First Word of Jesus was repent

[Bbrdrd]

He struggles with it. He says elsewhere that the rules and logic of language are violated when the Trinity is defined.



I have a large collection of books on the subject of theology in my private library. Maybe it was just a coincidence that I picked it out to read. Maybe it was prompted subconsciously by our conversation. Maybe it was

I would modify that just a bit: "Always avoid using bad analogies for the Trinity..."



The point I was making is that angels and men are both created in the image of the One God, Yahweh. We haven’t yet discussed what being created in the image of the one God means. I will say here that, while it may include some physical resemblance to the one God, it primarily has to do with non-physical characteristics.



I agree.



So we are agreed then on the fundamental point that Jesus himself is a monotheist.

We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Moses.

We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Israel.

We should be able to agree that there is no God besides the one God, Yahweh.

We have agreed that Jesus himself has a God.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Moses.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Israel.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, because besides him there is no other God.

The Father is the God of Jesus.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The Father is the God of Moses.

The Father is the God of Israel.

There is no God besides the Father.

By definition, a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father, is a unitarian.

Jesus by definition, is a unitarian.



So in this view, Thomas was not identifying Jesus as God, nor as the second person of the Trinity.



So you believe Thomas was predicting something that he was not identifying. You, and trinitarianism, supply the identity.



A triad. A triad which much later trinitarianism will go on to say is the Trinity.

I’m not opposed to baptizing in the name of the triad. I would ask why there are no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the Trinity but that came in post-biblical times. I will ask, why are there no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the triad?



Yahweh isn’t a man. He is the Father. So, how do I resolve this apparent contradiction?

I see this, as do many commentaries, as being an anthromorphism, as do many translations of the Bible. I offer a few examples:

”Yahweh is a warrior! Yahweh is his name.” (NOG)

”The LORD is a warrior, LORD is his name.” (NABRE)

”The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

”The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.” (NIV)

”The LORD goes into battle. The LORD is his name.” (NIRV)



Thanks. I can see that from the trinitarian perspective. What I can’t see from the trinitarian perspective is how some trinitarians sometimes claim that those whom it was hidden from (everyone living in biblical times) were trinitarians.



You later said you agreed with the statements I was taught.



I worship the one true God and the Messiah. The Israelites worshiped the one true God and David (1 Chronicles 29:20). The Messiah will cause people who don’t belong to him to worship those who do (Revelation 3:9).

I commented previously concerning the limitation/restriction you place on worship.

There are several problems with your position, most notably the sharing of glory. If Jesus is not God then his death on the cross was warranted, after all the Jews were commanded in Deuteronomy 13 to put to death a miracle worker who was leading them to worship gods they had not known and Jesus pretty strongly fits that description if He is not YHVH in the flesh.

As for those previous to the cross not recognizing the trinity, plurality within the godhead was recognized prior to Jesus with the sephardim. Simply because they did not recognize the mystery revealed in trinity doesn't mean they didn't recognize the things that we can now look at and see that God was revealing His self-relationship.

The other issue with holding to a strict definition of oneness as unitarianism, tawhid in Islam, or modern Jewish "indivisibility" renders God unknowable. Instead of being someone we can relate with, He becomes entirely alien as His transcendence becomes His defining characteristic. Infinity is simply something we cannot fathom, and it is through the finite aspects of trinitarianism that God becomes a knowable entity. We can relate to Jesus in a way that we could never relate to the Father, and through Jesus we can come to share in the relationship with the Father.

 

[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.

“There is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth‘“ - William Lane Craig

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died. (Matt. 27:33-50; Mk. 15:22-37; Lk. 23:33-46; Jn. 19:17-30)

If it’s true that Jesus of Nazareth is not a human person, then it’s true that a human person wasn’t crucified and a human person didn’t die.

If a human person wasn’t crucified, and if a human person didn’t die, then was a non-human person crucified, and was it a non-human person who died?

I posed this question to a clergyman. I’m curious how you would respond to the question.

 

[Diakonos]

He struggles with it. He says elsewhere that the rules and logic of language are violated when the Trinity is defined.

Is Erickson a Trinitarian?

The point I was making is that angels and men are both created in the image of the One God, Yahweh.

The point you made was clear. I appealed to Genesis 1:26: "Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness."

