims, JWs, or Oneness Pentecostals employ this kind of circular eisegesis.  Thus, Perkins automatically (not exegetically) interprets John 10:30 through the lens of unitarianism—viz., one God = one person, the Father.          

*Here Dalcour seeks to lump Oneness believers with groups who deny that the Son of God is very God in bodily form—something we tenaciously cling to.  Dalcour knows this and thus reveals his lack of honesty and ethics when dealing with opposing views (exposing his typical pomp).  As demonstrated above, we equally include Trinitarians like Dalcour in with aberrant groups—particularly Mormons, Roman Catholics and JW’s since they argue much alike and all of these groups have more than one with the status of “God.”

*Similarly, Muslims and JW’s are often heard to say, “Jesus never once said He was God!”  Uniformly, Trinitarians very often (erroneously) claim, “Jesus never once said He was the Father!”  This is where his Guilt by Association fallacy and ad-hominem attacks land Daclour—all the while he stomps his foot about my supposed “fallacies!”  {Note: Much could be pointed out regarding the inverse of Dalcour’s Guilt by Association fallacy known as Honor by Association, but that would extend beyond the scope of this polemic.  Perhaps an article for another time!}

*This is not to even expound upon how Dalcour exchanges the lenses of biblical monotheism (what he labels as “unitarianism”) for his trifocals on virtually every page.

*Moreover, I have both contextually and grammatically demonstrated that John 10.30 stands as a positive testimony to the identity of Jesus as both the sole OT Yahveh and a genuine “man.”  I cannot help that Dalcour filters all data through his trifocals, just as he does the biblical testimony of God’s self-declarations (e.g., Isaiah 44.24; Mark 12.29; Colossians 2.8-10).

(Dalcour):  As we will see all over, Perkins not once deals with the context of the chapter itself.  Anyone who as ever heard Perkins in debate or read any of his tutelages, he or she would see that Perkins lives up to his solid reputation of removing passages and words out of their inclusive context in which he posits his personal theology into such passages throwing around Greek terms and misreading and misquoting lexicons.

*Actually, the diametrical opposite is true.  Perkins specifically appealed to the context (as my direct quotes provided below demonstrate).  And, though this has been explained to Dalcour ad nauseum, I will repeat it here for the honest reader.  In my October 2011 debate with James White while discussing the Greek noun translated “image” (εἰκὼν) in Colossians 1.15 I referenced the following direct quote from BDAG (actually I was referring to BAGD [2nd ed.], but the quotation is the same):

2 that which has the same form as someth. else (not a crafted object as in 1 above), living image, fig. ext. of 1 εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (ἄνθρωπος πλάσμα καὶ εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ [God] Theoph. Ant. 1, 4 [p. 64, 17]; w. ὁμοίωσις Did., Gen. 56, 28) of a man (cp. Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 109, 11 [III B.C.] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone = OGI 90, 3 [196 B.C.] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cp. APF 1, 1901, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 125 [27, 4]; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau Festschr. 1915, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cp. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); of Christ (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1, 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god. – The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (εἰ. τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ μονογενής Did., Gen. 58, 3; cp. εἰκὼν γὰρ τοῦ…θεοῦ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 4, 85, 24.–EPreuschen, ZNW 18, 1918, 243).

*Above I have embolden the segments of this lexicon that I was referencing in the debate.  As anyone can plainly read above these lexicographers state that the Greek phrase εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (the identical construction used in Colossians 1.15) defines as a “figurative extension of 1,” referring to BDAG’s first (i.e., the #1 above) provided definition of this Greek noun.  Here is the first meaning that BDAG states extends out to Christ in a figurative sense at Colossians 1.15:

1 an object shaped to resemble the form or appearance of someth., likeness, portrait (cp. Did., Gen. 82, 6) of the emperor’s head on a coin (so Artem. 4, 31; of an emperor’s image Jos., Bell. 2, 169; 194, Ant. 19, 185; cp. AcThom 112 [Aa II/2, 223, 19]; s. DShotter, Gods, Emperors, and Coins: Greece and Rome, 2d ser. 26, ’79, 48-57) Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24. Of an image of a god (Diod. S. 2, 8, 7 [Zeus]; Appian, Mithrid. 117 §575 θεῶν εἰκόνες; Lucian, Sacr. 11; 2 Ch 33:7; Is 40:19; Just., A I, 55, 7; Ath. 18, 1; s. TPodella, Das Lichtkleid ’96, esp. 83-88) Rv 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.

