158 Dale Tuggy vs. Michael Brown Debate: Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?

31 thoughts on “158 Dale Tuggy vs. Michael Brown Debate: Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?”

• I am trinitarian a Roman Catholic. i’m listening well in both side of the arguments. Incarnation is the key to understand the trinity, but when i read the history of ancient egyptian, babylonian, panganism, and even Hinduism, incarnation also is key of their believe. Unitarian perspective as what Dr. Dale Tuggy explained was plain and simple. Just like Jesus as mediator to One God and men, the mediator man is Christ; So it’s illogical to think man Jesus is mediator between God Jesus and men. ( i seen 2 Jesus there), if there is only one Jesus then he is the mediator to himself, doesn’t make sense. Now i will try to study the bible in Unitarian perspective and i hope i will see which is more Scriptural, trinitarian or unitarian…

  Reply

  • Rebe – Nice job. Reading the texts in light of such passages as ITim2:5, Acts2.22, Jn8.40….you will see surprising congruence for the VAST majority of scriptures – with no breaking of your brain.

    Reply

• Here we have a polemicist Brown and a professor Tuggy on the ring.

  Brown has style, but
  Tuggy has substance.

  My hunch: Brown scored brownie points to cater to some Trinitarians already convinced. Tuggy began tugging away—some other, truth-seeking Trinitarians—from the Trinity towards the Biblical Unitarian view of God.

  If you’re a Trinitarian and an honest truth-seeker, take your time in listening (again and again) to both sides. Assess carefully and slowly the points brought up. And follow up with looking at Dale Tuggy’s work in trinities.org. Tuggy has LOTS of substantial stuff there for you.

  Use your God-given brain. When you do, I believe you will at least begin to seriously question the Trinity and consider the Biblical Unitarian view of God.

  Reply

• Dr Brown says if the same things are applied to Jesus and God like alpha and omega then Jesus must be God however when Jesus is called father in Isaiah Dr. Brown does what he accuses Dr Tuggy of doing ie. it doesn’t suit that Jesus is the father so he must be some other sort of father, which is the father of the nation or something like that. Modalists use this statement to show that Jesus is the Father. So, really we all do the same thing. Obviously some scriptures do not at first glance suit our beliefs and so we have to give a “strange” explanation. The question is, who does it the least. Generally speaking, did the writers try to give us the impression that God is three persons or one. We have to read the bible for ourselves with no bias. This is very hard to do.

  Reply

  • The noun father has a variety of meanings and Isaiah has its own context… titles under the same given context is a whole different story…

    Reply

• When asked if Jesus is the eternal father Dr Brown replied that Jesus is a father in some other sense other than that he is “THE FATHER”. I think he said the king of Israel is seen as the father of the nation, implying that Jesus could be a father in a sense like this. Modalists use this expression to say that Jesus is the Father. However Dr. Brown seems to do here what he accuses Dr Tuggy of doing. Since Jesus is the alpha and omega then he must be God. I get the general overall impression that the God of the bible is one person not three.

  Reply

• I’ve been looking forward to this debate for months with prayers for God’s wisdom for both gentlemen. I was a bit disappointed that Dr. Brown only brought up the same scriptures waved around by Trinitarians as long as there’s been a debate. I was deeply troubled by Brown’s assertion that Jesus and The Son are separate (The son did not die on the cross). From listening to the debate it seems in order to grasp the Trinity theory, one must believe Jesus had two natures (a Greek, not a biblical theory) and the soul is separate and distinct from the body (again, refutable in scripture). If one cannot embrace those theories which are decidedly Platonic and not Jesus-inspired, the trinity theory cannot hold up. I found the question and answer period at the end very insightful and enjoyable. Well done to all involved.

  Reply

• I just posted my notes from the two opening statements above.

  Reply

• While I am on Tuggy’s side, I felt he lost the debate. Tuggy’s primary arguments are that 1. history does not back up the Trinity, and 2. logic does not back up the Trinity. While both of these are true, the average Trinitarian thinks that his case is solidly biblical, using the verses that Brown used. What needed to be done was to argue on the biblical basis and just throw in a little history and logic if there was any spare time. The Trinitarian verse claims needed to be fired right back, showing how that each one when read in context or with proper linguistic translation, does not hold up to Trinitarian claims, and are therefore sloppy hermeneutics and even dishonest. This is where Tuggy failed, and it made him look weak. He had very little Bible with which to refute Brown’s claims. Maybe Tuggy can do better next time.