The one God (the Father) is speaking to his angelic court.

, which means that you believe we are made in the image of God and the angels. We are made in the image of the speaker and the addressee of this statement. Who was God speaking to?

There is no God besides the Father.

If I read everything right, at face value, everything you said up until (but not including) this line...I agree with. My next comment will clarify...

By definition, a monotheist is when God is one person

False. Unitarianism and Trinitarianism are both Monotheistic. There is one God, period. Monotheism doesn't necessitate unitarianism or trinitarianism. When the Bible says there is one God, it is not affirming of denying unitarianism. Its a totally different branch of doctrine. Polytheism & Monotheism speaks of the substance(s) of God. Unitarianism and Trinitarianism speak of the person(s) of God. Jesus and you and I confess Monotheism because we agree on what God is... but Monotheism doesn't help either one of us in this conversation because we're not disagreeing on what God is, but who God is.
I believe you are confusing Trinitarianism (3 persons) with Tritheism (3 Gods). I am not a Tritheist.

So in this view, Thomas was not identifying Jesus as God, nor as the second person of the Trinity.

In this verse in particular...Thomas was confessing what Jesus was, not who He was.
This is the confession that Jesus was the God and Lord of Thomas (in Greek= "You are the Lord of me and the God of me".)
Yes, Thomas was predicting the properties of "God" to Jesus.
This is also true of the Father on many occasions, where He is predicated as God, while not being identified as such. But Theos is the primary title used of the Father in the NT while LORD is the primary title used for the Son. This is because the NT authors wanted to make it clear that Jesus is divine (equal to the Father in substance), but also distinguish that Jesus is not the same person as the Father. This allows for them to be discussed in the epistles without confusing who is being talked about.

I’m not opposed to baptizing in the name of the triad. I would ask why there are no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the Trinity but that came in post-biblical times. I will ask, why are there no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the triad?

("Triad" is a bad word to use in reference to the three. Referring to the as a "Triad" is synonymous with Tritheism (3 Gods).)
When I use the word "Trinity" What I mean is: "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". It's a word we use to shorten a larger group of words (or condense a system of thought into a summarized word or phrase). Just like "Bible" and "rapture". We use theological terms to refer to Biblical people and events. No one here is arguing that Jesus said "Baptize them in the name of the Trinity". He used each of their names. You're attacking the straw man.
Accounts of water baptism are almost entirely absent in the NT. The few times they are recorded or implored (e.g. Acts 2:38, 48; 22:16) actually elevate Jesus, not the Father. But that's not really the point I'm getting at. The point is that the names are presented as equal. And not just equal...but one.

Yahweh isn’t a man. He is the Father. So, how do I resolve this apparent contradiction?

I see this, as do many commentaries, as being an anthromorphism, as do many translations of the Bible. I offer a few examples:

”Yahweh is a warrior! Yahweh is his name.” (NOG)

”The LORD is a warrior, LORD is his name.” (NABRE)

”The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

”The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.” (NIV)

”The LORD goes into battle. The LORD is his name.” (NIRV)

"Yahweh is a man; Yahweh is His name" (Hebrew)

Thanks. I can see that from the trinitarian perspective. What I can’t see from the trinitarian perspective is how some trinitarians sometimes claim that those whom it was hidden from (everyone living in biblical times) were trinitarians.

People claim a lot of things; There is nothing new under the sun.
That is beside the point though. The point is that God does, in fact, hide things from us, so that we would seek them out, and "so that the approved may become evident."

You later said you agreed with the statements I was taught.

I either misspoke or you misunderstood. I cannot agree with something I don't agree with.

I worship the one true God and the Messiah.

...I'm just going to let that linger for a while

The Israelites worshiped the one true God and David (1 Chronicles 29:20)

Though the external attitude might be the same, the sentiments of which it was expressive were very different in the two cases—of Divine worship in the one, of civil homage in the other. When they bowed down, they weren't in awe of David for any inherent divine quality. Honoring the king (indirectly) is worship toward God.
When Thomas bowed down, He was in awe of someone who had demonstrated a quality of divinity, who was risen from the dead. The context between the two is dramatically different. I can't believe you would even compare the two in order to postulate an ambiguous attitude in Thomas. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Mattathias]

Is Erickson a Trinitarian?

