*The following is the second in a tetralogy of exegetical surrejoinders toward Edward Dalcour’s assertions found in his article HERE. I have copied Mr. Dalcour’s claims in *black with my categorical responses immediately following, as here. Enjoy!
(Dalcour): As he consistently does with other passages Perkins attempts to modalize (esp. John 1:1; 10:30; 17:5 et al). Perkins here is utterly discounted from the context of chapter 10—where Jesus and the Father are plainly repeatedly differentiated.
*This is nothing more than Dalcour’s usual pontificating since the “context” of John 10 – particularly how the original audience understood the words they heard – is the very thing that refutes Dalcour’s fictitious “multi-personed-divinity” canard. Of course, I specifically referenced this in my original article. Simply, I have no need to “attempt” anything with biblical passages. I merely allow the scriptural statements to inform my conclusion contra allowing my conclusions to inform the biblical statements, as does Dalcour.
*Moreover, as we’ve repeatedly informed inattentive Trinitarians like Dalcour the ontological and functional distinctions between God and His Son are readily and gladly acknowledged by Oneness believers. However, Dalcour assumes that distinction automatically translates into multiple God-persons. It does not—despite how many tantrums Dalcour throws and screams otherwise. Nice try though Mr. Dalcour!
(Dalcour): Note the consistency of the passages leading up to v. 30 the following:
*Yes, but don’t omit vv. 30-33 as Dalcour does in the following—keep reading! Note also below how Dalcour plays textual leap frog in jumping from v. 18 to v. 29 and then on to v. 36—excluding all of the verses in between (all the while complaining about supposed “hermeneutical flaws”).
(Dalcour): Verse 15: “even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.”
*We really don’t understand what Dalcour assumes this validates regarding his multi-personed-divinity hypothesis (?). I am thinking that Dalcour speculates that because Jesus refers to His Father with otherness language in this passage that this demands that Jesus is not the Father. However, this is nothing more than Trinitarian theology read into the text (eisegesis) contra allowing the text to speak for itself. To demonstrate, Jesus equally referred to “God,” “the Son of Man” and “the Christ” as if someone other than Himself (e.g., John 14.1; Mark 14.62; Luke 24.46). We are wondering how consistent Dalcour will be in his “hermeneutics” at this point (?). I predict the usual spin-away-from-it tactics will immediately begin!
(Dalcour): Verses 17-18: “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
*Unbeknownst to Dalcour, if used to explicate a Triune divinity this verse demands that each divine person necessarily possesses their own individual mind or center of consciousness. That is, if God the Son has His “own initiative” apart from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit then each person equally holds individual mental faculties apart from the others—the very core definition of polytheism.
*Moreover, how could an ontologically co-equal God the Son “receive commandment(s)” from another ontologically co-equal God-person? The usual Trinitarian evasion of this dilemma is to assert that Oneness believers here confuse ontological co-equality with the voluntary functional roles of each person in the Trinity. However, as pointed out above, this assumes the destination at the starting line (not to mention how this again embraces several divine minds within God)! That is, such an inadequate explanation presupposes a Triune divinity at the outset and then argues from this false premise (another Dalcour fallacy). Hence, Dalcour begins at his intended goal and then circles the wagon until he surmises that he has arrived.
(Dalcour): Verse 29: “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”
*Note here how Dalcour leap frogs from v. 18 to v. 29—omitting a total of 11 verses in his exegesis—in an attempt to swat at any shadow he thinks validates his theological aspirations (then charges Oneness believers with poor “hermeneutics”?).
*And, again, how can it be said that the first co-equal God-person is “greater” (μεῖζόν) than the second and third co-equal God-persons? How could one co-equal, co-eternal, God-person “give” believers to another co-equal, co-eternal God-person? Wouldn’t He already possess these believers from all of eternity (esp. within Dalcour’s “elect” soteriology)? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever despite how hard Dalcour tries to evade the obvious regarding Christ’s “greater” language (e.g., John 14.28; prayers of Jesus; etc.). I am forever grateful that the biblical God led me out of Trinitarianism into biblical Christianity and Monotheism.
(Dalcour): Verse 36: “If He [i.e., the Father] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him [Jesus], whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”
*Note above how Christ affirms that “the Scripture cannot be broken”—yet this is the very thing that Trinitarians offer as they posit a disjuncture between the OT identity of God and the NT identity of God. Indeed, in opposing the words of Christ (John 4.22) Dalcour has asserted that the “full revelation” of God did not come until the NT! According to this construct every OT Hebrew prophet and Jew did not have a “full” understanding of Yahveh’s identity—even though His monadic identity was the very basis of Israel’s exclusive covenant!