*In the debate I simply overlooked the semi-colon (;) preceding the phrase “of Christ” and I am sincerely glad this was pointed out later.  It has indeed helped me in my carefulness of research.  However, this changes absolutely nothing in my application since BDAG used the descriptor “Christ” for this specific noun, which is not an ontological expression as Trinitarians feign, but rather a functional term literally meaning “one who has been anointed” (cf. NET TN).  If this is describing “ontologically co-equal, co-eternal, divine persons” how can it be said that one co-equal divine person “anointed” another co-equal divine person?  And Dalcour calls Oneness theology “convoluted?”

*Similar to Mormonism, Trinitarians attempt to redefine this noun to refer to the pre-existent-heavenly world.  However, as seen above, this Greek noun denotes that which is tangible or corporeal and is where we derive the English word “icon”—obviously referring to that which is physically material.  Or, as the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines this particular noun:

(2) as an embodiment or living manifestation of God form, appearance (CO 1.15);

*Did Christ have an actual “embodiment” in His preexistent state?  If so, then Dalcour is now advocating radical-bodily separation within the Godhead – all the while still feigning “monotheism.”  Note also that the term “embodiment” is synonymous with “incarnation.”  No doubt Dalcour will place his usual evasive spin on the above grammatical facts, but we will simply allow the actual text itself to inform our theological deductions—despite his beloved “creeds” and “councils.”

*More importantly, to seek to apply the same time continuum (i.e., “eternality”) to a “visible image” (cf. Amplified Bible) as to that which is “invisible”—viz., the “invisible God” in this text—betrays Dalcour’s theologically-driven obsession.  Such non-sensical conclusions only serve to demonstrate how far Trinitarians like Dalcour are willing to stretch to protect their religious traditions.      

*Even worse, I have numerous quotes of Dalcour making outright erroneous assertions about the Greek texts of the Bible.  While I post the links to several of his blunders later, for now, all one has to do is listen in below as Dalcour claims the masculine singular adjective εἷς (“one” in Mark 12.29) is actually a masculine “pronoun.”  And, he does this not just once but twice with the actual text right in front of him HERE (forward to the 2:41 and 8:50 minute mark[s] and listen in)!

*If Dalcour doesn’t even know the difference between a Greek adjective and a pronoun he might want to think twice before he attempts to correct someone else for how they have used a resource years ago.  As seen above, Dalcour just recently made these sophomoric bloopers—and we have many more below!

(Dalcour):  Hence, many see Perkins as practicing dishonest scholarship especially in his debate with James White.

*Specifically who are the “many?” Agenda-driven Trinitarians like Dalcour?  And, isn’t this the same debate where White provided his own private translation of Philippians 2.6—yet failed to inform the audience it was his personal rendering?  We wonder how many Trinitarians are charging White with “dishonest scholarship?”  Isn’t this the same debate where White openly stated that God supposedly exists as “three divine individuals, each with their own separate (a word Dalcour sprints away from) centers of consciousness apart from the other two divine persons?”  Who can take such claims seriously?

*Moreover, I received testimonies and appreciation from all over the world for this debate.  In fact, several people were converted to biblical Christianity and monotheism due to that debate.  To Christ be all the glory and honor.  

(Dalcour):  Namely, Perkins stated that Thayer applied a meaning of “in the mind” for preposition para with dative, appearing twice in John 17:5: (“Father glorify Me para seautw [“together with Yourself”] . . . with the glory I had para soi [“with You”] before the world was”).  However, Thayer said no such thing.  He does indicate para with the dative could have a possible meaning of “in the mind” at John 17:5.