Yes. Baptist. The link is to a bio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Erickson

The point you made was clear. I appealed to Genesis 1:26: "Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness." , which means that you believe we are made in the image of God and the angels.

The angels were created before man was created. Though different categories of being (I understand that you reject the concept of categories of being) both they and we are made in the image of the one God.

We are made in the image of the speaker and the addressee of this statement. Who was God speaking to?

From a post I made to someone else yesterday -

“Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.”

https://netbible.org/bible/Genesis+1

Neither Moses nor anyone else living in biblical times would have understood the text as you’ve explained it. They weren’t trinitarians.

Returning now to your comments -

If I read everything right...

From what follows, I don’t think you did.

My next comment will clarify...

You misquoted me (I think unintentionally) and then commented on something I didn’t say and don’t believe.

You said that I wrote “By definition, a monotheist is when God is one person“. I didn’t. What I actually wrote was “By definition, a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father, is a unitarian.”

Jesus is a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father. He is a unitarian.

I am a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father. I am a unitarian.

You are a monotheist whose God is three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You are a trinitarian.

I believe you are confusing Trinitarianism (3 persons) with Tritheism (3 Gods).

I don’t know what I‘ve written that gave you that false impression. If you could be more specific in identifying where you see this in my comments I would welcome the opportunity to make clarification or correction.

In this verse in particular...Thomas was confessing what Jesus was, not who He was.

So Thomas and I both believe that Jesus was/is ”theos”.

… LORD is the primary title used for the Son.

“LORD” isn’t a title. It is the standard convention of representing the personal name of the one God in the OT (the Tetragrammaton) in English translations. The Messiah’s personal name in English is “Jesus“, not “Yahweh”.

God and Christ share titles, not personal names. Among the titles they share in the NT is “kurios”.

This is because the NT authors wanted to make it clear that Jesus is divine (equal to the Father in substance), but also distinguish that Jesus is not the same person as the Father. This allows for them to be discussed in the epistles without confusing who is being talked about.

As with the passage in Genesis, so here. You are “imposing later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text”.

("Triad" is a bad word to use in reference to the three. Referring to the as a "Triad" is synonymous with Tritheism (3 Gods).)

When trinitarian scholars discuss the passage they commonly refer to it as “the triadic formula”. It’s a misconception that “triad” and “Tritheism” are synonyms.

No one here is arguing that Jesus said "Baptize them in the name of the Trinity".

Baptizing anyone in the name of the Trinity is a concept that would have been completely foreign to Jesus, the apostles, and everyone living in those days.

He used each of their names.

He used titles, not names.

You're attacking the straw man.

You erected a straw man when you misquoted me above and then attacked it. Now you say that I’m attacking the straw man. I appreciate irony, but once again I think you’ve misunderstood me.

Accounts of water baptism are almost entirely absent in the NT. The few times they are recorded or implored (e.g. Acts 2:38, 48; 22:16) actually elevate Jesus, not the Father. But that's not really the point I'm getting at. The point is that the names are presented as equal. And not just equal...but one.

The examples are rare, but when baptism is mentioned being done in the name of someone the baptisms were being done in the name of Jesus.

"Yahweh is a man; Yahweh is His name" (Hebrew)

I’m unaware of any translation which renders the Hebrew passage as you have here. (If you are, please share it with me.) You’ve changed the phrase “man of war” to “man” in order to make a point which the text doesn’t make. The Hebrew doesn’t say Yahweh is a man.

People claim a lot of things; There is nothing new under the sun.
That is beside the point though. The point is that God does, in fact, hide things from us, so that we would seek them out, and "so that the approved may become evident."

You and I are in agreement that the people living in biblical times weren’t trinitarians. We (you and I) are not in agreement with trinitarians who believe the people living in biblical times were trinitarians.

There is no trinitarian person named “Moses“ in the Bible. “Moses the trinitarian” is pure fiction.

I either misspoke or you misunderstood. I cannot agree with something I don't agree with.

In response to my comment that my wife and I were taught that Jesus is not a human person you said you were sorry that we were taught an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

Though the external attitude might be the same, the sentiments of which it was expressive were very different in the two cases—of Divine worship in the one, of civil homage in the other. When they bowed down, they weren't in awe of David for any inherent divine quality. Honoring the king (indirectly) is worship toward God.

