First Word of Jesus was repent

[Bbrdrd]

Continuing on the subject of trinitarianism teaching that Jesus is not a human person. The following quote is from an article titled “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”, written by William Lane Craig, a Southern Baptist.

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person... There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-worship-of-jesus-idolatry

There is no human person named “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Every “consistent Trinitarian” (to borrow your phrase) should be saying this.

Since when are catholics and William Lane Craig orthodox?

The Chalcedonian definition puts Jesus as being a human person subsisting in a divine person. Having a complete human nature that is identical to any other human person in union with His divine nature.

As Gregory of Nazianzus said, "What He has not assumed He has not healed;" so unless the fullness of the human person was incorporated in the incarnation there exists an unredeemed portion of the human person.

 

[Diakonos]

Continuing on the subject of trinitarianism teaching that Jesus is not a human person. The following quote is from an article titled “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”, written by William Lane Craig, a Southern Baptist.

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person... There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-worship-of-jesus-idolatry

There is no human person named “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Every “consistent Trinitarian” (to borrow your phrase) should be saying this.

Yes, I agree with Craig here. He put it very neatly and stayed within the bounds of the Bible. He looks like a good teacher from what you've referenced.

 

[Mattathias]

Um actually, echad is used in the plural in many places: Genesis 11:1; Genesis 27:4; Genesis 29:20; Ezekiel 37:17; Daniel 11:20, etc.
What's your point?

Lets look at the examples you cited.

”Now the whole earth had one [Heb. “achat”] language and the same [Heb. “ahadim”] words.”

(Genesis 11:1 ESV)

How many languages? 1. Only 1 language. Singular.

”and prepare for me delicious food, such as I love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die.”

(Genesis 27:4 ESV)

”Echad” does not occur in this passage.

”So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few [Heb. “ahadim”] days because of the love he had for her.”

(Genesis 29:20 ESV)

”Ahadim,” not “echad”.

”And join them one [Heb. “echad”] to another [Heb. “echad”] into one [Heb. ”echad”] stick, that they may be one [Heb. “ahadim”] in your hand.”

(Ezekiel 37:17 ESV)

1 (singular) stick joined to another 1 (singular) stick to make 1 (singular) stick, that they (the combined sticks, plural) may be 1 (”ahadim”, not “echad”) stick in his hand.

”Then shall arise in his place one [Heb. “mabir”] who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But within a few [Heb. “ahadim”] days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle.”

(Daniel 11:20 ESV)

”Mabir” and “ahadim”, not “echad”.

My point is that “echad” is singular.

The issue is that at some point you have to anchor your position with at least 2 Scriptures (witnesses) that don't require any unitarian assumptions as a supportive text.

I have no issue with using at least two passages of scripture. And there is no unitarian assumption involved in stating that scripture is filled with examples of several categories of being. That you can’t distinguish a mortal category of being from an immortal category of being expressed in scripture is baffling to me.

All of your deflections have been with Scripture that requires some kind of Unitarian explanation for it to make sense in your doctrinal position. But you have (and cannot) provide an independent scripture that
1. affirms unitarianism without contradiction another passage
2. doesn't need a unitarian prerequisite assumption.

As I’ve stated previously, no passage of scripture - OT and NT - contradicts, or in any way opposes, Jesus’ own unitarian faith. I’ve also pointed out to you that church history documents an eventual movement away from unitarianism to trinitarianism.

And....?
At one point in Israel's history, God wanted to be Israel's king, but Israel wouldn't have it. Does that mean that God wouldn't be God because if He is a king? Of course not. Taking on a role doesn't negate the properties of one's character of being. These are foolish and weak attempts to say that God doesn't mean what He said.

I make no such attempts. I affirm unequivocally that God means what he says.

The whole counsel of God declares the equality of 3 persons. We know this by faith.

By faith? Where in scripture does God, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or any biblical author declare the equality of 3 persons in one (plural, not singular) God? No where.

Well, it is hinted at...

Scripture uses thousands and thousands of singular personal pronouns to describe God. There is no hinting about who and how many the one true God is in scripture.

…but revealed clearly in the NT.

No. See the post-biblical history of the development of the doctrine.

Because it was hidden from past generations.

As many trinitarian theologians have pointed out, no one living in biblical times thought God was 3 persons.

The Bible says there are 3 distinct people...and that these 3 people are Divine. These 3 people show up as a unit of 3 in the NT on several occasions (not a coincidence).

Again, as many trinitarian theologians have pointed out, the Bible says no such thing; you’re reading post-biblical trinitarianism into scripture.

I take each statement case by case. I cannot speak for an entire denomination. I can tell you if a statement is Biblical, not a people group. I've been to churches that profess to believe a doctrine when they actually do not. You don't actually know if a church is trinitarian until you visit their church and listen to the teaching.
I will say this...God doesn't like the idea of denominations and labeling ourselves according to them.

