I haven't done a whole deep dive into this text that I stumbled upon when reading my Bible this morning, but it seems to mirror this "two powers in heaven" idea that we see during the 2nd Temple period, or at least it seems to be something similar. Please let me know if anyone knows about this reference, or if anyone else has commented on it before: In 1 Kings 19:9-14, Elijah is in the wilderness, after running away from Queen Jezebel, after she ordered the death of Elijah. Elijah makes his way to a cave after the angel of Yahweh gives him food and water. The text then says: "Then the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He answered, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away.” (1 Ki 19:9–10, NRSVue) Notice here how, when Elijah is describing the situation, very explicitly to "the word of the Lord", Elijah says "...for the Israelites have forsaken YOUR covenant, thrown down YOUR altars, and killed YOUR prophets with the sword." So, we can see here that one "subject" asks Elijah a question, and Elijah responds to that subject, attributing the covenant, altars, and prophets to that same subject. The text, however, doesn't stop there: Then (very importantly) the word of the Lord tells Elijah to "...go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." We could derive a similar 2 Powers motif from this part alone, but I think there is even stronger support if we continue. Then Elijah hears and sees a great wind, an earthquake, and a great fire, but the text says that the Lord was not in any of them. The Lord was, however, in the "...sound of sheer silence." Now, interestingly, the exchange between Elijah and the LORD is the exact same exchange that we see between the word of the LORD and Elijah: What are you doing here, Elijah?” He answered, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword."

In GodLogic’s discussion with Mohammad Hijab, Hijab asked GL this question. And to many people this seemed like a slam dunk on GL. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Wanted to do a temperature check on your guys’ intuitions and thoughts here. What do you guys think?

I’ve noticed that Muslims are going around with a silly objection lately. But sadly, it’s trapping a lot of Christians. I’ll share the objection here in hopes that we can workshop how to exegete the solution the VERY manufactured problem. The objection: Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until the eschaton, but then later drinks wine. Matthew 26:29 “I tell you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” John 19:28–30 Jesus, on the cross, is given sour wine, which he tastes/drinks. The basic inference line 1. If Jesus vows to not do X, and then later does X, then he broke his vow 2. Jesus vows to not drink the fruit of the vine (Matthew verse) 3. Jesus drinks sour wine which is from grapes still (John) 4. Therefore Jesus broke his Vow Looking forward to your thoughts guys!