David was sitting on God’s throne. He was the representative/agent of the one God.

When Thomas bowed down, He was in awe of someone who had demonstrated a quality of divinity, who was risen from the dead. The context between the two is dramatically different. I can't believe you would even compare the two in order to postulate an ambiguous attitude in Thomas. He knew exactly what he was doing.

I don’t “postulate an ambiguous attitude in Thomas”. I assert and affirm that he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Mattathias]

If I read everything right, at face value, everything you said up until (but not including) this line...I agree with.

I want to post the list of propositions again. For clarity, I’m including the last line and bolding it. That is the proposition you disagree with.

So we are agreed then on the fundamental point that Jesus himself is a monotheist.

We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Moses.

We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Israel.

We should be able to agree that there is no God besides the one God, Yahweh.

We have agreed that Jesus himself has a God.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Moses.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Israel.

We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, because besides him there is no other God.

The Father is the God of Jesus.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The Father is the God of Moses.

The Father is the God of Israel.

There is no God besides the Father.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides the God of Jesus.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If there is a God besides Father then there is a God besides the God of Moses.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides the God of Israel.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides Yahweh.

 

[Mattathias]

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides the God of Jesus.

If there is a God besides the God of Jesus - that God is not the God of Jesus.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If there is a God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - that God is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If there is a God besides Father then there is a God besides the God of Moses.

If there is a God besides the God of Moses - that God is not the God of Moses.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides the God of Israel.

If there is a God besides the God of Israel - that God is not the God of Israel.

If there is a God besides the Father then there is a God besides Yahweh.

If there is a God besides Yahweh - then that God is not Yahweh. When Yahweh said there is no God besides him...Yahweh doesn’t lie.

 

[Mattathias]

If there is a God besides the God of Jesus - that God is not the God of Jesus.

There is no God besides the God of Jesus. The God of Jesus is the Trinity.

If there is a God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - that God is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Trinity. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn’t know it because the Triune God hid it from them.

If there is a God besides the God of Moses - that God is not the God of Moses.

There is no God besides the God of Moses. The God of Moses is the Trinity. Moses didn’t know it because the Triune God hid it from him.

If there is a God besides the God of Israel - that God is not the God of Israel.

There is no God besides the God of Israel. The God of Israel is the Trinity. Israel didn’t know it because the Triune God hid it from Israel.

If there is a God besides Yahweh - then that God is not Yahweh. When Yahweh said there is no God besides him...Yahweh doesn’t lie.

There is no God besides Yahweh. Yahweh is the Trinity. No one living in biblical times knew it because the Trinity hid it from them.

 

[Mattathias]

There is no God besides the God of Jesus. The God of Jesus is the Trinity.

Can trinitarianism agree with this proposition? I don’t think so. The God of Jesus is the Father, not the Trinity.

There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Trinity. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn’t know it because the Triune God hid it from them.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition.

There is no God besides the God of Moses. The God of Moses is the Trinity. Moses didn’t know it because the Triune God hid it from him.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition.

There is no God besides the God of Israel. The God of Israel is the Trinity. Israel didn’t know it because the Triune God hid it from Israel.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition.

There is no God besides Yahweh. Yahweh is the Trinity. No one living in biblical times knew it because the Trinity hid it from them.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition, as long as Jesus is excluded from the mix. He had to have known.

 

[Mattathias]

Can trinitarianism agree with this proposition? I don’t think so. The God of Jesus is the Father, not the Trinity.

The God of Jesus is the Father, we are told in scripture. No one else. Just the Father. The Father and none other. The Father alone. One God. One person. Yahweh.

There were people living on God’s good earth who believed Jesus’ God is their God. The Father. No one else. Just the Father. The Father and none other. The Father alone. One God. One person. Yahweh.

Some of their names we know. From the Hebrew Bible - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Moses. David. Isaiah. Jeremiah. To name only a few. Many others we don’t know by name. From the New Testament - Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. Mary. Peter. John. Paul. Barnabas. To name only a few. Many others we don’t know by name.

They were a persecuted people. Rejected. Insulted. Humiliated. Abused. The world hated. them. But their God loves them.