*Further, would Dalcour have us believe that the supposed first divine co-equal, co-eternal person “sanctified” (ἡγίασεν) the second divine co-equal, co-eternal person? How can it be said that God the Son could be “sanctified” in eternity and “sent” into earth? Can omnipresence be “sent” where it already exists? Such ludicrous ideas are esp. contradictory to the Trinitarian notion that the Son of God “volunteered” based upon their misunderstanding of Philippians 2.5-8. This text directly refutes such conjecture.
(Dalcour): Verse 38: “so that you may know and understand that the Father is in [en, thus, not “am”] Me, and I in the Father.”
*This is simply another case of Dalcour’s usual special pleading. He asserts that because Christ says the Father dwells “in” Him (ἐν + dative) that this somehow demands that Jesus is not the Father. However, would Dalcour have us believe that one omnipresent divine person indwells another omnipresent divine person? Here Dalcour is left hanging on the horns of a dilemma: Either the divine persons of his Trinity are not omnipresent—and hence not possessive of full Godhood properties—or the passage carries a metaphorical denotation. The choice is his since he has marshaled this verse in defense of his Triune divinity.
*Of course, none of Dalcour’s earth-shattering passages above present a problem for Oneness believers since we readily acknowledge the unity between God and His Son—and we have attempted to communicate this to Trinitarians ad nauseum. Yet, it’s a gross assumption to teach that this denies Jesus’s clear statements of identity as equally the Father (John 14.8-10) and the Holy Spirit (John 14.16-18).
(Dalcour): Clearly, no one who reads this chapter for the first time would never get the idea that Jesus was the same person as the Father. One would have to be taught the Oneness notion trading the natural reading for a stroppy modified one.
*This is easily turned around: Clearly, no one who reads the biblical data as a whole for the first time would arrive at a “three-personed-divinity” conclusion. One would have to be taught the “Trinity” notion, trading the natural reading of thousands upon thousands of biblical verses for a convoluted-forced interpretation.
*For example, I read John 1.1-18 for many years before I ever heard that Trinitarians attempt to use these verses to validate their theological conclusions. It never once crossed my mind that these passages were describing more than one divine person in the Godhead. In fact, these Scriptures are among the strongest in support of the Oneness position – despite how hard Trinitarians scream otherwise. Dalcour himself acknowledges that even most Trinitarians hold to the Oneness position until the Trinity is imported into their psyche. Here is a quote from the preface of his own book:
In fact, I find that Christians who have not been adequately taught about the Trinity make the same error. Thus, unstudied Christians too often unknowingly affirm Oneness theology in their efforts to explain how Jesus is God.
*Isn’t it amazing how so many Trinitarians “too often” arrive at the Oneness position by simply allowing the Scriptures alone to instruct them—but have to be “adequately taught” the Trinity?! Typical Trinitarian hypocrisy. And, speaking of trading a natural reading for an unnatural reading:
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,” (Isaiah 44.24; NASB)
“I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.” (Isaiah 43.11; NASB)
*Who would read these texts for the first time—allowing their natural force to stand alone—and arrive at the Triune divinity hypothesis? No one without a theological agenda. Dalcour crams his imaginary three-divine-persons into these texts above (as well as countless others). This does not even take into consideration the absolute masculine singular participles, single-person-pronouns, etc. of these Hebrew (and LXX) texts…a whole different article! Simply, Dalcour’s “multiple Creators” eisegesis cannot withstand linguistic analysis at this point despite his superficial delineation between the “persons” vs. the “being” of God.
(Dalcour): More grammatical errors. Perkins then ties a loose around the neck of his argument when he makes the assertion regarding nominatives and “subject object distinctions,” which Perkins calls, “the contextual subject-object distinction.” Because of Perkins’ lack of understanding in area of Greek grammar, he assumes his pretext (what he feels v. 30 means) based on his misunderstanding of 1) what a nominative and a predicate are and 2) subject object distinctions between Jesus and the Father.
*Ironically, as demonstrated above (and below) it is Dalcour who (i) misunderstands the Greek texts in this and many other verses, and (ii) who forces his theology into these texts—a text that never states the same (to Dalcour’s annoyance). Further, I fully understand the meaning of the two nominatives; viz., a compound subject that is contextually identified as “God” and “man” (v. 33). Worse, I specifically pointed this out in my original article. Dalcour simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
(Dalcour): First, it is clear from the Perkins statement, “In John 10.30 both the 1st person pronoun translated “I” and the noun translated “Father” (Πατὴρ) appear in the nominative case, singular number,” which he then sneaks in his conclusion, that Perkins just doesn’t know what two nominatives in a sentence indicates in light of the PLURAL verb.
