Reading the following I was shocked, and yet perhaps in another respect not so much.  I often wonder why some fail to realize the error in certain arguments, and it is perhaps because they do not listen to the points made against them.  Instead, it would seem as if they sometimes assume they know the counterpoint, assume they know the answer, but really have only created a straw man in their own mind.    Consider the following posted on one Yahoo group by Trinitarian Barry Hofstetter (ellipsis removes the Greek text as he also provided the transliteration):

Now, if John, as the author rendering Jesus semitic language into Greek, had wanted to express, “Before Abraham was born, I existed,” he could have written… PRIN ABRAHAM GENESQAI, EGW HMHN, (Before Abraham was born, I was) which would express much more precisely what the way the JW wants to read the text, and also accord much better with the usual sequence of tenses. Better yet, considering the JW theology that Jesus is the first created being.. PRIN ABRAHAM GENESQAI EGENOMHN, GEGONA, “Before Abraham was born, I came into existence…” These would be perfectly natural and expected ways of  saying it, but that’s not what we get. Instead we get that pesky present tense first person singular, used in an absolute way with no predicate.

I won’t bother to explain the error here, as it is well documented on this site and elsewhere, but being that I know Barry has been presented with the correct meaning, held by JWs and others, it is readily apparent that he simply does not listen.  Not only has he ignored those making the point in discussion, but also the Greek grammars and commentaries that have made the point as well.  One has to wonder if people only paid more attention how quickly many errors could be done away with.

I recently came across a trinitarian argument demanding that Psalm 22 be a Messianic psalm, which it is not. Viewing it as such the trinitarian focused upon one verse:

Psalm 22:10 Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb.

The argument found Jesus being God in his preexistence by lacking one as his own God, which he only came to have upon becoming a man.  Yet as many Trinitarian commentators recognize, the psalm was not messianic.

To be clear this is not to say that parts of the psalm did not find a messianic application, but finding such in key portions is vastly different than having the entire psalm attributed to the Messiah.  So The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary (p. 268):

In this overpowering sense of alienation, shared by Jesus on the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), the psalmist draws comfort from reflection on the history of his people.

The above reference clearly distinguishes between the psalmist to whom the psalm applied and Jesus as one who found a later fulfillment of the specific text.  Such does not indicate that the text originally applied to Jesus or that the entire context related to him (cf. 2Sa. 7:14; Heb. 1:5).

Most unexpectedly I found myself driving yesterday at a time I would normally be in the office.  Having my radio tuned into talk radio, to my surprise Robert Bowman was on The Janet Mefferd Show, discussing the deity of Christ as a person of the Triune God.   Hardly able to pass up the opportunity to call in I found myself the final caller.   I’ve posted the clip from our exchange and included my own comments following the clip.  As the format was strictly one of question and answer I did not get to follow up on the show.

Listen Here