There have been people who lived and died with this faith since biblical times; there are people living on God’s good earth today with this faith, and there will be people living here in the future with this faith. Their God is Jesus’ God. The Father. No one else. Just the Father. The Father and none other. The Father alone. One God. One person. Yahweh.

They have in the past, they are in the present, and will be in the future a persecuted people. Rejected. Insulted. Humiliated. Abused. The world hated them in the past, hates them in the present, and will hate them in the future - but Jesus Christ and his God love them. Because they do, these people will be exalted to rule the world as kings and priests with Jesus Christ when he returns to God’s good earth.

 

[Mattathias]

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition.

I know unitarianism cannot.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition.

I know unitarianism cannot.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition.

I know unitarianism cannot.

I think trinitarianism can agree with this proposition, as long as Jesus is excluded from the mix. He had to have known.

I know unitarianism cannot.

One God. The Father.Yahweh.

One Lord. The Christ. The Son of the one God. The human person, Jesus of Nazareth.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Mattathias]

Thomas was confessing what Jesus was, not who He was.

Moses is called “elohim” in Exodus 7:1. Everyone knows that Moses isn’t Yahweh. In Exodus 7:1 we see what Moses was, not who he was.

”But Adonai said to Moshe, ‘I have put you in the place of God to Pharaoh, and Aharon your brother will be your prophet.’” (Exodus 7:1 CJB)

”And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron they brother shall be thy prophet.” (Darby)

”Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.’” (NASB)

Moses is God’s agent/representative. Christ is God’s supreme agent/representative.

”[Typology is] the idea that persons (e.g., Moses) events (e.g., the exodus) and institutions (e.g., the temple) can - in the plan of God - prefigure a later stage in that plan and provide the conceptuality necessary for understanding the divine intent (e.g., the coming of Christ to be the new Moses, to effect the new exodus, and to be the new temple.)”

(Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life, p. 289)

 

[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.

“There is no human person person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth‘”. - William Lane Craig

Dr. Craig (in particular) and trinitarianism (in general) believes there is a divine person named “Jesus of Nazareth“.

In my Southern Baptist upbringing, I was taught that God is three selves, one being. In my wife’s Roman Catholic upbringing, she was taught that God is three selves, one being. Do you believe God is three selves, one being?

I read an interesting article while eating breakfast this morning. The article, written by N.M.L. Nathan, and published in Religious Studies (Vol. 42, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 75-85), is titled “Jewish Monotheism and the Christian God“. (If you have access to JSTOR you can find the article there.) I would like to discuss something from the article with you if you believe, as the trinitarian author of the article does, that God is three selves.

 

[Diakonos]

Apologies for the late response. Some weeks are busier than others. I am in college and working=(60 hrs/week)

Yes. Baptist

Then I'm sure you understand that Erickson is not denouncing the Trinity with these statements. I'm sure there is a context.

both they and we are made in the image of the one God.

“Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.”
https://netbible.org/bible/Genesis+1

This commentator doesn't give a solution or explanation of this. He merely dismisses the Trinitarian view without a refutation. (Concerning the idea of God speaking to the angels in Gen 1:26) he even admits: "This view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine image in some way."
He admits right there that it is merely an assumption, which I have already conveyed about this view.
What is Scripture corroborates the idea that God created the angels in His image?

Jesus is a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father. He is a unitarian.

Jesus can only call one person "His God" because there is only one person who is positionally over Him.
The Holy Spirit can only call 2 people "His God" because there are only 2 people who are positionally higher than Him.
There are only 3 people that You or I can call "God" because there are 3 people who are positionally greater than us.
So Jesus calling the Father "His God" does not postulate unitarianism.

“LORD” isn’t a title. It is the standard convention of representing the personal name of the one God in the OT

I mispoke. I meant to say "Lord in the NT (kurios) is the primary title for the Son (Just as "God" is the primary title for the Father, in order to distinguish the 2 persons while maintaining the divinity of both).

As with the passage in Genesis, so here. You are “imposing later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text

That's an assumption. I could just as easily say that about Unitarianism. But I prefer to make arguments from the Bible at every point.

The examples are rare, but when baptism is mentioned being done in the name of someone the baptisms were being done in the name of Jesus.

Yes. That's what I just said. Why would we baptize someone in the name of any other than God?