*Actually, Perkins was crystal-clear to address both the nominatives and the plural verb. One has to wonder at this point if Dalcour was even reading the same article! As to be expected, Dalcour assumes that the plural verb ἐσμεν used in this text demands a plurality of divine persons, each with independent-divine minds. However, the actual biblical data and plain context itself refutes this notion. To Dalcour’s embarrassment Jesus did not use the adjective translated “two” (δύο) as He normally did when “two persons” were in view (e.g., Matthew 21.28; Luke 15.11). That is necessarily force fed into the mouth of Christ by over-zealous Trinitarians like Dalcour.
*Nevertheless, let me attempt to help Dalcour once again: Two nominatives connected by a plural verb simply denote a compound subject – “I and the Father.” However, we are not informed anything whatsoever about the nature or identity of this compound subject until the original audience informs us that “you, being a man (nominative ἄνθρωπος), make yourself God (accusative Θεόν)” (v. 33). Hence, once again, the context itself defines this plural subject for us – “God” and “man.” This is the second time I have pointed this out to Dalcour and am not quite sure how to accommodate his apparent willful misunderstandings at this point.
*But, since he won’t believe the inspired text itself perhaps he will believe my Greek professor (a [very kind] Trinitarian!), Dr. Maury Robertson, regarding these passages (?). Here is his usually congenial response concerning Dalcour’s grammatical assertions:
You’re right that there’s nothing particularly important about the two nominatives. You have it exactly right: just a compound subject. The way I read it, Jesus (εγω) is simply saying He is one with the Father. What exactly that “oneness” entails is for theologians to debate. There isn’t any grammatical magic in the verse to shed light on the issue that I can see.
Sorry if I’m missing something!
*Alas, Dalcour is once again caught with his hand in the grammatical cookie jar—and he does this type of thing all the time! As stated above, Dr. Robertson identifies theologically as a Trinitarian and is a very kind and gracious man. Perhaps Dalcour will believe this Greek professor since he rejects the biblical data itself (?)!
(Dalcour): Most Oneness people in an embarrassing way, error on this grammatical point at John 1:1, wherein we find two nominatives (qeoV and logoV). They typically argue that the two must carry the meaning of the mathematical equal sign (A=B, B=A). But as NT Greek scholars/grammarians (e.g., Robertson, Reymond, Harris, Wallace, Greenly et al), point out the qeoV and logoV in 1:1c are NOT a convertible proposition, rather a subset proposition (cf. Wallace, BBGG). As a qualitative noun, the Word in John 1:1c is in the class or category of the anarthrous pre-Verbal PN qeoV, but the Word is not the person of ton qeon (1:1b, viz., the Father).
*As usual, Dalcour froths at the mouth here over what he assumes John 1.1 is communicating (John 1.1 was not even discussed in the original article). Briefly, if θεὸς (“God”) in John 1.1c is classified as a “definitive” noun the Oneness position is concluded according to many exegetes – and Dalcour simply cannot have that! Worse, Dalcour omits pertinent data from Dr. Wallace in his reference above—all the while charging me of doing the same. Here’s what Dalcour removes from his audience’s consideration (and that they most assuredly neglect to fact check him on):
(GGBB; p. 268): Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.
*Although he ultimately rejects its application at 1.1c, in Dr. Wallace’s quote above he concedes in honest fashion that the definitive force of the anarthrous preverbal PN (Θεὸς) in John 1.1c is “certainly possible grammatically.” And, even many Trinitarian exegetes respectfully disagree with Dr. Wallace at this point (e.g., Carson, Blomberg, McGaughy, Goetchius, etc.). Why doesn’t this quote from Wallace make it into Dalcour’s book – esp. since he quotes from the same page? Or, why didn’t the following quotes survive from Dr. Wallace’s exegetical reference work in Dalcour’s book (?):
(GGBB: By Colwell Himself; fn. #8): Nevertheless, from one perspective it (i.e., Colwell’s Rule) is quite acceptable. Colwell brought to NT students’ attention that anarthrous pre-verbal PNs were frequently definite. He provided many undisputed examples of this and thus established a clear category of usage.
