More on the deity of Christ

[Matthias]

“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.”

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 142, “The Orthodox Christology - Analysis and Criticism”)

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

Dr. Schaff. Protestant.

This is what trinitarians (and non-trinitarians) need to know and understand about historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I’m writing with these posts the trinitarian apology of historical orthodox trinitarianism. Naturally, I’m using Catholic and Protestant sources to accomplish that purpose.

P.S.

This is what those who affirm historical orthodox trinitarianism should be doing, but aren’t.

 

[Wrangler]

“There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”)

Am I the only one who sees the silliness of this statement? It's wordplay.

Not word play but the natural consequence of rejecting dualism.
P1. There is one person in the house.
P2. There is one person outside the house.
C. There are 2 persons.

The dualistic boundary is the metaphorical house, where the perimeter serves as the limit of the concept.

 

[Matthias]

“This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person... .”

(Tony Arsenal, “Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears ... O My”)

Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears… Oh My

Today, I had a brief discussion with someone who had questions about the distinction between Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and how the terms function in Christology. I thought it would be beneficial …

orthopathos.wordpress.com

Dr. Arsenal. Protestant. Writing in support of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

To the best of my knowledge, it’s not a violation of the new rules for a Jewish monotheist to post orthodox trinitarian teaching. I‘m doing so for the benefit of all of my readers, not only for the benefit of trinitarians.

 

[Wrangler]

“This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person... .”

Based on the DNA found on the Shroud of Turin, it seems the above is correct. The DNA has 24 chromosomes, whereas a human person has 46. Unique blood of Jesus Christ, with only 24 chromosomes

 

[Matthias]

Based on the DNA found on the Shroud of Turin, it seems the above is correct. The DNA has 24 chromosomes, whereas a human person has 46. Unique blood of Jesus Christ, with only 24 chromosomes

Then either historical orthodox trinitarianism is correct or it’s not Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Wrangler]

Then either historical orthodox trinitarianism is correct or it’s not Jesus of Nazareth.

Here is the wordplay that I think @marks referred to. He's not Jesus of East LA. He's not Jesus from the Bronx. The expression refers to where he was raised, not his parentage or spiritual origins.

I had a friend growing up across the street. He grew to be politically and religiosity opposite from me. This is not unlike Jesus and the kids he grew up with. To say Jesus is divine, OF God, does not make him not physically from Nazareth. 1 Samuel 1 reveals he (and his father) are from Ramathaim. This does not mean Samuel was not a prophet, not speaking divine words.

It's sufficient to show that the doctrine of the trinity evolved over time. No need to rely on a semantic exercise, which confuses the issue. IMO, there are more effective ways to get your point across.

 

[Matthias]

Here is the wordplay that I think @marks referred to. He's not Jesus of East LA. He's not Jesus from the Bronx. The expression refers to where he was raised, not his parentage or spiritual origins.

I had a friend growing up across the street. He grew to be politically and religiosity opposite from me. This is not unlike Jesus and the kids he grew up with. To say Jesus is divine, OF God, does not make him not from physically from Nazareth. 1 Samuel 1 reveals he (and his father) are from Ramathaim. This does not mean Samuel was not a prophet, not speaking divine words.

It's sufficient to show that the doctrine of the trinity evolved over time.

Church history shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the doctrine evolved over time. That the doctrine evolved over time doesn’t make it wrong. That is Dr. Brown’s point.

No need to rely on a semantic exercise, which confuses the issue. IMO, there are more effective ways to get your point across.

There are trinitarian scholars who dislike metaphysical language and suggest that the doctrine should be reformulated. They are in the minority and I don’t see orthodoxy ever turning its back on its history.

***

Returning to the Shroud.

“Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect ...”

(Hebrews 2:17, NET)

Jesus of Nazareth isn’t made like his brothers and sisters in every respect if his DNA isn’t human. That brings us to Docetism, which orthodoxy wisely rejects.

 

[marks]

“This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person... .”

(Tony Arsenal, “Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears ... O My”)

Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears… Oh My

Today, I had a brief discussion with someone who had questions about the distinction between Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and how the terms function in Christology. I thought it would be beneficial …

orthopathos.wordpress.com

Dr. Arsenal. Protestant. Writing in support of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

To the best of my knowledge, it’s not a violation of the new rules for a Jewish monotheist to post orthodox trinitarian teaching. I‘m doing so for the benefit of all of my readers, not only for the benefit of trinitarians.

You are arguing against the Trinity, is that right?

And you don't care that this is a banned practice, just so long as you can play your word games, "OH! I'm not doing anything!!"

Right.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

You are arguing against the Trinity, is that right?

I’m making the argument for historical orthodox trinitarianism in my conversation with you.

And you don't care that this is a banned practice, just so long as you can play your word games, "OH! I'm not doing anthing!!"

Right.

Much love!

I‘m not playing word games and the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism - to trinitarians and non-trinitarians - isn’t a banned practice.

 

[Wrangler]

It isn’t a banned practice.

