The White-Ventiliacion Debate : Answering Jose Ventilacion's Debate Questions From a Latter Day Saint Perspective

By Bro. Nathan

The principal apologist of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), Mr. Jose Ventilacion; had debated Trinitarian Dr. James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries, South Dakota Apologetics) on the doctrine of the Trinity. In a cross examination section of the debate, Ventilacion presents questions that seems not to represent what biblical Christology is and what the opponent tells on the other had. we will address these questions from a Latter Day Saint perspective on Christology; on how Jesus Christ is divine and his relationship to Heavenly Father. 1. Jose uses the common proof text used by Unitarians saying that Jesus Christ addressed Heavenly Father as the only true God and therefore Jesus is not God but they have a problem of why is "true" used in this verse. for the "Only" argument in Jn. 17;3, we believe that the Father is the only true God and this shows that the Father is the only being that is underived. this is inconsistent however with Trinitarianism and Unitarianism deliberately misinterprets it. context matters also as for v. 5 gives us support for the pre-existence of Jesus Christ and how the Greek word αληθινον (alethinon) was used in other places in the Greek New Testament. It would be problematic for both sides as for Trinitarianism, the Greek τον μόνον αληθινόν Θεόν (ton monon alethinon Theon) is only predicated to one person and not a being made up of three persons. it has only one referent. In an article, I wrote : “ And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (Jn. 17:3) KJV When Jesus said that Heavenly Father is the only true God, Trinitarians and Unitarians will make interpretations in light sa kanilan doctrine na kung saan ay nawala ang very essence of why did Christ adressed Heavenly Father with a title. Jn. 17:3 is the words na sinabi ni Jesus Christ sa kanyang intercessory prayer na kung saan ay kanyang kinilala ang greatness ni Heavenly Father as ang Supreme Ruler ng universe. this statement goes against sa Trinitarian Theology dahil according dito, si Heavenly Father ang tanging nasa category ng Only True God, and not three according to Trinitarian Theology. ang words na ito ni Jesus Christ ay naka-adress lamang sa iisang person according sa grammar ng text and not one in three persons. with this, Unitarians will also use this for their Unitarian Theology, na ang Diyos ay iisang person lamang at na si Heavenly Father ang tanging ontologically existing God, at na si Jesus Christ ay hindi na divine. this is a bad interpretation of the text. sa Greek, ang nakalagay ay τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν (ton monon alethinon Theon) with the Greek word/adjective ἀληθινός (alethinos) used to show ang pagka-instrinstic ni Heavenly Father, making Heavenly Father distinguished above all. yung "only true" does not mean na hindi God si Jesus Christ or walang ibang existing na gods. the same Greek word sa Jn. 17:3 is used when Jesus said : "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you note that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven [τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν - ton arton ek tou ouranou ton alethinon]." (Jn. 6:32) KJV Yung bread was also described as ἀληθινόν (alethinon). It does not mean na ang manna is not really bread or false na bread. ang bread however na dinescribe ni Jesus Christ have intristinctness na kung saan, ito ay tagabigay ng eternal life at hindi kagaya ng sa mana na kinain ng mga Israelites for hunger. the Greek word as an adjective in Jn. 17:3 was used in places also of the Johainne Gospel to show the instrictiveness of things e.g ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν (en to phos to alethinon - that was the true light; Jn. 1:9) to show that Jesus is the true light (cf. 1 Jn. 2:8 ); with Jesus being the true light, that does not mean that we as disciples of Jesus Christ are false lights (Mt. 5:14). we are lights also, and we are representatives of the true light who is Jesus Christ. we represent the true light by being a good example to people. Jesus as stated above also said that he is the τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν (ton arton ek tou ouranou ton alethinon - the true bread from Heaven; Jn. 6:32-33) to show contrast with the bread i.e manna that was given to the Israelites at the times of Exodus but that does not mean that the manna that the Israelites ate is not real bread. Jesus is the true bread that gives eternal life to those who will eat it (Jn. 6:51-56). the manna made the Israelites alive from hunger and it is a representation of how Jesus made us alive with the eternal life that he provides (Jn. 3:16-17; 14:6; Rom. 5:1-17; Eph. 2:1-10). Heavenly Father is the τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν (ton