  Reply

  • I agree that Tuggy could have been stronger on Biblical exegesis. And I also disagree with him on some of his exegesis. But on the overall narrative of Scripture, I think he did very well.

    Reply

  • I agree, the lack of debating Brown on scripture was embarrassing. Dr. Tuggy has the know how to rebut the Trinitarian claims on a biblical/historical basis. I feel like he wanted to draw Dr. Brown into a philosophical debate and then he received a shellacking from a charismatic well presented/prepared professional debater that wasn’t going to be baited into a philosophical exchange. This was going to be a biblical exchange not a philosophical debate and Dr. Brown through down. I wish Dr. Tuggy would’ve addressed Dr. Brown the way he critiqued Dr. White’s opening arguments in his Podcast 181 & 182, that is the Dr. Tuggy I was hoping would show up.

    Reply

• It seems to me that Tuggy had a fairly bad time in this debate. What I expected from him was either to list his logical arguments against the Trinity, or go into textual discussions with Dr. Brown on various verses that were brought up. Instead, Tuggy went on to point out a lack of Trinitarian texts, the small number of texts where title God is used of the Son and to justify the blasphemous unitarian doctrine of worship of a mere man.

  Dr. Brown instead went on to represent a clear, Biblically founded case on the deity of Christ and Multipersonality of God, cross referencing various OT texts with their NT counterparts in regards to Jesus, and shooting down the idea that pre-Christian Jews, or for that matter the OT text, is a unitarian work.

  Of particularly funny nature was the engagement on 1 Timothy 2:5 where Tuggy suggested that if Christ was God, it would not make sense for him to be a mediator between God and man, which Dr. Brown instantaneously refuted by reversing the same idea, pointing out that according to the logic presented, since Jesus is a man, he could not possibly be a mediator here.

  Tuggy throughout the debate assumed that Dr. Brown was a Modalist (as he incorrectly and according to his own proprietary classification calls “One-Self Trinitarian”) which for anyone actually familiar with Dr. Brown’s work, is laughable.

  As always, Tuggy brought into the debate his longstanding assumption of unitarianism, which ran the course of his speech in every argument he presented.

  Tuggy made no particular effort to address the verses brought up by Dr. Brown, however notable were references to John 20:28 and attempts at explaining Hebrews 1, which in my humble opinion, were quite humiliating for the unitarian side.

  I remember a short and particularly convoluted explanation, involving John 14, where he stated that Thomas saw the Father, literally I guess, in Jesus, thereby, going forward to John 20:28, he referenced Jesus as God, functionally as the Father was in him, but really addressing the Father as God.

  Apart from the referent of this address being rather clear (eipen autou), Jesus, it seems to me that there is no particular way the Bible could state, under this view, that Jesus is God, which unitarians could not eisegete in their own manners.

  Hebrews 1:10 referring to new creation is the view held by Buzzard and his associates that I directly addressed in my short engagement with him, but as Dr. Brown pointed out, this is utterly indefensible. The next verse clearly states that these heavens and earth will perish, and as such excludes the unitarian eisegesis quite powerfully, apart from the clear reference of the verse that this is a past, finished event. Buzzard admits this is the hardest verse for him to deal with, and goes as far as to say that In Psalm 102, LXX from verse 23 onward, God himself is speaking to someone else! Reading the passages, one will rather easily conclude the blasphemy that this espouses!

  In conclusion, we saw exactly what we expected, an inept unitarian view in the face of Biblically sound and defended, Trinitarian position.

  Reply

  • Good review, Vlad!

    Reply

  • Since you ask, Brown won. Both sides were represented by capable proponents with very different skill sets. For my detailed review:

    https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/tuggy-v-brown.html

    Reply

  • Vladimir, you believe that Modalism is a heresy, correct? Yet how do you explain that Brown supports a one-self trinitarian view of God, merging all three into singular personal pronouns. This is very irresponsible, is it not? Language has ceased to communicate. Let’s not be blind to the facts. Let’s be honest about what the bible really teaches.

    Reply

    • To refer to Modalism as “One-Self Trinitarianism” is not only proprietary, but also highly irresponsible.