*Umm, was this not my very point in the debate?  Here Dalcour commits the special pleading fallacy by employing the terms “could have” and a “possible” meaning.  This is nothing more than Dalcour’s usual exegetical-dodge-ball tactics to avoid the direct lexical refutations of his absolute claims—all the while he charges others with the very disingenuous methods that he consistently uses.  As shown above, the lexical fact remains that the Greek preposition παρὰ + dative case used by Christ includes “in the mind,” despite how hard Dalcour attempts to spin away from its semantic range.

(Dalcour):  To say that he did as Perkins did is simply flat-out lexical abuse.  In fact, when Thayer actually comments on para with the dative to John 17:5 he states:

*Amazingly, Dalcour botches yet another lexical resource here and only provides a partial quotation as seen in his ellipsis (…) below.  Not to worry—we provide the whole quote for our readers!

(Dalcour quoting Thayer):  With, i.e., in one’s house. . . .Dwelling WITH God, John 8:38 [“I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”]; i.q. [‘the same as’] in heaven, John 17:5 (emphasis added).

(Dalcour):  No “in the mind” meaning (as with standard lexicons and grammars indicate).

*Are we reading the same lexicon Mr. Dalcour?  Here’s the entire quotation from Thayer:

II.  with the dative, παρά indicates that something is or is done either in the immediate vicinity of someone, or (metaphorically) in his mind, near by, beside, in the power of, in the presence of, with, the Sept. for אֵצֶל (1 Kings 20:1 (); Proverbs 8:30), בְּיַד (Genesis 44:16; Numbers 31:49), בְּעֵינֵי (see b. below); cf. Winers Grammar, § 48, d., p. 394f (369); (Buttmann, 339 (291f)).  

(a)  near, by: εἱστήκεισαν παρά τῷ σταυρῷ, John 19:25 (this is the only passage in the N. T. where παρά is joined with a dative of the thing, in all others with a dative of the person). after a verb of motion, to indicate the rest which follows the motion (cf. Buttmann, 339 (292)), ἔστησεν αὐτό παῥ ἑαυτῷ, Luke 9:47.  

(b)  with, i. e. in one’s house; in one’s town; in one’s society: ξενίζεσθαι (which see), Acts 10:6; Acts 21:16; μένειν, of guests or lodgers, John 1:39 (); ; Acts 9:43; Acts 18:3, 20 (R G); f; ἐπιμένειν, Acts 28:14 L T Tr WH; καταλύειν, Luke 19:7 (Demosthenes, de corona § 82 (cf. Buttmann, 339 (292))); ἀριστᾶν, Luke 11:37; ἀπολείπειν τί, 2 Timothy 4:13; παρά τῷ Θεῷ, dwelling with God, John 8:38; equivalent to in heaven, John 17:5;

*Note above that Thayer provides the lexical meaning of παρὰ in the dative case under definition number II where he specifies that when a “metaphorical” connotation is applied the sense is “in the mind.”  Thayer then places John 17.5 under category IIb.  Dalcour is hung on the horns of a dilemma here since he either has to (i) openly affirm that God the Father and “God the Son” have literal “sides”—which destroys the notion of omnipresence for Dalcour’s supposed “God-persons,” or (ii) the meaning of this prepositional construct is metaphorical (as Dalcour has acknowledged in his lectures).

*If the meaning is metaphorical—as it clearly is—then Dalcour is forced to concede Thayer’s application of “in the mind” if he is to abide by his own standards.  Of course, we can expect to find the remains of the Abominable Snowman before this will ever take place!  Hence, as demonstrated above, it is actually Dalcour who is living up to his solid reputation of removing passages and words out of their inclusive context.  This never ceases to amaze me about Dalcour and I sincerely feel so sorry for his gullible devotees.     

(Dalcour):  As with John 10:30, Perkins is quite alone on his personal views of regarding a Oneness unitarian interpretation of 17:5.  In point of fact, anyone engaging in real scholarly research on John 17:5 (or 10:30) would see scholarly opinion rejects Oneness theological assertions across the board.        