monon alethinon Theon - the only true God; Jn. 17:3) but that does not make Jesus a false god or not God. as for the uses of the adjective, Jesus is a copy of God's being; and therefore Jesus is also God; he also shares God's nature but the God that he represents is the true God, the only true God. This is also why problematic yung mga arguments ng mga Biblical Unitarians at mga INC. In Latter Day Saint Theology, only Heavenly Father is God in an underived sense (autotheos), and with Jesus in participation with Heavenly Father, he is also God for he is God’s perfect represent nature. he represent God and his nature in all ways (Heb. 1:3; cf. Col. 1:15-17). Kinilala ni Jesus Christ ang intristinctiveness ni Heavenly Father, predicating the adjective only to Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father is under the category ng "Only True God" and no one else. kinilala ni Jesus Christ ang greatness ni Heavenly Father over him, thus is contrary sa Trinitarianism where Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father ay mga co-equal na persons. this does not also teach Unitarianism dahil ang greatness ni Heavenly Father ang kinilala at hindi ang kanyang existence. hindi sinasabi ng verse na tanging si Heavenly Father lamang ang Diyos na nageexist, but na si Heavenly Father ang tanging tunay na Diyos, ang tanging kikilalanin na dakila na Diyos; ang tanging Diyos na kailangan natin na sambahin. this does not prove na hindi God si Jesus Christ o na false god lamang si Jesus Christ. Jesus is also God (Jn. 1:1-18; Acts 20:28; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 1:8-9), na kung saan, he is also subordinate to the Father—na kung saan ay something that Unitarians disagree. 2. Ang view ni Ventilacion about sa Heb. 1 is inconsistent. from vv. 1-12 ay si Jesus Christ ang subject. may ginagawang contrast between Jesus Christ and the angels and the writer describes qualities that Jesus Christ have that angels don't have like being deity! Si Jesus Christ ang subject ng buong espistle to the Hebrews and not somebody else. take note of that. William W. Lane comments : " d. In Koine Gk., the voc is being supplanted by the nom (cf. Moule, Idiom-Book, 32), and the nom of θεός usually does duty for the voc. In support ofreading ὁ θεός as voc here, see Turner, Grammar, 4:15, and A. W. Wainwright,“The Confession ‘Jesus is God’ in the New Testament,” SJT 10 (1959) 286–87;Schröger, Verfasser, 262–63. 8–9 The contrast implied in v 7 is borne out by the following two quotationsfrom the Psalms, which establish that the Son does not belong to the createdorder, as do the angels. The adversative δέ in the introduction to the first citationindicates the writer intends to contrast the Son, whose throne endures forever,with the angels, whose existence is ephemeral. The quotation differs from theLXX version of Ps 45:6–7 in only minor details (cf. Kistemaker, PsalmCitations, 24–25). The motif of an eternal kingdom brings Ps 45 within the orbitof 2 Sam 7, where the establishment of an eternal throne is promised: “I willestablish the throne of his kingdom forever” (v 13); “Your throne shall beestablished forever” (v 16). The verbal parallelism with the initial statement of Ps 45:6 may indicate why this extended passage was added to the collection ofmessianic testimonies that include 2 Sam 7:14 (v 5) (so Kistemaker, PsalmCitations, 78). On the other hand, the imagery of the session at God’s right handin the exordium (v 3c) would also be sufficient to call to mind the statementconcerning the throne in Ps 45. The application of Ps 45:6–7 to the Son is consistent with the indication thathe is to receive the homage of the angels in v 6. The writer does not hesitate toapply to Jesus, as the legitimate object of worship, a passage in which he isaddressed as God. The citation, however, remains an isolated confession, whichreceives no elaboration at any point in the address. It is probable that thequotation had been applied to Jesus in the liturgy of the early Church. Thewriter’s primary interest in the quotation is not the predication of deity but of theeternal nature of the dominion exercised by the Son. The implication that theSon shares the quality of deity only intensifies the reference to his eternal rule and sharpens the contrast between the unchangeable Son and the mutable angels. In this context the phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, “for ever and ever,” suggeststhe quality of immutability (cf. Thompson, CBQ 38 [1976] 358). The writer’semphasis upon the eternal nature of the Son is the first indication that eternity isfor him a christological category that will assume increasing importance in thecenter of the address (cf. 5:5; 6:20; 7:3, 17, 21, 24, 28). It is more difficult to see why the writer extended the quotation of Ps 45:6 toinclude v 7. The two verses may have been joined as a single quotation in anearly testimony collection, for they are cited as a unit by Justin (Dialogue 56; butcf. 