(GGBB): 5. Significance of Colwell’s Construction for Exegesis: A general rule about the construction can now be stated: An anarthrous pre-verbal PN is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite.
*Now, let’s watch Dalcour’s fancy footwork begin folks! Or, perhaps Dalcour will appreciate Dr. D.A. Carson’s quote regarding the definite contra qualitative application of the anarthrous preverbal PN Θεὸς in 1.1c:
(D.A. Carson; The Gospel Accrding to John; Pillar NT; John 1.1): More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios).
More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue.
*Who is now erring “in an embarrassing way on this grammatical point?” I have many more quotes that speak to this end if Dalcour still needs them. Of course, Dalcour will surely attempt to dodge yet another of his mishaps here by complaining that Carson and Wallace are Trinitarians—all the while he appeals to Dr. Joseph Thayer who was a Unitarian-proper that openly denied that Jesus was God Almighty. Further, I hardly doubt that Dalcour agrees with the soteriological views that were held by Drs. Greenlee, Walter Bauer, et al. in toto!
*Ironically, Dalcour joins Thayer in this concept (albeit not confession) as he relegates Christ from His biblical identity as the One OT Yahveh revealed as a human being for the purpose of redemption to a mere second of three, co-equal, co-eternal divine persons (and even unwittingly argues for bodily separation within the Godhead). Of course, all of this is completely lost on Dalcour in his lather to protect his Triune divinity fabrication.
(Dalcour): Again, Perkins stands alone, he has no recognized scholar to which he can appeal—because they reject the Oneness interpretation both historically and present day. No Greek grammarian has ever concluded, by the grammar of the passage, a Oneness interpretation of John 1:1.
*Argumentum Ad Populum alert – quick, somebody grab their Bible! We suppose that Dalcour thinks Thayer—again, to whom he appeals quite often—concluded the Trinitarian interpretation of John 1.1 “by the grammar of the passage” (?). Or, that grammarians like Greenlee, Bauer, et al. arrived at Dalcour’s particular brand of Calvinism (since there are so many variables)?
*Or, perhaps Dalcour assumes that the Jews that he often appeals to in the Targums have also concluded his Triune divinity conjecture? This does not even consider how Dalcour repeatedly appeals to NT letters where both the authors and recipients were tongue-talkers who had already been baptized in Jesus’ name—a doctrine that Dalcour fights in his effort to reject the biblical Christ. This is the typical double standard employed by Dalcour and other Trinitarian apologists – all the while crying out for “equal standards” from Muslim apologists.
(Dalcour): Perkins seems in a dense fog here, for first he merely throws out there that v. 30 contains two singular nominatives, but never explains what the significance of it is. And since he never mentions nor explains the function of the predicate (the other nominative), it indicates to me that he does not understand neither what a nominative nor predicate are or what they do.
*Dalcour should attempt to work out of his own smog first: As usual, Dalcour does not supply what he demands in others. For neither does he inform his audience of the function of either the nominative or the predicate. Even worse, I pointedly addressed the compound subject in my treatment of the plural verb—and directly appealed to both the grammar and context. Additionally, I specifically posted numerous verses where a single verb explicates both God and His Son – which Dalcour completely ignored (dense fog indeed!). Again, the predicate (dependent) nominative links the plural finite verb to the subject(s).
(Dalcour): The large issue here is this: that there are two nominatives in the passage is meaningless WITHOUT a context. This has been the chief flaw in his hermeneutic throughout his writings and presentations. So when he offers his so-called reply to my tersely article, he stays consistent in his lack of contextual interaction. The construction simply and typically marks out distinction from the subject and predicate (complement).
*Well, yes, that’s the point I made both above and initially. I’m not really sure what Dalcour thinks this proves. And, we are still awaiting Dalcour’s earth-shattering “exegesis” of John 10.30 (?). Apparently he thinks that merely referencing the two nominatives – that I originally pointed out – and a plural verb constitutes “exegesis” (this is one reason we refer to Dalcour as Eisegesis Ed)!
(Dalcour): And again demonstrating Perkins lack of familiarity of Greek grammar, the linking PLURAL verb unities the subject and the predicate together in which grammatically the subject and the subject complement are “essentially” one—not one person—rather PLURAL verb is used, esmen, not a singular one (estin, eimi, “is, am”); and both nominative are associated as the main topic of the sentence.