You’ve changed the phrase “man of war” to “man” in order to make a point which the text doesn’t make. The Hebrew doesn’t say Yahweh is a man

I didn't change anything. Translators added, "of war". The Hebrew simply says "Yahweh is a man". (Exodus 15:3).

You and I are in agreement that the people living in biblical times weren’t trinitarians. We (you and I) are not in agreement with trinitarians who believe the people living in biblical times were trinitarians.

Let me rephrase what I said earlier:
God revealed Himself as the Trinity through the NT canon. It is uncertain whether certain Biblical characters knew this through personal revelation, but the idea of the Trinity is more explicitly conveyed and realized through the entire NT cannon (which is the main purpose of the NT, and OT, to reveal the nature and person of Jesus Christ). (John 5:39)

David was sitting on God’s throne. He was the representative/agent of the one God.

It's not difficult to see the differences in the use of "worship" in the Bible. If the person being worshiped displayed the qualities of divinity, it is divine worship. If a response to a non-divine person is "worshiped", then it is not the worship associated with "You shall only worship and serve the Lord your God" (Jesus rebuking Satan). E.g. In Rev 22:8 says:
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 But he *said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

But when people worshiped Jesus, He made no such rebuke. He allowed them to worship Him as He displayed the qualities of Divinity.

 

[Mattathias]

Apologies for the late response. Some weeks are busier than others. I am in college and working=(60 hrs/week)

It’s good to hear from you. I was becoming concerned that you might be ill. Glad to hear that’s not the case.

I can appreciate how difficult your circumstance is at the moment. I worked 40-45 hours per week as a civil engineer while taking 15 credit hours each semester when I returned to college to obtain my BTh. It makes me tired now just thinking about it!

You‘re wise to do it while you’re single. I was (and still am) married and raising a child. It put quite a strain on me and on my family. I did it the hard way. You’re doing it the smart way.

Take your time in posting to me. I’m retired and, though still busy, in no hurry.

If you don’t mind saying, what are you studying to become?

Then I'm sure you understand that Erickson is not denouncing the Trinity with these statements. I'm sure there is a context.

He’s definitely not denouncing the Trinity.

When I discuss theology with trinitarians, I very seldom quote unitarian scholars. (Trinitarians, generally speaking, reject anything unitarian scholars say out of hand.) If I ever do quote a unitarian scholar in our conversations, I’ll alert you to the fact.

This commentator doesn't give a solution or explanation of this. He merely dismisses the Trinitarian view without a refutation.

The footnotes in NET are written by trinitarians. They have no desire to dismiss or refute the trinitarian view in their commentary.

(Concerning the idea of God speaking to the angels in Gen 1:26) he even admits: "This view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine image in some way."
He admits right there that it is merely an assumption, which I have already conveyed about this view.
What is Scripture corroborates the idea that God created the angels in His image?

What the trinitarian commentator didn’t convey clearly in the footnote is that the interpretation he puts forward is the one found in Judaism. In other words, while acknowledging the later trinitarian interpretation, he tells us how the Jews have historically understood their scripture.

Jesus can only call one person "His God" because there is only one person who is positionally over Him.
The Holy Spirit can only call 2 people "His God" because there are only 2 people who are positionally higher than Him.

So in your positional model of the Trinity - three persons, one God: there is one “God person“ (God the Father) who himself has no God, one “God-man person” (God the Son) who himself has a God who is only one “God person“ (God the Father), and one “God person“ (God the Holy Spirit) who himself has (or could have) a God who is “one God person“ (God the Father) and “one God-man person“ (God the Son).

That’s complicated.

My belief, which you reject, is much simpler: the God (and Father) of Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

There are only 3 people that You or I can call “God” because there are 3 people who are positionally greater than us.

I believe there are many more than three persons who are presently positionally greater than us (ex. the angels) but only one of whom (the Father) is, as Jesus himself identifies him, the one true God.

So Jesus calling the Father "His God" does not postulate unitarianism.

Jesus ascended to “my God and your God, my Father and your Father”. Jesus defined who his God and the God of his followers is.

You recognize and rightly acknowledge that I am a unitarian, precisely because my God is only one person, the Father.

My God is only one person because his God is only one person - the same one person - the Father.