So you’re unable to identify by name a single trinitarian Church or denomination which teaches a consistent view of trinitarianism in opposition to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, which you have identified as an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

That is dangerous reasoning.

It’s not dangerous reasoning, it’s Hebraic reasoning. For example, God made Moses “elohim” to Pharaoh; the judges of Israel are called “elohim”. Neither Moses nor the judges of Israel are God himself. They stand in his place, as his agents/representatives.

If "God" allows another to function as "God" ...Then how would you know that the Father is really God?

Scripture states unequivocally that the Father is the one true God.

Couldn't He just be someone called "God" and who functions as God and another is really the higher being?

No. Scripture makes that understanding impossible.

Its called the fallacy of infinite regress. The one who functions the president is the president. The one who functions as the king is the king. The one who functions as God is God.

See the Jewish law, or principle, of agency.

Jesus did claim messianic status in other passages, but here in these verses, He didn't claim to be the Messiah...He claimed to be God.

The Jews knew the Messiah would be a human person, a descendant of Abraham and David, who would reign with authority given him by his/their God. To hear the Messiah speak is to hear his/their God speak - not because the Messiah is his/their God, but because the Messiah speaks the words his/their God puts into his mouth. The Messiah is God in a representative sense.

You said earlier that when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" meant that they were one in purpose (or something similar). But The Jews wouldn't have responded the way they did if that's what that meant to a Jew. Making a claim like "being one" with the Father was a claim to divinity, hence, their urge to stone Him. Being "one (in purpose)" with the Father wouldn't be blasphemy, it what we all should be. We should all be in line with the Father in our activities.

Unbelieving Jews were angry that Jesus persisted in claiming to be the Messiah. They didn’t believe he was in line with the Father in word or in deed. They didn’t believe him when he said the Father sent him. They believed he was bearing false witness against his/their God. Hence, their desire to stone him.

1. He can, but He doesn't.

He can, and he does.

Solomon clarified that. "You alone know the hearts of men."
2. This is proven by the active tense of the verbs attributed to Jesus in these verses about His omniscience: "Jesus knew their thoughts"... "knew"=active tense, meaning it was direct knowledge, not revealed to Him by the Father.
If it was revealed, it would have been a passage verb because the action would be done to Jesus (but it wasn't).
"I saw you under the fig tree" "saw"=active tense.

Jesus isn’t omnniscient.

Jesus has direct knowledge about things only Yahweh knows. Direct knowledge means no one taught Him this knowledge.

Jesus was taught by Yahweh.

Jesus is Yahweh, no way around it

Yahweh is Jesus’ God and Father.

 

[Mattathias]

Since when are catholics and William Lane Craig orthodox?

I’m astonished that you‘re suggesting that they aren’t orthodox in their belief. That’s an outrageous allegation, totally unfounded.

You aren’t Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist. What are you?

The Chalcedonian definition puts Jesus as being a human person subsisting in a divine person.

The Chalcedonian definition puts Jesus as being only one person, a divine person, who took upon himself impersonal human nature.

As Gregory of Nazianzus said, "What He has not assumed He has not healed;" so unless the fullness of the human person was incorporated in the incarnation there exists an unredeemed portion of the human person.

Gregory of Nazianzus is Catholic. See your allegation against Catholics in your opening statement.

 

[Bbrdrd]

I’m astonished that you‘re suggesting that they aren’t orthodox in their belief. That’s an outrageous allegation, totally unfounded.

You aren’t Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist. What are you?



The Chalcedonian definition puts Jesus as being only one person, a divine person, who took upon himself impersonal human nature.



Gregory of Nazianzus is Catholic. See your allegation against Catholics in your opening statement.

Gregory of Nazianzus doesn't fall under the modern definition of Catholic, and WLC is closer to a secular philosopher than anything else. The Chalcedonian definition certainly puts Him as one person, but that is in contrast to the characterization of Nestorianism that stated Jesus had 2 separate and distinct wills. The consensus of Chalcedonians is he is a human person in a divine person, which is the same person. Fully human in every respect and unchanging in nature in time.

 

[Mattathias]

Yes, I agree with Craig here. He put it very neatly and stayed within the bounds of the Bible. He looks like a good teacher from what you've referenced.

I’m confused. Dr. Craig opposes your belief (post #206) that Jesus is a human person and agrees with Catholicism that Jesus is not a human person.

You indicated in post #218 that the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church taught my wife and I an inconsistent view of trinitarianism, on the basis that they taught us that Jesus is not a human person.

 

[Mattathias]

Gregory of Nazianzus doesn't fall under the modern definition of Catholic...

What is the modern definition of Catholic? Separating Gregory of Nazianzus from the Roman Catholic Church is untenable.

…and WLC is closer to a secular philosopher than anything else.

His orthodoxy aligns with Roman Catholic orthodoxy. So Roman Catholics then are “closer to secular philosopher than anything else”?

The consensus of Chalcedonians is he is a human person in a divine person, which is the same person. Fully human in every respect and unchanging in nature in time.

