Jesus Was a Trinitarian

By Hiram R. Diaz III

One of the most used Unitarian proof-texts is Mark 12:28-34, wherein the Lord Jesus affirms the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and further identifies his interlocutor's reaffirmation of the Shema as being a wise answer. Because Christ affirms this monotheistic creed and, more than this, reaffirms the creed as articulated by a Jewish interlocutor, and does not correct the scribe for his strict monotheism (the unitarian assumes), then it follows that Jesus was also a unitarian monotheist. The argument has a prima facie punch, but once the underlying assumptions made by the unitarian are revealed, and once the text of Scripture is read closely on its own terms, it quickly becomes apparent that the unitarian's argument is logically incoherent and biblically unjustifiable. Jesus was, is, and will forever be a Trinitarian.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Scripturalist Publications
• Release date: Feb 17, 2019
• ISBN: 9781386783435

Book preview

Hiram R. Diaz III

Jesus Was a Trinitarian

First published by Scripturalist Publications 2019

Copyright © 2019 by Hiram R. Diaz III

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise without written permission from the publisher. It is illegal to copy this book, post it to a website, or distribute it by any other means without permission.

First edition

This book was professionally typeset on Reedsy

Find out more at reedsy.com

Publisher Logo

Contents

Introduction

Being & Person in Logic & Scripture

An Examination of Mark 12:28-34

Conclusion

About the Author

Introduction

A precursory familiarity with unitarian¹ arguments against the deity of Christ will no doubt acquaint one with the following syllogism.

All Jews were strict monotheists.

Jesus was a Jew.

Therefore, Jesus was a strict monotheist.

This argument correctly identifies the Jews as monotheists, Jesus as a Jew, and, therefore, Jesus as a monotheist. Insofar as it does these things, it is not problematic. However, the argument uses the undefined modifier strict when describing monotheism, indicating that the kind of monotheism it is referring to is distinct from other forms of monotheism, especially trinitarian monotheism. Thus, it follows that strict monotheism, as the unitarian is using the phrase, is taken to mean unipersonal monotheism (hereafter, Umt)². This presuppositional commitment to Umt is what we have called the axiom of unipersonality,³ the belief that If x is an individual personal being, then x is necessarily unipersonal. With the axiom in place, the unitarian argues that since monotheism is Umt, and Jesus was a monotheist, then it follows that he was a Umt. A better reformulation of the above argument, then, would be the following —

All Jews were Umt.

Jesus was a Jew.

Therefore, Jesus was a Umt.

This effectively draws a line between Umt and whatever is ¬(Umt), even those forms of ¬(Umt) that are, in fact, monotheistic - such as trinitarianism. This is a deceptive move made by unitarians which attempts to force trinitarians to either identify Christ as a unitarian or a polytheist. And the deceptive nature of this argumentation is only heightened when an appeal is made to Scripture by the unitarian, for by emphasizing the Scripture’s repeated stress on the ontological singularity of God (i.e. monotheism), he circularly argues that these are all proof of Umt.

Perhaps the most used proof-text in this regard is Mark 12:28-34, wherein the Lord Jesus affirms the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and further identifies his interlocutor’s reaffirmation of the Shema as being a wise answer. Because Christ affirms this monotheistic creed and, more than this, reaffirms the creed as articulated by a Jewish interlocutor, and does not correct the scribe for his strict monotheism (the unitarian assumes), then it follows that Jesus was also a Umt. The argument has a prima facie punch, but once the underlying assumptions made by the unitarian are revealed, and once the text of Scripture is read closely on its own terms, it quickly becomes apparent that the unitarian’s argument is logically incoherent and biblically unjustifiable.

This book will make two broad argumentative moves. Firstly, it will refute the unitarian belief that being-person numerical identity is a necessary assumption, arguing that this is neither a necessity of logic nor of ontology. This will be further augmented by reference to the