      That aside, a Trinitarian has no issue in referring to the Triune God with singular pronouns.

      Are the Unitarians here actually serious in thinking Dr. Brown is a Modalist?

      Reply

    • Tuggy is a unitarian. This is no MERGING of three into one “self.” Unitarianism is just Abrahamic Monotheism extended. Extended to the modern age. Jesus is Adon, our master and Lord. God is Adonai, our God, whom by Shema we worship above all else.

      Reply

  • I debated one Unitarian who claims Jesus pre-existed as ‘logos’ or merely thoughts and ideas of God but not as eternal son.

    I sought verses that showed Jesus pre-existed and conversed with the Father pte-incarnation but obviously reducing the Son to ‘logos’ would not permit that.

    When I shared Hebrews 1:10, he claimed that in the ‘original’ Psalms 102 it was as a man speaking to God about creation.

    I asked what point that served in Hebrews author’s argument of Jesus-vs-angels not to mention the Hebrews author already ,under inspiration, tells us it is the Father addressing the Son as is evident from beginning of verse 8.

    We must accept the interpretation of Psalms 102 by the Hebrews author as authoritative. Whatever Psalms 102 meant, we now know the Father addresses the Son and ascribed creation to Him.

    Reply

• Dr. Brown’s (mis)quotation of the Apostolic Fathers
  On Jan 12, 2019, Michael Brown (PhD NYU) and Dale Tuggy (PhD Brown U) debated the question, “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone? Dr. Brown quoted this passage from Polycarp:
  //and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his father who raised him from the dead//
  I want to thank an unnamed contributor, who is a close friend of mine, for providing a translation by M. Holmes including a key footnote and other comments. The footnote reads:

  [ft] 67 and God many MSS omit these words

  I looked at multiple translations of this passage! And it reads as follows:

  (Pol. 12:2)”… who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead.”

  (Pol. 12:2)”..who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Father, who raised Him from the dead”

  The reading “and God” is disputed for the following reasons:

  (1) It is a hard reading (since it seems anachronistic and does not accord with the normal appellatives for Jesus in this period.
  (2) it does not accord with the normal usage
  (3) external evidence with other MSS lacking the words
  (4) internal evidence: the shorter reading is usually preferred
  (5) it is a translation from the original and some translators (like the notorious Rufinus) demonstrate a tendency to “correct” toward accepted “orthodoxy” of the time
  (6) the quote is from a 9th-century Latin mss

  I would say that if Dr. Brown was a more careful and/or informed scholar he would have only used this text with great caution and qualification. He should have either omitted this verse due to its textual corruption or mentioned that this it is a questionable reading based on a late mss. Something like: ‘If the reading in Polycarp’s to the Philippians is authentic, we have yet another example of Pre-nicenes calling Jesus “God” However, he does not inform readers, but quotes this text without regard to its authenticity and/or accuracy.

  This shows us why it is important to check behind what scholars say and don’t trust everything they say.
  Mr. Brown had the audacity to use this in a debate!

  The translations I used can be checked in the sources below:

  THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS, trans. by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson (in vol. 1).

  THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS JUSTIN MARTYR AND IRENÆUS.
  AMERICAN EDITION: CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED, WITH BRIEF NOTES AND PREFACES,-A. CLEVELAND COXE, D.D.

  © 1992, 1999 by Michael W. Holmes
  Published by Baker Books a division of Baker Book House Company P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287
  Second printing, March 2002
  Printed in the United States of America
  The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Short Introductions and Translations By J. B. Lightfoot Edited and completed by J. R. Harmer London: Macmillan, 1891

  Reply

  • Thanks, Pierre, for your comment! Much appreciated. First, to be clear, you have no issue with the other quotes I used, which in themselves were more than enough to support my point. Is that correct? Second, based on the standard translations consulted, this was the consistent rendering. Third, if I’m convinced that the reading is not reliable, I’ll be clear on that in the future. As you know, during the debate, I referenced Rom 9:5 and 1 John 5:20 as probable (or strongly probable) references to Yeshua’s deity but not absolutely certain, as I do my best to be accurate in presenting things. Once again, thanks so much for your comment!