Roman Catholics are Chalcedonians. They clearly state that Jesus is not a human person.

 

[Bbrdrd]

What is the modern definition of Catholic? Separating Gregory of Nazianzus from the Roman Catholic Church is untenable.



His orthodoxy aligns with Roman Catholic orthodoxy. So Roman Catholics then are “closer to secular philosopher than anything else”?



Roman Catholics are Chalcedonians. They clearly state that Jesus is not a human person.

Modern Roman Catholics have drifted from many of the teachings of the church that Gregory of Nazianzus was a member of being taken captive by Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas in their speculations.

WLC is supposedly a Southern Baptist but his primary speaking is as an apologist arguing things like Kalaam and other philosophical ideas. He may not be heretical, but he's not orthodox either.

Catholics accept the Chalcedonian definition, yes, but these late theologians you cite are defining person in a manner that is unsupportable by the agreement that was laid out at Chalcedon. The question at Chalcedon was a matter of wills, whether there was a separate will in Jesus that was subordinate to the Divine will or if it was in unity. What was agreed upon is the hypostatic union that Jesus' two natures are complete in one person. If by stating He's not a human person you simply mean that He is one person, and because the human nature is taken to subsist in the Divine nature that person is a Divine person than the statement would fit. But if you mean to exclude a complete humanity within the person of Jesus when you state He is a human person then it completely misses the mark. Reading the statements you posted, it seems the former is the intent of both though my objection to Catholics and WLC being posted for "orthodoxy" remains.

 

[Mattathias]

Modern Roman Catholics have drifted from many of the teachings of the church that Gregory of Nazianzus was a member of being taken captive by Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas in their speculations.

WLC is supposedly a Southern Baptist but his primary speaking is as an apologist arguing things like Kalaam and other philosophical ideas. He may not be heretical, but he's not orthodox either.

Catholics accept the Chalcedonian definition, yes, but these late theologians you cite are defining person in a manner that is unsupportable by the agreement that was laid out at Chalcedon. The question at Chalcedon was a matter of wills, whether there was a separate will in Jesus that was subordinate to the Divine will or if it was in unity. What was agreed upon is the hypostatic union that Jesus' two natures are complete in one person. If by stating He's not a human person you simply mean that He is one person, and because the human nature is taken to subsist in the Divine nature that person is a Divine person than the statement would fit. But if you mean to exclude a complete humanity within the person of Jesus when you state He is a human person then it completely misses the mark. Reading the statements you posted, it seems the former is the intent of both though my objection to Catholics and WLC being posted for "orthodoxy" remains.

You’ve removed the Roman Catholic Church and WLC from the realm of orthodoxy. Which denominations among those which accept the Chalcedonian definition have done likewise?

I’ve stated that Jesus is presented as a human person in scripture. In my conversation, I’m comparing and contrasting what is presented in scripture with what is presented in orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

 

[Bbrdrd]

You’ve removed the Roman Catholic Church and WLC from the realm of orthodoxy. Which denominations among those which accept the Chalcedonian definition have done likewise?

I’ve stated that Jesus is presented as a human person in scripture. In my conversation, I’m comparing and contrasting what is presented in scripture with what is presented in orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

My objection to the RCC and WLC's orthodoxy is a side issue on this topic, it seems. Both of the statements you posted can be harmonized in maintaining the fullness of Jesus' humanity and the issue is a matter of language

Then it may be a misunderstanding of what they mean when they deny Him to be a human person. The word 'person" theologically has a lot of baggage and doesn't mean the manner in which we ordinarily use it. When they deny his human personage they are not denying that he was fully human in every respect, but rather are denying the idea that his humanity exists separately from his divinity.

 

[Mattathias]

My objection to the RCC and WLC's orthodoxy is a side issue on this topic, it seems. Both of the statements you posted can be harmonized in maintaining the fullness of Jesus' humanity and the issue is a matter of language

Then it may be a misunderstanding of what they mean when they deny Him to be a human person. The word 'person" theologically has a lot of baggage and doesn't mean the manner in which we ordinarily use it. When they deny his human personage they are not denying that he was fully human in every respect, but rather are denying the idea that his humanity exists separately from his divinity.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no denominations which accept the Chalecedonian definition and remove the Roman Catholic Church and WLC from the ranks of orthodox trinitarianism.

I agree with your comments about harmonization.

 

[Bbrdrd]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no denominations which accept the Chalecedonian definition and remove the Roman Catholic Church and WLC from the ranks of orthodox trinitarianism.

I agree with your comments about harmonization.

You're right, when it comes to Jesus' nature both WLC and the RCC are orthodox, my objection to their orthodoxy lies in other matters. As I said, re-reading their statements the manner in which they use the word "person" is not the ordinary sense, but the theological sense. Jesus was a human person in the ordinary sense, but theologically speaking He is only a divine person.