63 [Ps 45:6–11]; 86 [Ps 45:7]) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.6.1; 4.33.11;Demonstration 47). The point of interest for the writer to the Hebrews in v 7appears to have been the concluding words of the quotation, παρὰ τοὺς μετόχουςσου, “above your companions.” The preposition παρά, taken in the comparativesense (“more than,” “beyond”), reinforces the contrast being drawn betweenChrist and the angels. Although angels participate in the implementation ofGod’s will (cf. vv 7, 14), and in this sense are μέτοχοι of the Son, God hasassigned to him a superior office. Their function is to serve; his is to rule. Theyare subject to constant change; he does not change, and his rule reflects acommitment to righteousness, which explains why God has crowned him withjoy (cf. 12:2). Both verses of the extended quotation express the fundamentalcontrast between the divine Son of God and the angels 10–12 The joining of the second extended quotation to the first by conjunctiveκαί conveys an impression of the mere stringing together of OT texts. Thequotations, however, have been purposefully arranged so that they begin and endon the note of the Son’s eternal nature. v 8 “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.” v 12 “But you remain the same; you will never grow old.” The attribute of permanence in the Creator corresponds to the durability of histhrone and serves to reinforce the contrast between the mutability of the angelsand the stable, abiding character of the Son. Up to this point (vv 5–9) the biblical quotations have undergirded the Church’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God who has been appointed heir ofall things (v 2b). Now Ps 102:25–27 is introduced to specify the relationship of the exalted Son to the creation. The quotation develops the affirmation of vv 2cand 3b that the Son is the mediator and sustainer of the creation. The quotationassigns to the divine Son responsibility both for the foundation and dissolutionof the world. Jewish theology assigned a prominent role to the angels as thosewho were present at the moment of the creation and who assisted God in thegovernment of the universe (cf. Job 38:7; Rev 7:1; 14:18; 16:5). The writeraffirms it is the Son alone through whom God created the universe; it is the Son,not the angels, who upholds it through his sovereign word (cf. Williamson,Philo, 188).In its original context Ps 102:25–27 refers to the immutable character of God.The psalmist contrasts the ability of Yahweh to stand above the change anddecay of the created order with his own experience of affliction and exposure todeath. In the LXX, however, a mistranslation of the unpointed Hebrew textopened the door for the christological appropriation of the passage. The radicals ענה/ʿ-n-h in v 24 (EV v 23), “he afflicted,” were translated “he answered” (ἀπεκρίθη, Vg respondit), with the result that vv 23–28 become the response ofYahweh. Consequently, Ps 102:25–27 must refer to the creative activity ofdivine Wisdom or of the Messiah, not of God (cf. B. W. Bacon, “Heb 1, 10–12and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23,” ZNW 3 [1902] 280–85). Several variations from the LXX text may be observed in the quotation. σύ,“you,” is placed before κατʼ ἀρχάς, “in the beginning” (v 10), for the sake ofemphasis; it serves to bring the new quotation into immediate association withthe previous one which concluded on the word σου, with reference to the Son. The alteration of the future form διαμενεῖς, “you will remain,” to the presentδιαμένεις, “you remain” (v 11), provides a more adequate expression of thetimeless quality of the Son’s nature. The change from ἀλλάσσειν, “to change,” toἑλίσσειν, “to roll up” (v 12), which suggests the action of the rolling up of acloak, provides the writer with a vivid image of change. The addition of ὡςἱμάτιον, “like a garment,” which is repeated from v 11, before καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται,“and they will be changed” (v 12b), keeps the imagery of clothing prominentlyin view and serves to stress the frequency and casualness with which the createdorder is altered. Each of the textual variations serves the writer’s owninterpretation (Schröger, Verfasser, 263; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 26–27,79–80). Ps 102:25–27 has been introduced into the argument because it supports theradical distinction between the transitoriness of the created order and the eternal,unchangeable nature of the Son (cf. Schröger, 69). Heaven and earth, the realmof the angels, both belong to the created order, which will change and decay. The quotation introduces several significant notes that will be picked up anddeveloped at later points in the exposition. The concept of abiding permanencefinds expression in the contrast between the perishability of the cosmos and the“remaining” of the Son: αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ διαμένεις, “they will perish, butyou remain.” Thompson (CBQ 38 [1976] 260–61) has suggested that thepresence of διαμένεις in the quotation accounts for its inclusion in the catena of1:5–13. Near the end of the address the writer regularly uses forms of μένειν intheologically significant contexts to describe the heavenly “abiding” reality thatconstitutes the Christian heritage in contrast with what does not “remain” in thestructures of the world (cf. 10:34; 12:25–27; 13:14). The word παλαιοῦν, “togrow old” or “become obsolete,” in the expression ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιωθήσονται,“like clothing they will wear out,” is also theologically significant for the writer.In 8:13, for example, the term is introduced to convey the temporary character ofthe Levitical cultus, which lacks ultimate validity. Finally, the expression σὺ δὲ ὁαὐτός, “but you remain the same” (v 12), which furnishes a parallel to thestatement σὺ δὲ διαμένεις, “but you remain” (v 11), anticipates the confessionwith which the address is brought to a climax near its conclusion, that JesusChrist is ὁ αὐτός, “the same,” yesterday and today and forever (13:8). Thevocabulary and expression of Ps 102:25–27 clearly provided the writer withimportant categories with which to express the superior quality of Christianexistence. In this context, however, the accent falls upon the mutability of the createdorder, including the angels, in contrast to the Son who is exalted above thatorder. The quotation turns on common images of changeableness: clothes growold and wear out; a cloak is rolled up and put away. But the Son “remains.” Theargument in vv 10–12 is thus parallel to that in vv 7–8, where the mutability ofthe angels is contrasted with the eternal, unchangeable character of the Son." (William W. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 47a Hebrews 1-8 [Thomas Nelson, 1991]) 3. Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (NA28) Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Scrivener's Textus Receptus) As for Jn. 1:18 and the textual variant, this goes with the issue ng textual criticism, whether ang sinulat ba ni John ay ο μονογενής υιός (ο monogenes huios- the begotten Son) or μονογενής Θεός (monogenes Theos - the begotten God) sa kanyang prolouge while pointing out na si Jesus Christ ay isang Divine being (cf. v. 1). other translations kagaya ng NRSV accept both readings ng majority text at critical text. Ang reading ng Textus Receptus and ng RP Byzantine Textform is supported ng majority ng manuscripts i.e majority text or Byzantine text while on the other hand ay ang Critical text ay based sa Alexandrian manuscripts. the Textus Receptus reads ο μονογενής υιός (with the article) e.g Byzantium, Vulgate at ang Alexandrian text reads μονογενής Θεός (with and sometimes without the article) e.g Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, P75 and P66. ang reading ng Textus Receptus is much later than the critical text at ang critical text on the other hand ay much more earlier and one problem din sa reading ng Textus Receptus ay na ang Greek word na μονογενής sa text ay substantial, which means it alone can mean "only begotten Son", so some bibles kagaya ng NRSV read "it is God the only Son". In evidences sa patristics ay supported ang reading ng Textus Receptus and ang RP Byzantine Textform —by some Church Fathers that cited Jn. 1:18 in their writings kagaya ni Tertullian at ni Hypolitus and ang reading ng critical text ay present din sa church Fathers like Origen in his Commentary on John, 2:29, Origen makes a clear utilization of Jn. 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς θεός: “Accordingly John came to bear witness of the light, and in his witness-bearing he cried, saying, ‘He that comes after me exists before me; for He was before me; for of His fullness we have all received and grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’ This whole speech is from the mouth of the Baptist bearing witness to the Christ. Some take it otherwise, and consider that the words from ‘for of His fullness’ to ‘He has declared Him’ are from the writer, John the Apostle.” In Contra Celsum 2:71, Origen supports θεός in some copies of this composition, but two copies of it read υιος: “Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, ‘None knows the Father but the Son,’ and in these, ‘No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Very probably the copies with υιος represent scribal conformations to the Gospels-text known to later scribes of the composition, as Hort explains in Note A in his dissertation. " Eusebius of Caesarea (early 300s). The testimony of Eusebius, who is cited in UBS4 as if he utilized ὁ μονογενὴς θεός three times out of seven utilizations, was tested by Abbot, who (in citation-references on page 859 of his article, in a footnote) observed that Eusebius