*Actually, “in point of fact,” this is patently false as this quotation from one of many Trinitarian scholars clearly indicates:

“The glory of the completed redemption cannot literally be possessed until redemption is complete.  If now the pre-existence of Jesus, according to the 17th chapter of John is clearly ideal, this fact confirms the interpretation which has been given of the other passages….We conclude, then, that (Jn. 17:5) in which Jesus alludes to his preexistence, does not involve the claim that His preexistence was personal and real. (It is) to be classed with the other phenomena of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, none of which have to do with metaphysical relationships with the Father” (Dr. G. H. Gilbert, former professor of NT Literature at Chicago Theological Seminary; The Revelation of Jesus: A Study of the Primary Sources of Christianity, p. 222).

*Hence, what Dalcour classifies as “scholarly opinion” translates into those-that-specifically-agree-with-me!  Again, this is merely one of numerous quotes we could marshal from various scholars that speak to this end.  Similarly, the Greek preposition and pronoun translated “with you” in the last clause of 17.5 is παρὰ σοί in the dative case and enjoys quite a semantic range.  See below the UBS Concise Greek-English Dictionary:

παρά prep. with:  (1) genitive, from, of (τὰ παρά τινος one’s provisions, money or gift; οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ his family #Mr 3:21); by, with; (2) dative, with, in the presence of, before; in the judgment of; near, beside; for; (3) accusative, beside, by, at; on, along; to; than, more than, above; rather than; contrary to.

*As anyone can plainly see, “beside” is only one of several potential meanings of this preposition in this case.  As demonstrated above, παρὰ + dative equally means “in the judgment of,” which is perfectly aligned with the Oneness position (cf. L&N, Thayer, et al. for this meaning of παρὰ + dative).  Trinitarians cherry-pick the definition that seems to best fit their theology in John 17.5 and we simply have another case of creedal belief pawned off as grammatical fact.  The reality is that context will always be the ultimate determiner in translation—as an “apologist” should well know.

(Dalcour): REGARDING JOHN 10:30-Context. After reading Perkins’ so-called refutation, a glaring fact jumps out (esp. with John 10:30): Perkins never actually interacts at all with the content and actual context of the surrounding the passages, he merely asserts his theology into text.

*As we have demonstrated above and shall show once again below, I specifically referenced the “context of the surrounding the passages” (whatever such non-sensical wording is supposed to mean?)—and Dalcour actually provides my quote below!  Mind-boggling.

(Dalcour):  He does use the word “context when he says:

*(My quote from the original rejoinder):  And the context actually defines this distinction for us:  “You, being a man, make yourself God.”  The problem the Jews had with Christ’s assertion was that He was a visible “man” claiming to be the invisible “God.”  In John 10.30 both the 1st person pronoun translated “I” (ἐγὼ) and the noun translated “Father” (Πατὴρ) appear in the nominative case, singular number.  The speaker was a visible man (subject) claiming to be the one invisible God (object)—hence the contextual subject-object distinction.”

(Dalcour):  So Perkins’ idea of “context” is to cite a lone passage (i.e., v. 30) and then his own assumed context into that passage.

*As anyone can read in the excerpts above, I actually cited v. 33 as the carefully stated context (i.e., the natural flow of the Johannine narrative)—not v. 30 as Dalcour erroneously claims above.  Further, I repeatedly pointed to how the original hearers understood Jesus’ assertion in v. 30 as a statement of identity and not mere “unity” – even after hearing the plural verb (that Dalcour thinks demands multiple persons in the Godhead).  

*After citing v. 33 as the surrounding context I subsequently moved on to v. 30.  Perhaps if Dalcour would quote the whole article for his readers I would not have to point out the obvious, but, again, I refer readers to my original blog piece.  And Dalcour is attempting to correct me about supposedly “practicing dishonest scholarship?”  The proverbial elephant in the room is quite glaring!  

(Dalcour):  As any first year seminary student knows, that he would receive failing grade on in a basic hermeneutic class, which he was required to exegete a passage and he merely did what Perkins did—viz., assert a pre-text without a context.