The fault line lies with how we understand Jesus' nature, as Jesus' human nature lacks nothing that an ordinary human being has rendering him a human person in that sense. However, being that there is only one person that fits the description of Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible theologically his personhood is understood to be purely divine.

 

[Diakonos]

You're right, when it comes to Jesus' nature both WLC and the RCC are orthodox, my objection to their orthodoxy lies in other matters. As I said, re-reading their statements the manner in which they use the word "person" is not the ordinary sense, but the theological sense. Jesus was a human person in the ordinary sense, but theologically speaking He is only a divine person.

The fault line lies with how we understand Jesus' nature, as Jesus' human nature lacks nothing that an ordinary human being has rendered him a human person in that sense. However, being that there is only one person that fits the description of Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible theologically his personhood is understood to be purely divine.

Hence, the 2 natures of Jesus Christ

 

[Diakonos]

”Now the whole earth had one [Heb. “achat”] language and the same [Heb. “ahadim”] words.”

(Genesis 11:1 ESV)
(Genesis 27:4 ESV)
(Genesis 29:20 ESV)
(Ezekiel 37:17 ESV)
(Daniel 11:20 ESV)
My point is that “echad” is singular.

After looking more closely at these passages and the lexical data, I admit that the singular oneness does seem to be the case with echad. I will digress on this point and consider the possible error in my understanding of the shema. Thank you for your input.

That you can’t distinguish a mortal category of being from an immortal category of being expressed in scripture is baffling to me.

Sorry to baffle you. If you have that Scriptual support (for there being "2 first and 2 lasts"), feel free to send it anytime. I'm not in a hurry.

I make no such attempts. I affirm unequivocally that God means what he says.

That may be true, but the fact remains: Taking on a role doesn't negate the properties of one's character of being.

By faith?

When I say "we know this by faith", I mean that we don't have to understand God's way or design for something. The things we don't understand...we apprehend (by faith). E.g. "By faith, Sarah received the power to bear children even though she was beyond the proper age because she considered Him faithful Who had promised." (Heb 11:11). She did not understand how God could multiply Abraham's descendants like the stars, but she apprehended the promise by faith. We would do well to do the same. When God's Word seems to postulate an impossible conclusion, we don't reject its possibility...we instead apprehend the Word from Whom all things are possible.

Many people simply don't understand the Trinity, so they reject the possibility. But with diligent study and meditation, the Holy Spirit reveals wisdom to men who seek them out. "Search for her as hidden treasure". Since you brought up WLC, Let's see what he has to say about the Trinity:

"(not to sound sacrilegious, but) I think the best analogy for the Trinity would be something like "Cerberus the 3-headed dog" (Greek Mythology).
Purely for the sake of analogy...
We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousnesses. We could even assign proper names to each of them: Rover, Bowser, and Spike. These centers of consciousness are entirely discrete and might well come into conflict with one another. Still, in order for Cerberus to be biologically viable, not to mention in order to function effectively as a guard dog, there must be a considerable degree of cooperation among Rover, Bowser, and Spike. Despite the diversity of his mental states, Cerberus is clearly one dog. He is a single biological organism exemplifying a canine nature. Rover, Bowser, and Spike may be said to be canine, too, though they are not three dogs, but parts of the one dog Cerberus. "

Cerebus (a single being consisting of 3 parts)= God (a single being consisting of 3 parts)​

Rover (a part of Cerberus...who may rightfully be referred to as "Cerberus"= Father...who may rightfully be referred to as "God"
Bowser (a part of Cerberus...who may rightfully be referred to as "Cerberus")= Son...who may rightfully be referred to as "God"
Spike (a part of Cerberus...who may rightfully be referred to as "Cerberus")= Spirit...who may rightfully be referred to as "God"

You can deny the verity of this implication based on your Biblical view, but you no longer say that "the Trinity doesn't make sense". This illustration is pure wisdom from God given to Cr. Craig. It perfectly describes the anatomy of "God", without stepping outside the bounds of the whole counsel of God.
(my opinion), this is the best model for the Trinity I have ever heard. Everyone should read this at least twice and consider the pure logic and simplicity and harmony of the Bible, especially the NT (in regard to the relation between the Three).

Where in scripture does God, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or any biblical author declare the equality of 3 persons in one (plural, not singular) God? No where.

What about when Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and my God"?
What about when Jesus said to "baptize people in the name of the father, and the son, and the Holy Spirit"? Why not just the Father? Why would he mention the Spirit if the Spirit is the same as the Father? etc

No. See the post-biblical history of the development of the doctrine

The Jews knew the Messiah would be a human person

As many trinitarian theologians have pointed out, no one living in biblical times thought God was 3 persons.