repeatedly used John 1:18 with υἱός. As evidence, Abbot mentioned De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Book 1, chapter 20, in paragraphs 4, 5, and 7, and Book 2, chapter 23, and a comment on Psalm 73:11, and a comment on Isaiah 6:1, where the entire phrase, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,” is found. Abbot countered the claim (previously advanced by Tregelles) that Eusebius utilized John 1:18 with θεός in De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Book 1, chapter 9, by succinctly showing that the passage supports υἱός more than it supports θεός. Abbot noticed that in De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Book 3, chapter 7, Eusebius states that the Father alone may be called “the One God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son [may be called] only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,” – (in the Greek text here, there is no article) – “and the Paraclete, Spirit, but neither God nor Son.” Abbot minimized this statement as something less than a direct quotation, but to me, it looks like a utilization of John 1:18 with no article before μονογενὴς, followed by θεός." The NET translator notes reads regarding the textual issues and on how scribes came up with three different readings which includes readings that are anarthrous and articular : 1:18 [45] tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger commented in his textual commentary : 1.18 monogenh.j qeo,j {B} With the acquisition of î66 and î75, both of which read qeo,j, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading monogenh.j ui`o,j, which undoubtedly is easier than monogenh.j qeo,j, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3.16, 18; 1 Jn 4.9. The anarthrous use of qeo,j (cf. 1.1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when ui`o,j supplanted qeo,j it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, o` monogenh,j, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text. Some modern commentators4 take monogenh,j as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (monogenh,j( qeo,j( o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j …). [It is doubtful that the author would have written monogenh.j qeo,j, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (YC/;OC). At least a D decision would be preferable. A.W.] For questions ni Ventilacion, be aware that they will repeat a question that has already been answered just to show na "invincible" daw sila. they would not give you any considerations for your answers. be aware of those tactics. 4. In the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, text like Jn. 17:5 will show that Jesus had a currently glorified state prior to his broth. It reads : "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (Jn. 17:5) KJV As Christ said these words while praying for his disciples, Christ asked Heavenly Father to glorify him with the glory that he had before the word was created. ang passage na is one of the passages that prove that Jesus is God and that Jesus pre-existed. groups that deny the pre-existence (e.g Christadelphians, Socinians) might assume that it doesn't mean that Christ had a glory, he's already pre-existing at na si Jesus Christ daw pre-existed notionally (i.e existing as an idea or plan) at hindi isang actual na person. this is proven false by some points. firstly, ang idea ng notional pre-existence is not shown in the text. secondly, ang Greek verb na εἶχον (eichon) in a indicative imperfect active ng εχω (echō) is translated as "had" in the text. ang verb na ito shows na ang isang action ay currently na ginagawa in past time. this shows na may hawak nang glory before si Jesus Christ before he was born. it's personal pre-existence, not notional. Jesus has a glory and he gave it up in his incarnation, i.e pagkatawang tao (cf. Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:7-9). thirdly, ang Greek preposition na παρα (para) ay ginamit in this same passage and it does not denote notional pre-existence for it denote spatial relationships, between Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in this passage. fourthly, προς (pros) was also used sa v. 11 at v. 24 (cf. Jn. 1:1) and it denotes being present in person, again—shows personal pre-existence. this also shows Christ' divinity as opposed by groups that also deny his personal pre-existence. as Bible scholars commented : " [I]t is not possible to treat Give me glory in the same way as in contexts where the focus is upon the revelation of Christ’s glory to people in the world. The emphasis here is upon the glorious state which Christ had before the incarnation, and thus quite a different type of rendering must normally be employed. Moreover, a literal rendering of “giving glory” is usually impossible. The more common type of expression would be causative, for example, “cause me to be glorious” or “cause me to be honoured” or “show honor to me” or even “honor me.” (Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John [London: United Bible Societies, 1980], 529) 5. Death is not the cessation of existence for you have a spirit leaving your body (see. the analogy of James 2:26). Lk. 23:43; 1 Pt. 3:18-23 will show you that Jesus Christ was on somewhere else after he died. he did not cease to exist. Jesus Christ had a conscious spirit that continues to exist after death. It is the body that was dead but not the spirit. 