*First, it would really help if Dalcour would wipe the foam from his mouth and actually take the time to proof-read his poor writing style—as has been noted by others as well. Second, as demonstrated both above and below it is Dalcour who repeatedly blunders regarding original language research via his bias and outright misinformation at times. Indeed, all one has to do is take the time to carefully and objectively fact-check his assertions to catch his mistakes. I am honestly surprised at how gullible some Trinitarians can be sometimes. One would think that eternal, first-order doctrines would be something worth analyzing evenhandedly and impartially.
*Third, I have repeatedly pointed out to Dalcour and other Trinitarian apologists that an exegesis using balanced scales will equally emphasize single verbs used to explicate God and His Son. That is, if Dalcour insists that the plural verb ἐσμεν modifying God and the Son of God in this verse demands more than one divine, co-eternal, co-equal person then why doesn’t he stick by his guns in passages that employ the single verb ἐστιν that he asks for above? Dalcour’s plural verb obsession is not as earth shattering as he assumes – and Oneness believers have been addressing this argument for years on end now. Since Dalcour apparently missed these passages where singular verbs simultaneously modify both the Father and the Son of God as the same subject here they are again:
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?
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)
*As noted in our first surrejoinder below, the four verbs (two in participial form) 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? Clearly John 10.30 militates against Dalcour’s Trinity doctrine—which is why he expends so much energy attempting to negate its natural reading.
(Dalcour): Unbeknownst to Perkins (or he a point he chooses to overlook), Subject–Object and Subject-Hearer distinctions between Jesus and the Father interspersed throughout the NT radically disproves the Oneness position.
*Silly. Unbeknownst to Dalcour, subject-object distinctions do not “radically disprove” a single thing as it relates to biblical monotheism and/or Oneness dogma. We have told Trinitarians ad-nauseum that Oneness believers gladly acknowledge the distinctions between God and His Son and we have carefully explicated these same biblical distinctions. In fact, these distinctions lie at the very heart of the biblical/Oneness message. What does Dalcour do with our open confessions? Defiantly stick his fingers in his ears and continue parroting the same straw man attacks!
(Dalcour): In fact, this feature alone is one of the most controverting arguments against the Oneness unitarian notion of Jesus being the Father. For example, “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water … behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My [speaker] beloved Son, [hearer] in whom I [speaker] am well-pleased’” (Matt. 3:16-17; also Matt. 17:5); “I [speaker] glorified You [hearer] on earth, having accomplished the work which You [hearer] have given Me [speaker] to do” (John 17:4; cf. also Luke 23:34, 46). Jesus personally and distinctly relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the reverse is altogether true of the Father and the Holy Spirit relating to each other. That is why I find it very odd that Perkins argue this, when it actually refutes his position.
*We would be very interested in viewing the Scriptures where the Father and the Holy Spirit “personally relate to each other” as Dalcour feigns above:___________? This is but another erroneous biblical claim made by Dalcour—as well as another hole in the Trinity doctrine.
*Nowhere from Genesis thru Revelation will Dalcour locate the Father and the Holy Spirit addressing one another—nor the Son of God and the Holy Spirit dialoguing with the other. Nowhere in the biblical data itself does the Holy Spirit love nor speak to the Son or the Father. Very strange behavior coming from supposed distinct co-eternal divine persons. Similar to Joseph Smith, I guess Dalcour thinks he can just make up his own Bible and demand that others believe it!
*Further, Dalcour’s typical Trinitarian appeal to the baptism of Christ proves too much! For if God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are as spatially detached from one another as a human being standing in a river, a voice from Heaven, and the body of a dove—Dalcour need not feign “monotheism” with a straight face any longer (esp. since Dalcour informs us that his divine persons “cannot be separated!”)!
*Such an imposition into the biblical data would demand radically separated divine beings and not mere “distinct persons” as Trinitarians usually modify in an effort to dodge the obvious bullet of Tritheism. Additionally, why was there no gasp from the original Jewish audience who were the actual eyewitnesses to this occurrence – since for ca. 4,000 years they had exclusively worshipped one divine person of Yahveh? If the baptism of Christ taught Dalcour’s Trinity of persons this would have been the first place these supposed spatially separated divine persons arrived on the scene! Why no such response from the actual on-site observers? If the original Judaic audience obviously understood this experience as simultaneous manifestations of their one God, opposite multiple God-persons – how can Dalcour offer a radically differing view reading back into this event ca. 2,000 years later? Once again, Dalcour inflicts this ancient (Judaic) biblical text with his much later Trinitarian theology (e.g., see HERE).
*Stay tuned for our continuing surrejoinders to Dalcour’s assertions. Thank you for reading.