Exactly, It was fully revealed through the entire NT canon. I.e. The people living "in Biblical times" wouldn't have access to the NT canon. Anyone with a complete NT could then connect the dots.
The Jews also believed that the Messiah would only come once, does that mean it was the truth, no. It was hidden from them and revealed in the NT. So when you say things like "The Jews thought of the Messiah as merely a human and not divine"...my response to that is the same: God hid many things from people living in "Biblical times".
- The Bride of Christ
- The permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Christ in you)
-The second coming of Jesus (as a sepparate event than the first)
- The Incarnation
-The translation (rapture) of the saints
-Israel's blindness
-The significance of Babylon
-etc

So you’re unable to identify by name a single trinitarian Church or denomination which teaches a consistent view of trinitarianism in opposition to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, which you have identified as an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

As I hear, I judge. If you point out to be a single, teacher/teaching, I can judge that. I cannot speak for an entire denomination. People sometimes stray from the doctrines they afirm. I'm not going to affirm the stance of an entire denomination because one person within that denomination could stray doctrinally, rendering them "inconsistent".

Scripture states unequivocally that the Father is the one true God.

Would you agree that it would be blasphemy to worship any other than the One true God?
How then do you explain the fact that Jesus was worshiped?

Unbelieving Jews were angry that Jesus persisted in claiming to be the Messiah. They didn’t believe he was in line with the Father in word or in deed. They didn’t believe him when he said the Father sent him. They believed he was bearing false witness against his/their God. Hence, their desire to stone him.

"For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (John 10:33)
"The LORD (Jesus) is a Man" (Exodus 15:3) (iysh="man")...Jesus is rightfully referred to as Yahweh here.

Jesus isn’t omnniscient.

You're not making a Biblical defense here, you're just denying what I am saying. This is what a Biblical defense looks like:

"Lord, you know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “tend My sheep" (John 21:17)
"Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You" (John 17:39)

Solomon clarified that "You alone know the hearts of men."
The active tense of the verbs attributed to Jesus in these verses about His proves that Jesus knows the hearts of men: "Jesus knew their thoughts"... "knew"=active tense, meaning it was direct knowledge, not knowledge that was given or revealed by another.
If it was revealed, it would have been a passive verb because the action would be applied to Jesus (but it wasn't).
"I saw you under the fig tree" "saw"=active tense. The Greek is not ambiguous here.

Jesus had direct knowledge of things He couldn't see with His physical eyes: People's thoughts and intentions, what people were doing several miles away, who was betraying Him the whole time, etc.
"So Jesus, knowing all the things that were going to happen to Him, went forth and *said to them, “who do you seek?”

 

[Lafftur]

According to the way that some interpret the bible assigning a figurative interpretation to an obvious literal interpretation, I would say that there might be a few that would say it is figurative even though it is literal, and the salvation status permenant.

Interesting......I am surprised there’s no mention of the Holy Spirit giving understanding interpretation......just saying, NONE of us know anything unless the Holy Spirit gives us understanding of God’s Word.....

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Christians often scold other Christians for trying to be perfect before the Lord. They point out that it is impossible to achieve perfection and it is prideful to even try. They point to the fact that our personal righteousness does not save us, we are misinformed to even try to achieve it.

Repentance would necessarily mean working toward our personal ability to be righteous. Jesus told us in His very first message to us to repent.

Matthews 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has become near”.

I think we need to meet somewhere in the middle, we cannot be sinless but i do believe we can be perfect, Jesus himself said we should be perfect just as the father is perfect. This implies that we can achieve perfection and have Gods true nature inside of us, with spiritual growth.
We must be righteous at least, because Jesus says we have to be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[Mattathias]

After looking more closely at these passages and the lexical data, I admit that the singular oneness does seem to be the case with echad. I will digress on this point and consider the possible error in my understanding of the shema. Thank you for your input.

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Sorry to baffle you.

We’re stuck, at least for the time being, on this point. A quick summary of our positions:

Me: God, angels, man, plants, animals, birds, fish, rocks (and other non-living things) are presented as categories of being in scripture.

You: Categories of being are not presented in scripture.

If you have that Scriptual support (for there being "2 first and 2 lasts"), feel free to send it anytime. I'm not in a hurry.

One God (Yahweh) and one man (Jesus of Nazareth: a human person - scripture; fully man but not a human person - trinitarianism) share this title.

They share other titles as well. Some of those titles the one God and the one man share with other men.

That may be true...

It is true.

… but the fact remains: Taking on a role doesn't negate the properties of one's character of being.

That’s right.

When I say "we know this by faith", I mean that we don't have to understand God's way or design for something.

You’ve also said that we must have at least two passages of scripture as a witness.

The things we don't understand...we apprehend (by faith). E.g. "By faith, Sarah received the power to bear children even though she was beyond the proper age because she considered Him faithful Who had promised." (Heb 11:11). She did not understand how God could multiply Abraham's descendants like the stars, but she apprehended the promise by faith. We would do well to do the same. When God's Word seems to postulate an impossible conclusion, we don't reject its possibility...we instead apprehend the Word from Whom all things are possible.

Agreed.

Since you brought up WLC, Let's see what he has to say about the Trinity...