*While we appreciate Dalcour’s James White impersonation here, actually, I completed “first year” Greek with a 95% by the grace of God – and at “land record speed” as my professor stated.  And, while I certainly make no pretenses to being a Greek scholar I have continued my education in original language research and have learned much (with much more to still learn!).   

*Far more importantly, below, we demonstrate but a few of Dalcour’s fundamental hermeneutical flaws.  Worse, as shown above Dalcour repeatedly blunders with the Greek text.  Here, let’s see another one of his botched quotes shall we?

*On his website Dalcour has a video clip entitled, “The Trinity in the OT Recorded live at ABN in Detroit MI, featuring Sam Shamoun, Edward Dalcour, and Anthony Rogers” (found about ¾ down the page HERE).  At the 50:20 minute mark Dalcour begins discussing Matthew 28.18-19.  And at the 50:36 minute mark Dalcour informs us that Christ commanded His disciples to baptize “UNDER the name” of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

*Problem is, Jesus never “commanded” any such thing!  The Greek preposition used by Jesus is εἰς governing the accusative case noun ὄνομα.  For Dalcour’s false assertion to be accurate Jesus would have used the normal preposition for “under,” viz., ὑπό in the accusative case.  Amazingly, in this same clip, Dalcour even stresses the singularity of the name of Matthew 28.19—yet fails to inform us what this single “name” is (hint:  it is equally “the name of…the Son” Mr. Dalcour!).  And this is but one of Dalcour’s numerous clumsy attempts to sound “scholarly” in this clip—as well as many other recordings that I have.

*This is simply “first year” Greek and if Dalcour makes such freshman mistakes such as this he might need to re-evaluate his own “credentials.”  Incidentally, since Dalcour is publicly leveling charges against my references and personal scholarship, the following is taken from his website: “Dr. Dalcour holds a Master in Apologetics from Columbia Evangelical Seminary and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Dogmatic Theology from North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus, SA).”  Now, see HERE for information on where Dalcour obtained these degrees.

*I personally spoke with administration at Columbia Evangelical Seminary and they affirmed that they aren’t even an accredited seminary – and their behemoth “campus” is limited to two small offices (see HERE  – I have since read that they have actually minimized down to one office now).  Or, simply see this link from their own website HERE.  

*This is not to infer that such on-line-distance education is not a learning experience as I am sure that it is.  However, someone as pompous as Dalcour regarding supposed biblical education might need to sweep around his own porch before dusting off his broom for mine (Note: I have even more information on “Dr.” Dalcour’s credentials if he presses this issue further.)!    

*As anticipated, Dalcour usually attempts to spin away from his all-thumbs-textual-bumbling(s) by protesting that he “meant this in a certain context!”  Trouble is, he does this type of thing over and over—and I have his actual recordings and quotes to prove it!  Let’s take an analytical look at Dalcour’s “hermeneutics” and see how he would fare in the same first year hermeneutics class shall we?  Indeed, as we have repeatedly pointed out, the hermeneutical and paradigmatic differences between Trinitarian and Oneness believers are at the very heart of our eternal differences.

*One of the most glaring hermeneutical flaws that Dalcour commits is interpreting the macro-witness through the lens of the micro-witness.  Any first year hermeneutics student understands that debatable-unclear passages that appear in the minority are to be explicated under the light of the undebatable-clear verses that appear in the majority.  This is so elementary that I am surprised that Trinitarians still use this ploy (e.g., Genesis 1.26; Matthew 28.19).

*That is, Dalcour repeatedly (mis)uses a handful of passages to teach that the Son of God was the “literal-active Creator” (e.g., Colossians 1.15-16; Hebrews 1.1-10) while attempting to explain away approximately fifty crystal-clear verses teaching that one person of God created (e.g., Nehemiah 9.6; Isaiah 44.24; Malachi 2.10; Mark 10.6; Matthew 19.4; etc.).

*Further, there are at least nine-thousand instances where God declares that He is a sole-person via single-person-pronouns, yet Dalcour somehow uses six plural pronouns applied to God as a blanket to cover these thousands of plain passages—and doesn’t even seem to blush.  How on earth someone who feigns “scholarship” can force-feed three, distinct, co-equal, co-eternal divine individuals into a single-person-pronoun is as mind-boggling as how Dalcour can seriously claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is actually “biblical.”