    Reply

    • Dr. Brown,
      Christianity is based on the biblical fact that the Son of God “gave himself,” died for all of us sinners.
      This is of course at the core of the doctrine of the Atonement.
      The NT authors like John [3.16; 10.17-18] and Paul [Gal 2.20; Rom 5.10] clearly taught and believed this and died for this truth.
      Yet, in your debate you repeatedly said “the Son never died.”
      Care to explain if not revise your statements?

      Reply

    • The DIFFERENCE in translations, is actually the unitarian, binitarian schism here.

      So…EITHER the original had “and God” in there or not. So then a REVISION was made either toward both Jesus and God the Father being God, or to unitarianism.

      And there’s no evidence that in that time there WAS a “conspiracy” toward UNITARIANISM. Uh doh, the canon just does not ANNOUNCE Jesus is God, verdad?

      The wayward trend was from Abrahamic MONOTHEISM to Trinitarianism. I know you will agree with me, Dr. Brown. My arguments are just too compelling. Polycarp was throughout his Epistle an ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEIST through and through. And this epistle actually signals the end of God being identified as a single “who.” After Polycarp the next generation of fathers flew the COUP.

      UNLIKELY Polycarp has a SINGLE statement of Jesus’ divinity why? Why…since Polycarp KNEW this was the least known thing, that the MESSIAH was GOD HIMSELF. Like…he would have said it 20 or 30 times, okaydokay? Same for our canon. Since Jesus was NOT known as God. YHWH could easily enough translate to the Father. But Jesus would not and at the time could not be ALSO known as “YHWH.”

      Reply

• Carlos, I was clear in the debate that death is a physical phenomenon. At death, the human spirit goes to be with God or is separated from God. When we speak of spiritual death, we mean separation from God, hence, a human being can be dead (spiritually) and yet physically alive.

  It’s the exact same thing with Jesus. He was God and man, fully both, as the Scriptures teach. He absolutely died, meaning He was killed and breathed His last. But His spirit did not die, and the divine nature cannot die. He commended His spirit into His Father’s care, not into the dust. That’s why 1 Cor 2 stated that they crucified the Lord of glory. No mere human (even a glorified one) can be called “the Lord of glory”!

  The problem is when people try to import meanings and definitions into their theology beyond Scripture. Yes, the Son of God died on the cross for our sins. Absolutely. He experienced physical death. As the eternal Son (and, as a human spirit) He continued to live and then physically rose. (Note that the resurrection as well was a physical event. The Scriptures explicitly tell us that after His death, He declared His victory in the netherworld.)

  This will be my only comment to this question here. Again, one of the big issues is that I do not believe that the spirit/soul dies at physical death. Thanks for asking!

  Reply

  • Dr. Brown, why do you repeatedly refer to God by way of a well-known Jewish mystic word from Kabbalah [EYN SOF, also Neoplatonic in origin]?

    “The God of the Bible is marvelous and transcendent, without beginning and without end, rightly called in Judaism the EYN SOF – the infinite One – and, according to the Scriptures, clearly complex in His unity.” [CAPS MINE]
    https://askdrbrown.org/library/dr-brown%E2%80%99s-opening-comments-debate-dr-dale-tuggy-january-11-2019

    Reply

    • No comment from the master?

      This is…since he throws anything out there which might could help?

      Did not help after all, did it? EYN SOF, mayes well say our HUMINAH HIMINAH God.

      No wait. Mayes well say our THREE-IN-ONE God.

      Reply

• Perhaps I’m off base in what I’m going to do, but I’m going to do it anyway.
  I think in determining who “won” this debate, it would be appropriate to apply actual debate judging. This interaction didn’t follow any strict construction of debate, but the persuasive subject matter and the lone speakers are most consistent with Lincoln Douglas debate. LD has a certain structured Back and Forth which wasn’t included here, with the Affirmative side (Tuggy) opening in Constructive argument –> CrossX –> Negative side Constructive (Brown) –> CrossX –> Aff rebuttal –> Neg rebuttal –> 2nd Aff rebuttal. There’s some time where clock is stopped for prep for each side.

  The deliberate back and forth in LD debate construction puts the AFF and NEG sides in positions to deliberately “clash” over the elements of the Affirmative Construction. Basically, Tuggy has the job of presenting the arguments for the topic. Brown has the job of refuting the topic (and, theoretically, those arguments). However, NEG does not HAVE to engage in the arguments of AFF; he can simply show negation of main topic. That being said, clash over argument is expected and is what makes for good debate. And, usually, if NEG does a good job of knowing the topic, he will clash with AFF position.