6. Mt. 24:36 as for Jesus Christ like us—he also passed through the veil and he did not know things that the Father knows. no one denies the humanity of Jesus Christ. Mt. 24:36 will be consistent with Latter Day Saint Christology rather than Trinitarian Theology as for it shows difference on knowledge as the effect of his self-emptying (kenosis) contratry to what Trinitarians claim that Jesus Christ retained divine qualities in his mortality like omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Trinitarian Dan Wallace wrote on a parallel, which is Mk. 13:32-33 : "It is well known that where Mark’s Christology raises questions, Matthew’s gives answers. The reason for such revisions are often assumed to be out of concern that Mark’s Christology was defective and not in keeping with the church’s high view of Christ in the late first century. But, as Moule has pointed out, “it still seems a plausible assumption that successive redactors should tend (however dangerously docetic it may be) to show Christ as in full control of circumstances and without weakness or ignorance (Moule, “Review of Peter Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem,” 741) . . . An examination of all the parallels between Matthew and Mark reveals that Matthew never seems to display a lower Christology when it comes to Jesus’s holiness, volition, power, knowledge, emotions, the disciples’ derived authority from Jesus or worship of Jesus—unless Matthew 24:36 is the lone exception. How would it be the lone exception? By adding “not the son,” this verse is almost verbatim what Jesus says in Mark 13:32 except in one significant point: Matthew adds μονος to “except the Father,” thus doubly underscoring the Father’s exclusive knowledge of the time of these eschatological events. Without the μονος, Matthew’s Christology would be identical to Mark’s in this place. By omitting ουδε ο υιος but adding μονος to his revision of Mark, Matthew’s Jesus is implicitly stating what Mark’s Jesus explicitly says. The μονος preserves Matthew’s high Christology without altering the basic point that Markan Jesus is making. Only the omission of “nor the Son” in Matthew 24:36 reflects Matthew’s editorial strategy, while adding it is contrary to all that we know of his Christological redactions . . .Although most exegetes today would argue that early copyists excised “nor the Son” from Matthew 24:36, an examination of the internal evidence and redactional motifs paints a different picture. It is Matthew rather than the scribes who eliminates the phrase while adding μονος to the Father’s knowledge." (Daniel B. Wallace, “Textual Criticism and the Criterion of Embarrassment” in Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski, eds. Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2019], 93-124, here, pp. 114-15, emphasis in bold added; see pp. 112-15 for Wallace’s summary of the evidence supporting his thesis. See his longer article on this issue, “The Son’s Ignorance in Matthew 24:36: An Exercise in Textual and Redaction Criticism” in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Michael W. Holmes, eds. Daniel Gurtner, Paul Foster, and Juan Hernández [Leiden: Brill, 2015]) Dr. James White had problems with this text and so is Ventilacion because he used it badly. As for Ventilacion's dishonesty in his arguments, Dr. White said that "sir, I am a scholar of this language and I will answer it truthfully and I won't allow you to force me to answer it falsely." 7. Phil. 2 is where Paul tells the Philippian saints to be humble as Christ as Christ did when he emptied himself. he emptied his glory to be born here on earth to die for us. part ng humility ni Jesus Christ that he will set aside his divine qualities for humanity. Ventilacion does not even understand how humily works in this particular place contextually! Note also as said that the Greek workd here κενόω (keno-ō) is a reflexive verb. in order for Jesus Christ to do this, he must exist! humility in this context requires giving up on something that he already had (see. vv. 5-7). furthermore, on White's Trinitarian position, this will be problematic for Jesus Christ fully emptied himself; Jesus Christ gave up divine qualities that he had that will be incompatible with humanity. this is something that is inconsistent with the idea that Christ was fully God and fully man while here on earth with these two incompatible natures are in union (i.e the Hypostatic Union) and that Jesus Christ veiled his glory. this is not what the Scriptures tell us about the nature of the incarnation. 