*Dalcour does the same thing with the lone witness of Matthew 28.19—which specifies a single “name”—in attempting to override the plainness of the baptismal accounts in the biblical data (e.g., Acts 2.38, 8.16, 10.48, 19.5, 22.16; I Corinthians 1.13, 6.11; Romans 6.3; Galatians 3.27; Colossians 2.9-12).  To Dalcour’s chagrin, since he is fond of arguing from silence, nowhere in the inspired-scriptural record is anyone ever baptized according “the Trinitarian formula” (as he calls it).

*Dalcour typically seeks to evade these militating biblical facts by claiming that the prepositional phrase “in the name of” doesn’t really mean a “name” (nudge-nudge – wink-wink), but rather “authority”….even though the Greek noun for “authority” (ἐξουσία) appears nowhere in these actual baptismal accounts.  Of course, this is an age-old dodge popularized by the so-called “Church of Christ” in polemic platform and has been utterly refuted.

*In fact, since Dalcour is fond of charging others with lexical abuse—when we’ve actually demonstrated the polar opposite above—let’s see if he’ll equally accept what BDAG says about the noun translated “name” in the baptismal accounts of Acts shall we?

Through baptism εἰς (τὸ) ὄν. τ. those who are baptized become the possession of and come under the dedicated protection of the one whose name they bear. An additional factor, to a degree, may be the sense of εἰς τὸ ὄν. = with mention of the name (cp. Herodian 2, 2, 10; 2, 13, 2 ὀμνύναι εἰς τὸ ὄν. τινος; Cyranides p. 57, 1 εἰς ὄν. τινος; 60, 18=εἰς τὸ ὄν. τ.; 62, 13. Another ex. in Heitmüller 107): Mt 28:19; Ac 8:16; 19:5; D 7:1, (3); 9:5; Hv 3, 7, 3; cp. 1 Cor 1:13, 15.

ג. with ἐν: ἐν ὀνόματι of God or Jesus means in the great majority of cases with mention of the name, while naming or calling on the name (PsSol 11:8; JosAs 9:1; Just., D. 35, 2 al.; no corresponding use has been found in gener. Gk. lit.; but cp. ἐν ὀν. τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ ὑψίστου θεοῦ Hippol., Ref. 9, 15, 6.–Heitmüller p. 13ff, esp. 44; 49).  In many pass. it seems to be a formula…βαπτίζεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὀν. Ἰ. Χ.  be baptized or have oneself baptized while naming the name of Jesus Christ Ac 2:38 v.l.; 10:48.  At a baptism ἐν ὀν. χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ AcPl Ha 3, 32.

*Now watch Dalcour’s fancy footwork begin folks as he does in his most recent attempted dodge of these texts HERE!  

*Or, how about this dandy from the NIDNTTE:

(c) The baptismal formula εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, “to/into the name,” prob. corresponds with the rabb. use of לְשֵׁם (see JL 6 (e), above).  The sense may be that baptism symbolically assigns the believer to Christ for forgiveness of sins (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13, 15; cf. Matt 28:19).  The same idea can be intended where other prepositions are used (Acts 2:38 [ἐπί]; 10:48 [ἐν]; cf. the LXX rendering of לְשֵׁם in Josh 9:9; 2 Sam 22:50; Sir 47:13).

*Note that this (highly meticulous) resource designates the phrase “into the name” as a “baptismal formula” connected to “forgiveness of sins.”  They then refer readers to their Semitic definition in the Jewish Literature (JL) 6 (e), which states:

(e) Among the rabbis the name is important in the teaching of tradition.  One who passes on a doctrine or tradition should do so by naming (בְּשֵׁם) the authority from whom it was received (m. ’Abot 6:6).