  DT had excellent AFF points. In my judgement (as a biblical unitarian, who used to judge debates, who tried to remain neutral, but who occasionally was unable), NEG did not engage in many, if any, AFF arguments. He waived his hands in the air and made dismissive commentary about why this or that argument is “not something I care to think about, but you can if you want…” (specifically referring to credal language). In debate, this is not obviously in the department of poor ethics, but it’s on the line. Further statements were definitely unethical in debate, such as “Look, it’s clear..”; “For you unitarians, this is just obvious…”; and “I beg of you people who support Dr. Tuggy’s position to reconsider this because God doesn’t take this lightly, and your future is at stake.” The latter is not persuasive argument. It’s spiritual threat and seems a non sequitur in debate.

  If the NEG position does not clash with the AFF position, then NEG must make his own argument against the topic. In my judgement, NEG conflated the divinity of the Christ with whether the Father is God, alone. (I believe his beliefs are so entwined here, he’s unable to separate the two into separate topics for argument.) The NEG side did use an overwhelming amount of scripture, which seemed to just overwhelm the entire discussion given than time and structure did not allow for careful analysis. In true debate, this sort of “machine-gunning” of evidence (as Tuggy aptly termed it) is considered poor form and, simply, a rhetorical tactic. That is to say, it is unconvincing to those who are not convinced.

  It was difficult to judge rebuttals because the format allowed Brown to monopolize the conversation, which he did at length and often. I note people charitably attribute it to his fervor for the topic, which is fine. But, in debate, one is expected to be more self-controlled.

  If I apply standard LD rubric to this debate, I think Tuggy wins because the rubric allows for substance, but Brown gets some points for persuasion and passion (yet also loses some for ethics).

  All that aside, I wonder about something?
  In previous debates I’ve watched with Brown, he’s been very adamant about this homoousia idea and 3 persons in one essence. He was very engaged with this in the Buzzard/White/Brown debate. I wonder why he switched tactics here? While it’s uncharitable of me, I suspect it was a deliberate rhetorical maneuver to get Tuggy off his game, knowing that Tuggy is going to come straight at him about the Trinity definition.
  In the minds of Trinitarians, it didn’t matter. In the minds of people who expected thoughtful discussion, it was disappointing.

  Reply

  • Hi, Candance. I think you are wrong to accuse Dr. Brown of presenting like this. One should need to understand the topic first. The debate was not about “the Trinity” vs “Unitarian”. The debate was about “Is the God of the Bible the Father alone”. Dr. Brown’s task was to prove the Father was not the only God of the Bible and there is a plurality in the Godhead. If Dr. Brown can prove the Son or the Spirit is God, there is more than one Person in the God of the Bible or the Father alone is not God, the debate was over. It was even possible for Dr. Brown to use modalism to prove that the Father was not alone God to win the debate. Whatever it is, Dr. Brown proved that Jesus was God from the beginning, in addition to the Father. Dr. Tuggy himself apparently admitted that Jesus was God during the debate. If one carefully considers the topic of the debate, one can simply conclude that Dr. Tuggy’s argument was weak and Dr. Brown clearly proved the God of the Bible was not the Father alone. Again, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DEBATE WAS NOT “the TRINITY Vs the UNITARIAN.”

    Reply

    • No disrespect meant, but here we go (again) with the “clearly proved.”

      First, you also are conflating the divinity of Christ with multiple persons. Second, it’s unclear to my mind, and I think to others, how exactly Brown was characterizing the nature of God. It doesn’t seem to matter mich, though, because since its inception, Trinitarians cannot agree on even a specific definition of Trinity. Here you are saying that it’s “okay” for him to “even use” modalism to prove that the Father is not God alone; yet, there are modalists “oneself” Trinitarians (as it seemed Brown was espousing) and modalists One-ness types (as in Sabellianism)—and these two are incompatible. Or hell, maybe I’m the one who’s confused… I’ve read and read and read and re-read, and this Trinity business never gets easier to understand, in my opinion attributable to the fact that it’s sheer nonsense Gnosticism forcefully applied to the New Testament.