I mispoke. I meant to say "Lord in the NT (kurios) is the primary title for the Son (Just as "God" is the primary title for the Father, in order to distinguish the 2 persons while maintaining the divinity of both).

“Kurios“ is the title of many others in the NT besides God and Jesus, not to mention the many others who also share the title in the LXX.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily say that about Unitarianism. But I prefer to make arguments from the Bible at every point.

Unitarianism has an advantage in that the Jews and early Christians were Unitarians.

Why would we baptize someone in the name of any other than God?

Presumably you wouldn’t. The followers of the Messiah baptized in his name, not in the name of his/their God.

I didn't change anything. Translators added, "of war". The Hebrew simply says "Yahweh is a man".

The translators didn’t add “of war”. They translated the Hebrew word “milchamah” (H4421) which is written in the passage.

Let me rephrase what I said earlier:
God revealed Himself as the Trinity through the NT canon. It is uncertain whether certain Biblical characters knew this through personal revelation, but the idea of the Trinity is more explicitly conveyed and realized through the entire NT cannon (which is the main purpose of the NT, and OT, to reveal the nature and person of Jesus Christ). (John 5:39)

We obviously disagree on what is revealed through the NT cannon, but you believe there might have been some unidentified trinitarians living in the days encompassed by the Old Testament.

It's not difficult to see the differences in the use of "worship" in the Bible. If the person being worshiped displayed the qualities of divinity, it is divine worship. If a response to a non-divine person is "worshiped", then it is not the worship associated with "You shall only worship and serve the Lord your God" (Jesus rebuking Satan). E.g. In Rev 22:8 says:
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 But he *said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

But when people worshiped Jesus, He made no such rebuke. He allowed them to worship Him as He displayed the qualities of Divinity.

There’s a lot that could be discussed in this portion of your comments. Perhaps we will.

I would like you to comment on one thing I wrote in particular: David sitting on God’s throne.

 

[Mattathias]

What is Scripture corroborates the idea that God created the angels in His image?

I’m going to work off of the assumption that we both believe that the angels were created by God. What is the image of God? How would you describe it?

It's not difficult to see the differences in the use of "worship" in the Bible. If the person being worshiped displayed the qualities of divinity, it is divine worship. If a response to a non-divine person is "worshiped", then it is not the worship associated with "You shall only worship and serve the Lord your God" (Jesus rebuking Satan).

I wanted to come back to this. It is a critical moment in the life of Messiah. He truly could have failed. (No chance whatsoever that God himself could have failed.)

Satan was tempting Jesus (God cannot be tempted; the Messiah could be tempted) to worship him. Jesus rebuked Satan by telling him precisely why he wouldn’t worship him. Jesus was obedient to the commandment. He would only worship and serve the Lord his God.

E.g. In Rev 22:8 says:
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 But he *said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

Angel worship is not something anyone should be involved in. The angel rebuked him. Worship God = worship and serve the same God the angel and the Messiah worship and serve.

But when people worshiped Jesus, He made no such rebuke. He allowed them to worship Him as He displayed the qualities of Divinity.

Jesus allowed them to worship him because he is God’s anointed one.

 

[Diakonos]

It’s my understanding that those are the Father’s first words recorded in scripture.

This was the root of our discussion some months ago. Here is the Biblical proof that Jesus, Himself is the Creator:
(Psalm 102)

(Heb 1)

To assure that the context is absolutely clear, I used an OT reference and a NT confirmation; The Hebrew author quotes psalm 102:8, attributing Jesus as the addressee of the psalmist: the Creator of heaven and earth.

 

[Magenta]

This was the root of our discussion some months ago.

He has been banned

 

[Guojing]

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”.

Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:24 tells you he is not speaking to us gentiles during his 1st coming.

 

[Blik]

Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:24 tells you he is not speaking to us gentiles during his 1st coming.

Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Then you believe that Christ is not your savior, Christ is only the savior of Israel? In that case you are denying a lot of scripture, it even wipes out the words of Paul, for Paul was sent to the gentiles.

 

[Guojing]

Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Then you believe that Christ is not your savior, Christ is only the savior of Israel? In that case you are denying a lot of scripture, it even wipes out the words of Paul, for Paul was sent to the gentiles.

Paul was not sent to the gentiles during the 4 gospels.