8. On 2 Pt. 1:1-11 and Granville Sharp's rule, 2 Pt. 1:1 which reads together with the Greek text : “ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:” (2 Pt. 1:1) KJV Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· (Sumeon Petros duolos kai apostolos Iesou Christou tois ishotimon emin laschousin pistin en dikaiosune tou Theou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou) The following is translated with a rule sa Koine Greek grammar that we call where the construction is the definite article + noun + the coordinating conjunction και (kai) + anarthrous noun and this appears sa text ng 2 Peter 1:1. commenting on the construction of the text (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ - tou Theou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou) the New English Translation’s (NET) translator notes tells us about the Granville Sharp’s rule and θεοῦ (Theou - God) and σωτῆρος (soteros) both in reference to a single person and responses to things dealing with it’s grammatical rule and translation like kung ang “God” ba is a common noun or a proper name. the note on this verse reads : “ The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.” Similarly as stated above sa note, the same construction appears sa verse 11 where “Lord” (κυρίου - kuriou) and “Savior” (σωτῆρος-soteros) which means it also refers to one person and is agreed upon by some groups that reject the deity of Christ and the translation of 2 Peter 1:1. verse 11, even though it has the identical with verse 1, versions like the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah’s Wittnesses left verse 11 translated as “of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” without making a distinction on “Lord” and “Savior” unlike what they did on verse 1. it’s the same grammatical construction but differs on one word, κυρίου (kuriou). furthermore, the Greek word for God sa text ay used as a common noun dahil it also occurs in places in the New Testament in a plural form, and thus, it’s not a proper name. Titus 2:13 also does the same in grammatical construction but is mistranslated in the KJV. D. Wallace, a New Testament scholar tells us that “There is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 276.) where both “our great God” and “Savior” both does modifies one person. furthermore, one scholar wrote commenting on the grammar of Titus 2:13 : “ (1) The expression “θεος και σωτηρ” [Theos kai soter] was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology and was used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, thus denoting one deity. (2) The most satisfactory explanation of the anathrous σωτηρος [soteros] is that two coordinate nouns referring to the same person are customarily linked by a single article; σωτηρ ημων [soter emon] is generally articular in the PE (7x), anathrous only in 1T1.1 (where one person is clearly in view) and here in Tit. 2.13. The complex grammatical point suggests that “if Paul wished to speak unambiguously of two persons, he could have written either του μεγαλου θεου και Ιησου Χριστου σωτηρος ημων [tou megalou Theou kai Iesou Christou soteros emon], or του μεγαλου θεου ημων και του σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου [tou megaloy Theou emon kai tou soteros Iesou Christou]. . . it must remain improbable that Paul would have acquiesced in a form of words that would naturally be depicting Jesus as ο μεγας θεος και σωτηρ ημων [ho megas Theos kai soteremon] if in fact he believed that Jesus was in no sense θεος.” [Theos] (3) The exceptional use of μεγας with θεος [Theos] is better explained if θεος [Theos] refers to Christ than if it signifies the Father. (4) The significant parallelism of 2.13 underlines that “the great God” is “the Saviour,” for the “blessed hope” is the “appearance of the glory”: τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης [ten makarian elpida kai epifaneian tes doxes] τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [tou megalou Theou kai soteros emon Iesou Christou] “ (Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996], 244) Thus, Jesus Christ is God based on what the originals of the New Testament says.Following Sharp's rule, the NET reads : “From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.” (2 Pt. 1:1) NET 9. As for Jn. 9:9 and Jn. 8:58, the use of έγω ειμί (egō) eimi will depend on its context. Firstly, ang backround ng verse na ito is where Jews questions the divinity of Christ and Christ proves to them his divinity as the Son Of God. Jesus said to them na “your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (v. 56). even Abraham rejoiced that Jesus Christ came down to earth. Jehovah himself was on earth fulfilling his purpose. disbelieving Jews then asked him “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” (v. 57). Jesus then answered ‘...