      The bottom line to me, were I to be judging the debate, is whether Brown was able to deconstruct Tuggy’s arguments. Since he barely interacted with them, there are left all six Unitarian pillars.

      Reply

• What I meant to say, but forgot, in all my ramblings was this:
  The lack of LD structure allowed one party to spend most of the time “being passionate.” I would suggest for any further debate, there be more structure, like what we find in actual LD debates, so that the participants are forced to argue the topic +/- the points of the affirmative, rather than pontificate and be passionate.

  That being said, I do not think the topical of monotheism is really given to debate structure. It requires careful study with time for reflection. The evidence to be weighed is heavy and lengthy, and good service cannot be done to it in swift debate.

  Reply

• Tuggy is the investigator, being formerly trinitarian, and Brown yes, is the polemicist. After his first few arguments, he switches verses and concepts every line or two, which is “shotgunning.” The more shots and buckshot he can produce, the bigger his score. Not even salt peter, every pellet stings not much.

  A careful investigation of each and every argument he (Brown) makes does not plainly reveal the divinity of Jesus. As was commented on the CARM forum, Brown leaves out the Holy Spirit in ALL of his 20 minutes. So then his side FOCUSED upon this divinity which is a requirement of Trinity. As if the Text doesn’t wrap up all things of God into the Trinitarian paradigm, which of course it does not. But…there are substantial unitarian refutes and considerations of doubt to EVERY SINGLE argument he makes, no matter the great quantity.

  Reply

• Times are taken from the MP3 audio file at Sean Finnegan’s website Restitutio.org.

  – The debate was supposed to be a debate, not an opportunity to sermonise or make grabs for moral high ground (what others termed ‘enthusiasm’ on MBs part) (e.g. 44:05-45:08, 1:09:25-55). Out of place in such a public debate.

  – Misuse/mistranslation of scripture.
  John 8:58 (the infamous ‘I am’) (29:20-48 & 2:27:05), a glaring example (for starters, Ex. 3:14 is future tense ‘I will be…’ but Jn 8:58 is present tense – As a Hebrew scholar how is it that MB makes this basic mistake ??
  And was the blind man in Jn 9:9 (same phrasing) also a deity?). Same problem with the other ‘I am’s (1:06:20-30).
  Quoting Titus 2:13 (at least twice, e.g. 1:08:15) as a preferred ‘proof text’ for Christ’s deity; this vs. and a couple of others, e.g. 2 Peter 1:1, are well-known for their particular issues – uncertainties of punctuation & referents. The Greek of Titus 2:13, “our God and Savior”, is anything but unambiguous (as MB claims, 1:20:30, 2:18:30-50) and though Tuggy did briefly address this it was maybe too late in the debate to have had much audience impact.
  The Philippians 2 passage (34:45-35:45, 2:06:30) is notoriously difficult for translators and a well-known go-to passage to look for translation bias (e.g. NIV rendering). Ditto Heb.1:8.
  For Jn.1:14 (1:02:55-1:03:00) MB makes the basic but common mistake of conflating the ‘word’ with an ‘eternal son’; again, noted several times by scholars.
  Mistaking Paul’s rhetorical ‘preference’ in 1Cor.5:8 (absent from the body & present with the Lord) to be a claim about post-death experience (2:38:05).

  MB also made the quite extraordinary claim (1:56:30) that there is “nothing contentious” about John 1, Col.1, 1Cor.8 or Heb.1. Either he hasn’t kept up with scholarship & doesn’t know the serious textual & grammatical issues with these – or was he just cruising the audience along…….. Sorry, but either way it failed the debate.
  Given this, its pretty clear that MB either didn’t know the Greek in the first place or else made only a personal (biased) choice of English translation in most cases. Either way, homework needed.
  Was he counting on the audience to not know about any of this ?
  (On the upside, it was nice to hear MB admit there are ‘controversies in John 5’)

  Proof-texting this way may work in Rhetoric 101 or in Polemics 202, but it does not honour the actual text itself, the word of God. Ambit claims (as they are), heaping scorn – ploys to avoid the substance of debate.
  But this question – What was MB afraid of ?
  Alternatively, it would have been better if Tuggy had dealt more directly with those texts.