Thomas Jefferson also used this analogy. Every time I hear Craig, I remember Jefferson.

You can deny the verity of this implication based on your Biblical view...

A quick summary before proceeding: my Biblical view is that nothing written in scripture opposes, or in any way contradicts, the unitarian faith of Jesus of Nazareth.

…but you no longer say that "the Trinity doesn't make sense".

I’m currently reading “Making Sense of the Trinity” by Millard Erickson. Have you read it?

(my opinion), this is the best model for the Trinity I have ever heard. Everyone should read this at least twice and consider the pure logic and simplicity and harmony of the Bible, especially the NT (in regard to the relation between the Three).

The best piece of advice I ever received from a trinitarian professor: always avoid using analogies for the Trinity; they always lead us astray.

Man is made in the image of the one God (the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ), not Cerberus.

What about when Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and my God"?

Would you point to this passage as an example of someone opposing or contradicting Jesus’ unitarian faith?

What about when Jesus said to "baptize people in the name of the father, and the son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Would you point to this passage as an example of Jesus contradicting his unitarian faith?

Why not just the Father?

Jesus and the Father are one.

Why would he mention the Spirit if the Spirit is the same as the Father? etc

See our earlier discussion of the connection in scripture between mind and spirit.

“My words are spirit“ - Jesus

Exactly, It was fully revealed through the entire NT canon. I.e. The people living "in Biblical times" wouldn't have access to the NT canon.

Adam was trinitarian? No.
Abraham was trinitarian? No.
Moses was trinitarian? No
David was trinitarian? No.
Isaiah was trinitarian? No.
Any of the pother prophets were trinitarian? No.
Jesus’ ancestors were trinitarian? No.
Jesus was/is trinitarian? No.
Peter was trinitarian? No.
Paul was trinitarian? No.
John was trinitarian? No.
Any person living in biblical times was trinitarian? No.

Name any person living in biblical times and we name a person who is not trinitarian.

Anyone with a complete NT could then connect the dots.

There is a right way and a wrong way to connect the dots.

I’ll reiterate here my belief that nothing written in scripture opposes, or in any way contradicts, the unitarian faith of Jesus.

The Jews also believed that the Messiah would only come once, does that mean it was the truth, no. It was hidden from them and revealed in the NT. So when you say things like "The Jews thought of the Messiah as merely a human and not divine"...my response to that is the same: God hid many things from people living in "Biblical times".
- The Bride of Christ
- The permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Christ in you)
-The second coming of Jesus (as a sepparate event than the first)
- The Incarnation
-The translation (rapture) of the saints
-Israel's blindness
-The significance of Babylon
-etc

Your response then is that God hid from people living in biblical times that he is 3. Why do you think he did that?

As I hear, I judge. If you point out to be a single, teacher/teaching, I can judge that. I cannot speak for an entire denomination. People sometimes stray from the doctrines they afirm. I'm not going to affirm the stance of an entire denomination because one person within that denomination could stray doctrinally, rendering them "inconsistent".

You (after making it clear to me that you are not an orthodox trinitarian) said that you felt sorry for my wife and I because we were taught an inconsistent view (orthodox trinitarianism) of trinitarianism (by orthodox trinitarians.)

Would you agree that it would be blasphemy to worship any other than the One true God?

No.

"For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (John 10:33)
"The LORD (Jesus) is a Man" (Exodus 15:3) (iysh="man")...Jesus is rightfully referred to as Yahweh here.

Yahweh is the God and Father of Jesus. You’ve read Jesus into the text.

You're not making a Biblical defense here, you're just denying what I am saying.

I pointed out to you that Jesus isn’t omniscient. There are things he didn’t know.

This is what a Biblical defense looks like:

"Lord, you know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “tend My sheep" (John 21:17)
"Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You" (John 17:39)

Your “Biblical defense“ hasn’t taken into account the immediate context of what the phrase “you know all things” is referring to. If your defense is that it refers to everything that is knowable then your defense flawed.

Solomon clarified that "You alone know the hearts of men."

Solomon (a unitarian, not a trinitarian) is speaking about the one God (Yahweh, the God of Solomon and Jesus), not Jesus.

The active tense of the verbs attributed to Jesus in these verses about His proves that Jesus knows the hearts of men: "Jesus knew their thoughts"... "knew"=active tense, meaning it was direct knowledge, not knowledge that was given or revealed by another.
If it was revealed, it would have been a passive verb because the action would be applied to Jesus (but it wasn't).
"I saw you under the fig tree" "saw"=active tense. The Greek is not ambiguous here.

Jesus had direct knowledge of things He couldn't see with His physical eyes: People's thoughts and intentions, what people were doing several miles away, who was betraying Him the whole time, etc.
"So Jesus, knowing all the things that were going to happen to Him, went forth and *said to them, “who do you seek?”

“So Jesus, knowing all the things that were going to happen to him...” not, ”So Jesus, knowing all the things that are knowable....”