*This directly refutes Dalcour’s usual erroneous claim that in a Semitic context a “name” meant only “authority” and not an actual name as the inspired text clearly states.  Of course, this is nothing more than Dalcour’s typical attempt to render the biblical record of no affect in order to rescue and protect his religious tradition(s).  (Note: Dalcour’s “authority only” dodge would be deafeningly refuted in public polemic platform—and I sincerely hope he tries this should he ever accept my debate offer[s]!)

*Note also that the NIDNTTE citation above directs their audience to the LXX translation of Joshua 9.9 and the prepositional phrases rendered “in the name:”

(Joshua 9.9; NETS [LXX]):  And they said, “Your servants have come from a land very far away in the name of the Lord your God;  for we have heard his name and what he did in Egypt…”

*Note once again the connection between the prepositional phrase “in the name of” and “hear(ing) his name”—obviously indicating that the name was orally invoked.

*CWSB; Drs. Carpenter, Baker and Zodhiates:

To invoke (Acts 9:21; 22:16; 1 Cor. 1:2); baptízō (G0907), to baptize in the name of the Lord (Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; 19:5), and with the prep. epí (G1909), upon (Acts 2:38); with the prep. en (G1722), in (Acts 10:48 [cf. being baptized into {eis (G1519)} Christ [Rom. 6:3]); by antithesis, to baptize in the name of Paul (1 Cor. 1:13, 15).

*Since Dalcour refers to the consensus of scholarship above, will he stick by his guns in these accounts and now alter his “baptismal formula” to harmonize with these exegetes immediately overhead  (I have many more quotes if he still needs further persuasion!)?  Incidentally, I am currently reading through Dr. Craig S. Keener’s Exegetical Commentary on Acts (a mammoth 4 volume exegesis) wherein he clearly states that primitive Christian initiation included water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.  Stay tuned to this blog for specific quotes from Dr. Keener to this end.   

*Note also above that CWSB directly references Matthew 28.19 as baptism “in the name of the Lord” right alongside Acts 8.16 and Acts 19.5—clear references to baptism in Jesus Name (see HERE for an excellent exegesis of the biblical baptismal accounts).  We think it most wise not to hold our breath at this point!

*Another of Dalcour’s typical hermeneutical blunders is that he builds his theological house by appealing to the NT corpus at the outset relative to God’s identity—while explaining away the OT assertions of Yahveh’s self-declaration.  In doing so, Dalcour abandons all educational principles since latter revelation is naturally built on former revelation and not contrary to the same.

*Dalcour usually labels this “progressive revelation” in attempting to wax theological.  However, actually, his Godhead notions would be “digressive revelation” since this does theology backwards and rejects God’s sole-monadic-self-identification.  This holds particularly true for God’s eternal self-identification (e.g., Deuteronomy 33.27; etc.).  Simply, Dalcour’s theology disallows Yahveh’s words to hold true despite how loud he protests otherwise (e.g., Isaiah 44.24; Deuteronomy 4.35; etc.).

*As an analogy, imagine what would happen if you attempted to board a plane and showed TSA your identification card, but stubbornly insisted that you were really three persons—each with their own center of consciousness!  This is exactly what Dalcour does to Yahveh’s self-identification-card in literally thousands upon thousands of passages (e.g., Isaiah 40-45; Matthew 28.18-20; John 1.1-14, 14.8-18).      

*That is, Dalcour assumes that because he locates Father, Son, Holy Spirit language in the NT this equals an “eternal Triune divinity.”  The fact that the clear OT self-declarations of Yahveh sharply refute his eisegesis seems to really bother Dalcour.  Hence, to recover his theological commitments he swats at any shadows he thinks he can find in the OT of a “Trinity.”  Dalcour usually does this by taking wild-eyed swings at the “Angel of the LORD,” “The Ancient of Days,” plural Hebrew verbs, nouns and pronouns—none of which are textually limited to “three” and actually refutes his Triune divinity hypothesis (not unusual for Trinitarianism).

*Again, so much more could be pointed out regarding Dalcour’s supposed “hermeneutic” methodology, but for the sake of space and time we will save these points for our follow-up posts.  Stay tuned for the ensuing three refutations πρὸς Dalcour which will be posted very soon above.  

*Thank you for reading!

Leave Comment Here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s