  – A few points. (1) MB did not treat Jewish views of ‘preexistence’ (metaphorical/ conceptual rather than literal) in all of this. Precommitment to a strictly greek view (literal) prevented this ?. (2) Only a bare minimum of references to the Spirit in any of his answers (none in the opening statement). There was a good opportunity to do just this in reply to a question on Is.9:6 (the ‘Father) but MB clearly avoided doing so (2:20:55). Curious, given that MB is a fervent charismatic. (3) The claim that the ‘En sof’ of Jewish kabbalism is “clearly complex in his unity”. Does MB not know that classic kabbalism views ‘En Sof’ as absolutely simple and unknowable (?). This seems to be another instance of MB trading on ambiguities, in this case the meaning of ‘complex’ (which he only briefly elucidated in the opening statement) (4) Accusing Tuggy of just “coming up with” the idea of ‘fulfillment fallacy’ ? (2:10:55) No, that’s a well-known principle of logic in these areas of thought. MB doesn’t ‘logic’ too well. (5) Granville Sharp rule (2:19:10) – has known limitations & has been much debated. Unless one is prepared to explain in a debate, probably not wise to use it. (6) Despite MBs protest that he is not a modalist (2:43:25), he never properly cleared that up anywhere in the debate.

  – The standard tactic of smacking an opponent while shielding oneself from criticism, in this case quoting several verses in one go as ‘proof texts’, then denying the tactic, then berating Tuggy for not addressing all the verses. Yes, MB knew this, virtually admitting such in the later interview with Sean Finnegan.

  – MB claims to have “not the slightest difficulty” understanding the ‘trinity’ (35:25 of Finnegans podcast). Really ? So apparently God has given MB a special knowledge of God Himself but then denied this to millions of other ‘trinitarians’ (and unitarians) – theologians, ministers, normal church-goers – who just have to be content with ‘mystery’…? Isn’t this just gnosticism ? Instead of that claim, Yeshua himself said he came to reveal the Father.

  – The use of a ‘spiritual threat’ to intimidate an opponent (as another commentator noticed), which in the context was also a non-sequitur.

  – The claim that God’s unity is complex (43:50). For such a big claim I would have expected a reasoned account for this, but no.

  The best & worst stuff happens in question time, esp. about 1:15-1:45.

  – Arguing the case for full deity of the messiah (e.g. primary debate time, 1:25:40, 1:45:50), but then unable to give even one clear NT reference for this when asked by Tuggy (1:16:45-1:17:20), but that instead ‘other statements’ are ‘sufficient in that regard’. What ?! You can’t be serious MB – the claim to be God demands the most clear & unequivocal evidence of all.
  Contrary to what has been claimed, MB presented nothing like a clear case, not even close.
  A sorry doublestep.
  MB never really clarify his position on ‘Trinity’, even when asked by Tuggy – he admitted so in the post-debate interview with Sean Finnigan (of Restitutio.org).

  – Deliberate obfuscation around Tuggy’s reply about the Ps.110 quote in Heb.1 (1:18:32-1:20:02), claiming that Tuggy has ‘two gods’ and then gaslighting Tuggy over the LXX use of Ps.102 (1:23:25-40). Cringe moment. MBs reason for all this ?

  – Apparent inconsistency over separation of Son/Jesus. MB holds to a (form of) Chalcedon christology – strict separation of ‘eternal’ Son from ‘man’ Jesus – and to functional subordinationism. But what was not mentioned is that (under Chalcedon) Jesus is not actually a real man, he was only an instance of ‘generic humanity’ – MB wasn’t going to tell you this though.
  That MB follows Chalcedon is clear at 1:27:40-1:28:02. However, just a bit later (1:30:10) MB denies such separation in favour of just an ‘emphasis’ on the difference between Son/Jesus, and then berates Tuggy (again) for allegedly not accepting (MBs version of) the Incarnation. MB then flatly contradicts Paul (the man Jesus as mediator, 1Tim.2:5) (1:30:15-34) and gaslights Tuggy again, knifing him with a quasi ad-hominem charge over body language (‘grimacing’!!). As to MBs rather wild claim that humans don’t need a human mediator – then what does he think the Prophets did ? Painful.
  [MB has also been taken severely to task over his tactics and inconsistencies by others in recent times (esp. by the Lutheran minister Chris Rosebrough, & others, e.g. the podcast ‘Mutiny against Dr Michael Brown’)]

  – Insisting on using the ‘singular verbs’ in Rev.22, 1 Thess.3:13 & II Thess 2:16. (1:33:00-1:38:10) as proof for the deity of Christ, then adding insult again by ‘giving’ Tuggy the ‘liberty’ of discussing those Greek texts on his show. [I don’t see how this could possibly confuse MB, there are obviously 2 beings in view, the text is clear]. Both homework & humility would have gone a long way.