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am” (v. 58). Jews there questioned Christ kung paano niya nakita si Abraham kahit na he himself ay wala pang fifty years old while si Abraham ay matagal nang patay. Jesus doesn’t need to be that old to see Abraham, for he already saw Abraham before Abraham came to be. he is the God that Abraham communicated to himself, Jehovah. it is Jesus himself, the “I AM” (Ex. 3:14). you now have there both the pre-existence and the deity of Christ. he is not just an idea or a lesser being at that time. Secondly, It is further proven that it is Jesus Christ who is the God of the Old Testament that was Abraham saw and rejoiced seeing his day. in Genesis 18 ay there are three men who visited Abraham and showed them hospitability and reverence. one of them said to them na magkakaanak sila (v. 10) and Sarah laughed dahil masyado na silang matanda para magkaanak. the visitor then repeated what he said na magkakaanak sila ni Abraham and said na “Is any thing too hard for the LORD?” (v. 14). the next year, they had a son and named him Isaac which means “laughther”. what God had to them was kept and fulfilled (Gen. 21:1-3) which shows us na it is possible that the birth ni Isaac was the day that Abraham rejoiced. furthermore, one author wrote : “ What's curious is that the text is not at all clear who or what was this mysterious visitor. The chapter begins by saying the Lord [Yahweh] appeared to Abraham, and looking up he saw three men (Genesis 18:1). After overhearing one of the visitors say that she will give birth, Sarah laughed. In response, the text says, "But the LORD [Yahweh] said to Abraham: 'Why did Sarah laugh . . . Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:13-14). Also, Genesis 18:22 saying, "Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord [Yahweh]." But there were three "men" who visited Abraham (Genesis 18:2) and only two angels came to Sodom (Genesis 19:1). Where was the third "man"? Apparently, the third "man" was the one still talking to Abraham, the Lord (Genesis 18:22). Our English translations say "Lord" in Genesis 18, but the Hebrew text gives the divine name YHWH ("I AM WHO AM"). Let's rewind back to our original passage in John 8. Jesus said Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." If this is the day of the miraculous birth of Isaac, then "my day" means the day of the mysterious visitor's return to Abraham and Sarah, who is YHWH ("I AM WHO AM"). If Abraham's visitation was a theophany (an appearance by God) then Jesus' application of the divine name fits perfectly with the whole discussion on Abraham. He visited Abraham. He is "I AM." It also explains why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. (G. Michuta, Behind the Bible: What The Bible Assumes You Already Know [Livona, Mich.: Nikaria Press, 2017], 169-71) Thirdly, ang grammar ng John 8:58 sa Koine greek further proves ang deity at pre-existence ni Jesus Christ as opposed to claims ng mga groups who reject it. what the Greek says ay πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι (prin Abraham genhestai ego eimi - before Abraham was, I Am) and with the construction nito, it shows extension from the past which shows its currently occuring but in the past time. as said by one grammarian ng Koine Greek : “ Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to present time: Lu 13:7 ιδου τρια ετη αφ ου ερχομαι ζητων καρπον . . . και ουχ ευρισκω [idou tria ete aph ou erchomai zeton karpon], it is now three years since I have been coming looking for fruit . . .and not finding it; Lu 15:29 τοσαυτα ετη δουλευω σοι [tosauta ete douleuo soi], I have been slaving for you all these years; Jn 14:9 τοσουτον χρονον μεθ υμων ειμι [tosouton chronon meth umon eimi] . . .; have I been with you so long . . .?; Ac 27:33 τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατην σημερον ημεραν προσδοκωντες ασιτοι διατελειτε [tessareskaidekaten semeron emeran prosdokontes asitoi diateleite], today is the fourteenth day you have been continuing on the alert without food; Jn 8:58 πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι [prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born. This is a form of the continuation realisation of the imperfective aspect, and similar uses are found with the imperfect tense and with imperfective participles.” (K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach [Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], 41-42.) Jose Ventilacion need to formulate questions that will make any sense. the way that he questions in that debate when the question was already answered by the opponent must be changed also. __________________ Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Restitutionem Defendi : A Defense For The Restored Gospel Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nathan-Lerr