One God (Yahweh) taught one man (Jesus). If you’re unsure whether or not this is a Biblical defense then we can discuss it.

Who were they seeking? A human person, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. If you’re unsure whether or not this is a Biblical defense then we can discuss it.

 

[Bbrdrd]

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.



We’re stuck, at least for the time being, on this point. A quick summary of our positions:

Me: God, angels, man, plants, animals, birds, fish, rocks (and other non-living things) are presented as categories of being in scripture.

You: Categories of being are not presented in scripture.



One God (Yahweh) and one man (Jesus of Nazareth: a human person - scripture; fully man but not a human person - trinitarianism) share this title.

They share other titles as well. Some of those titles the one God and the one man share with other men.



It is true.



That’s right.



You’ve also said that we must have at least two passages of scripture as a witness.



Agreed.



Thomas Jefferson also used this analogy. Every time I hear Craig, I remember Jefferson.



A quick summary before proceeding: my Biblical view is that nothing written in scripture opposes, or in any way contradicts, the unitarian faith of Jesus of Nazareth.



I’m currently reading “Making Sense of the Trinity” by Millard Erickson. Have you read it?



The best piece of advice I ever received from a trinitarian professor: always avoid using analogies for the Trinity; they always lead us astray.

Man is made in the image of the one God (the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ), not Cerberus.



Would you point to this passage as an example of someone opposing or contradicting Jesus’ unitarian faith?



Would you point to this passage as an example of Jesus contradicting his unitarian faith?



Jesus and the Father are one.



See our earlier discussion of the connection in scripture between mind and spirit.

“My words are spirit“ - Jesus



Adam was trinitarian? No.
Abraham was trinitarian? No.
Moses was trinitarian? No
David was trinitarian? No.
Isaiah was trinitarian? No.
Any of the pother prophets were trinitarian? No.
Jesus’ ancestors were trinitarian? No.
Jesus was/is trinitarian? No.
Peter was trinitarian? No.
Paul was trinitarian? No.
John was trinitarian? No.
Any person living in biblical times was trinitarian? No.

Name any person living in biblical times and we name a person who is not trinitarian.



There is a right way and a wrong way to connect the dots.

I’ll reiterate here my belief that nothing written in scripture opposes, or in any way contradicts, the unitarian faith of Jesus.



Your response then is that God hid from people living in biblical times that he is 3. Why do you think he did that?



You (after making it clear to me that you are not an orthodox trinitarian) said that you felt sorry for my wife and I because we were taught an inconsistent view (orthodox trinitarianism) of trinitarianism (by orthodox trinitarians.)



No.



Yahweh is the God and Father of Jesus. You’ve read Jesus into the text.



I pointed out to you that Jesus isn’t omniscient. There are things he didn’t know.



Your “Biblical defense“ hasn’t taken into account the immediate context of what the phrase “you know all things” is referring to. If your defense is that it refers to everything that is knowable then your defense flawed.



Solomon (a unitarian, not a trinitarian) is speaking about the one God (Yahweh, the God of Solomon and Jesus), not Jesus.



“So Jesus, knowing all the things that were going to happen to him...” not, ”So Jesus, knowing all the things that are knowable....”

One God (Yahweh) taught one man (Jesus). If you’re unsure whether or not this is a Biblical defense then we can discuss it.

Who were they seeking? A human person, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. If you’re unsure whether or not this is a Biblical defense then we can discuss it.

A lot of your statements beg the question, especially in your list of whether individuals were or weren't trinitarian.

Paul, for example, is decidedly trinitarian teaching that Jesus is God:
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Philippians 2:6)
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [a]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, (Titus 2:13)
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Colossians 2:9)
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Peter as well:
]Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have received a faith of the same [b]kind as ours, [c]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1)

And Jude:
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 ESV)

I could go on but from these we can see that the writers of the epistles didn't simply consider Jesus a vessel for deity but the very embodiment of that deity. The imagery and description of trinity is simply a theological explanation of the reality that Jesus is God yet is presented as distinct from the Father. The analogy of the trinity makes a lot more sense in the Greek because the latin "persona" has a different flavor from the English "person." Though like all analogies it is imperfect, especially as Trinity expresses God's inner experience not how we relate to Him.

 

[Mattathias]

A lot of your statements beg the question, especially in your list of whether individuals were or weren't trinitarian.

From cover to cover, the Bible is the story of God and man.

I understand it as the story of the one God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and man. You see it as the story of the Trinity and man.

Paul, for example, is decidedly trinitarian teaching that Jesus is God:
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Philippians 2:6)
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [a]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, (Titus 2:13)
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Colossians 2:9)
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

All of these passages may be rendered and explained in such a way that they don’t oppose or in any way contradict Jesus’ unitarianism. Those ways are, of course, by necessity rejected by trinitarianism.

I note in particular that Paul fully agrees with Jesus in the 1 Corithians passage you quoted. “For us there is but one God, the Father.“ It never would have occurred to Paul to think or say, “For us there is but one God, the Trinity.” That would be reading later trinitarianism into his mind and into his writing.