  – Regarding the claim the Son didn’t die, MB was reminded (Bill Sclegel) that Jesus did say “I died”, speaking of himself as the Son (2:40:50).
  While MB insists on separation of ‘the Son’ from Jesus (per Chalcedon) he also conflates the two in reply to a later question.

  – False argumentation by logic doublesteps (tricky).
  E.g. deliberately belittling a questioner (Xavier, 2:12:00-2:13:40) by using dubious argument: in relation to the preface of his own book, that because MB did NOT say the Son wasn’t God, therefore the Son is God by implication (?) Avoiding the question. The same logic doublestep was applied to Jude 4 (Lord and Master) and to the other current Trinitarian favourite 1Cor.8:6 – this after Tuggy just clarified the of Lord/God/son of God meanings.
  MB would have been honest if he admitted his wording (book) was inadequate, but instead chose to publicly belittle someone and wield logic switching. Poor tactic.
  A basic mistake in logic was also committed in claiming the word ‘Kyrios’ (Lord, 7000 times in the OT) necessarily identifies YHWH with the man Jesus (2:11:30). Even cursory readings prove this cannot be true.

  – MB “doesn’t have a Catholic bone” in his body? Really ? Ok, true in one sense (MB was born & raised a Jew), but he was converted by Italian ex-Catholic pentecostals (mostly), well indoctrinated in the Trinity. But MB is good at playing on ambiguities, as here and again when quoting scriptures later on. (Nice try MB! – and yes, I can say that as an ex-catholic).

  – It appears MB has a very high emotional investment in the ‘trinity’ dcotrine, to the point where he hasn’t examined scripture with sufficient objectivity to accept the limitations of his view. The use of a standard list of verses & quotes from scripture & the fathers (routine fare) was already evidence of not having done the necessary homework for the debate, either on the biblical texts themselves or on DT’s published work – if he had then he may have been much less eager to claim disputed & difficult texts as being ‘clear’ esp. with someone like Tuggy. This old rhetorical tactic smacks an opponent while shielding oneself from criticism but didn’t add to debate.
  (This emotionally-driven stance was also clearly evident in the post-debate interview with Sean Finnegan. When discussing the Revelation 22:3 passage & the meaning of personal pronouns there (31:48 of Finnegans podcast), MB suddenly switched the logic train and instead of staying with the subject at hand (the meaning of pers-pronouns in that context) he made a front-loaded accusation that unitarians (inc. Finnegan) don’t understand the trinity to start with & so they are wrong – in other words, he assumed true the very thing (trinity) that was in question & then berated others for not agreeing. A rhetorical tactic yes, but many will recognise this simply as ‘circular reasoning’. This has been a favoured tactic of MB for a while but he has been taken severely to task by others over this and other tactics before (again, e.g. by Chris Rosebrough, for his very poor (mis)handling of the Jennifer LeClaire ‘Sneaky squid’ affair….). There is no honour in such methodology.
  But it seems MB is blindsided by his emotional investment in this doctrine, perhaps because it was so bound up with his initial pentecostal conversion experience…

  Though MB was ‘super eagre’ to rebut DT, I think the evidence declares his performance was super disappointing. Yes, Tuggy had a tough time of it, it would have been nice to hear him devote more time to the problem texts.
  But MBs polemicizing severely undermined his case in failing to adequately deal with the texts. As far as debate ethics go, a serious need to lift his game; and for substance, well, a lesson in how to actually deal with issues. Sorry to say but most of that polemicizing was mismatched against analysis.
  Since someone claimed MB ‘won’ the debate – No, its clear he did not – not by a long shot.
  Careful attention to the subject matter would go a lot further. Here’s hoping.
  Thanks for allowing this post. MS Jan 2019.

  Reply