Peter as well:
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have received a faith of the same [b]kind as ours, [c]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1)

As with the passages you quoted in Paul‘s letters, you’ve chosen a translation (unspecified, there are many which translate the passage this way) which renders the passage in Peter’s letter in such a way that it agrees with your view. I think you probably know, not all translations do. Translator bias is real.

I choose the translations of the same passage which render it in such a way that it doesn’t oppose or in any way contradict the unitarian faith of Jesus, Paul, Peter and every believer who lived in biblical times.

And Jude:
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 ESV)

You quoted Jude from ESV. (There are many other translations which render the passage in the very same way.) I would quote the same passage in Jude from translations which render the passage as referring to the Lord (ex. KJV, NRSV, HCSB, NABRE, and NASB, among others).

Is Jude speaking here about the Lord God (the God and Father of Jesus) or the about the Lord Christ (Jesus, the Son of the Lord God)? The activities of the Lord Christ are recorded in the NT. Jude is speaking here about an activity of the Lord Christ‘s God which took place in the days of Moses.

As with Paul and with Peter, so with Jude. For us there is but one God, the Father.

For Paul, for Peter, for Jude, for Jesus, for all living in biblical times - For us there is but one God, the Father.

There are Christians living in post-biblical times who still say - For us there is but one God, the Father.

There are also Christians living in post-biblical times who say - For us there is but one God, the Trinity.

Paul, Peter and Jude would, at the very least, be surprised to hear the confession, “For us is there is but one God, the Trinity.” That’s a confession from a different time and a different place from the time they lived in.

 

[Bbrdrd]

From cover to cover, the Bible is the story of God and man.

I understand it as the story of the one God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and man. You see it as the story of the Trinity and man.



All of these passages may be rendered and explained in such a way that they don’t oppose or in any way contradict Jesus’ unitarianism. Those ways are, of course, by necessity rejected by trinitarianism.

I note in particular that Paul fully agrees with Jesus in the 1 Corithians passage you quoted. “For us there is but one God, the Father.“ It never would have occurred to Paul to think or say, “For us there is but one God, the Trinity.” That would be reading later trinitarianism into his mind and into his writing.



As with the passages you quoted in Paul‘s letters, you’ve chosen a translation (unspecified, there are many which translate the passage this way) which renders the passage in Peter’s letter in such a way that it agrees with your view. I think you probably know, not all translations do. Translator bias is real.

I choose the translations of the same passage which render it in such a way that it doesn’t oppose or in any way contradict the unitarian faith of Jesus, Paul, Peter and every believer who lived in biblical times.



You quoted Jude from ESV. (There are many other translations which render the passage in the very same way.) I would quote the same passage in Jude from translations which render the passage as referring to the Lord (ex. KJV, NRSV, HCSB, NABRE, and NASB, among others).

Is Jude speaking here about the Lord God (the God and Father of Jesus) or the about the Lord Christ (Jesus, the Son of the Lord God)? The activities of the Lord Christ are recorded in the NT. Jude is speaking here about an activity of the Lord Christ‘s God which took place in the days of Moses.

As with Paul and with Peter, so with Jude. For us there is but one God, the Father.

For Paul, for Peter, for Jude, for Jesus, for all living in biblical times - For us there is but one God, the Father.

There are Christians living in post-biblical times who still say - For us there is but one God, the Father.

There are also Christians living in post-biblical times who say - For us there is but one God, the Trinity.

Paul, Peter and Jude would, at the very least, be surprised to hear the confession, “For us is there is but one God, the Trinity.” That’s a confession from a different time and a different place from the time they lived in.

While its true there are possible constructions for each of those that render them more or less obvious in their declaration of Jesus as God the most probable based on grammatical considerations is almost always the trinitarian understanding. The rendering I chose was consistently the NASB because I believe that is the most consistent with issues of grammar and appeals to theology least often as a driving force of its translations.

The verse from 1 Corinthians is actually one of the most decidedly trinitarian of the entire group, as the rest can all be understood to hold Jesus as the Father. Yet Paul attributes the very same characteristics to both the one God and the one Lord, and these are characteristics of God. It indicates in one fell swoop the dual considerations of the deity of Jesus and the distinctness of Jesus from the Father.

Again with Peter the translation was chosen on the strength of grammatical argument not on the theology it expresses. If you have to choose a specific translation for a theological point then you are dictating what the text must read rather than accepting what it does.

The choice of the ESV for Jude was a deliberate one but the issue is not one of translation but manuscript selection. The ESV relies primarily on older manuscripts, and those older manuscripts heavily favor Iesous rather than kyrios in their rendering of Jude 1:5. The rendering of kyrios is almost exclusively a phenomena of late manuscripts. So this isn't so much a matter of how to translate a given word but which manuscripts are given preference in the art of translation rendering your objection moot.