It isn't a banned practice for those who identify as 'Other Faith,' right? I guess @marks missed that part.

 

[marks]

I’m making the argument for historical orthodox trinitarianism in my conversation with you.

So the you suppport the doctrine of the Trinity, and are arguing in favor of this concept? OR do you disbelieve it, and post with the intent of disputing that notion of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, One God?

What is true here?

I'm just look for a little honesty. I'm expecting more games. Show me wrong.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

It isn't a banned practice for those who identify as 'Other Faith,' right? I guess @marks missed that part.

I think he’s confused about what the new rules allow and don’t allow. I know he doesn’t understand why I’m posting what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches. He’s bucking against their teaching and my practice.

 

[Matthias]

So the you suppport the doctrine of the Trinity, and are arguing in favor of this concept? OR do you disbelieve it, and post with the intent of disputing that notion of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, One God?

What is true here?

I teach what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches to trinitarians and to non-trinitarians. I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian.

I'm just look for a little honesty. I'm expecting more games. Show me wrong.

Much love!

There are no games. You’re reacting against what orthodoxy actually teaches.

 

[marks]

I think he’s confused about what the new rules allow and don’t allow. I know he doesn’t understand why I’m posting what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches. He’s bucking against their teaching and my practice.

Don't try to pass this off as something it's not. I've been seeing way too much of that. Word games.

You fight against the Trinity, and you prefer to not admit it, apparently. You are not fooling me.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Don't try to pass this off as something it's not. I've been seeing way too much of that. Word games.

You fight against the Trinity, and you prefer to not admit it, apparently. You are not fooling me.

Much love!

I want people to be properly educated about what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches, whether or not they believe what it teaches is true. Everyone must decide that for themselves.

I’m quoting the teachers of historical orthodox trinianism. You’re calling what they’re teaching ”silly” and “word games”. I haven’t said that. In fact, I’ve said the opposite of that.

I’m an educator.

 

[soberxp]

其实你不必纠结所谓的三位一体理论，
耶稣道成肉身，
圣经中这样描述唯一的真神，太初有道，道与神同在。
耶稣与神都是神的话语。
圣灵也是神的话语。
他们都是神的话语。
这是我自己学习的理解，但这不是支持三位一体的根据，因为我们都不清楚三位一体的具体解释以及定义到底是什么。

他们的统一表现是在神的话语。
以色列的历史以及圣经告诉我们要顺服神的话语，就会被赐福被祝福。

神的话语是唯一真神的具体体现。
无论耶稣是人子还是神子，都不会动摇他代表神的话语的本质。争论的焦点不应该是耶稣是人还是神，而是我们是否认识耶稣，进而认识神，然后在圣灵的帮助下，顺服神的话语。


Actually, you don’t need to get caught up in the so-called doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus is the word of God became flesh, and the Bible describes the one true God this way: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (John 1:1).

Jesus and the Father are both the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit is also the Word of God.
They are all the Word of God.

This is my personal understanding from studying Scripture, but it’s not meant to support the Trinity, because none of us fully grasp the specifics or definition of the Trinity.

Their unity is manifested in the Word of God.

The history of Israel and the Bible teach us that obedience to God’s Word brings blessing and favor.

The Word of God is the ultimate expression of the one true God.

Whether Jesus is the Son of Man or the Son of God, it doesn’t change the fact that He embodies the Word of God. The focus of debate shouldn’t be whether Jesus is human or divine(god), but whether we know Jesus, and through Him, know God. Then, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can obey God’s Word."

 

[Behold]

Jesus is fully God and fully 2nd Adam... He is the "Godman". = 100%

Jesus is : .... .God became one of us to offer salvation to ALL of us.

When Jesus says......."I came into the world to save sinners".. He's saying that "God was manifested in the Flesh" to "take away the sin of the World".

When Jesus told them........"""'I AM from above, and you are from below"""".. see that? That is the virgin born man, revealing that He is God come down to us.

 

[Matthias]

The average trinitarian hasn’t been properly instructed on the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism. I’ve complained about it publicly for years, both here and away.

When they are, they either believe it or they don’t. It’s a matter of conscience.

If a person finds something persuasive, then they should believe it. If a person doesn’t find something persuasive, then they shouldn’t believe it. That’s common sense.

Here’s an oddity: there are people who self-identify as trinitarian who don’t endorse orthodoxy.

I coined an acronym for it when I was teaching: TAHOT -> Trinitarians Against Historical Orthodox Trinitarianism.

The new rules are interesting and, outside of this thread, appear to be effective. A “Christian” [who does not endorse orthodoxy] shall not speak against a “Christian” [who does endorse orthodoxy]. A “Christian” who doesn’t endorse orthodoxy is required to remain silent on the matter. A great measure of peace in the valley has thus been obtained.

I’m registered “Other Faith” and the new rules allow me to do here what I did when I worked as an adjunct college professor: teach historical orthodox trinitarianism (and other aspects of theology) to trinitarian and non-trinitarian community students. Students weren’t asked to endorse orthodoxy, nor were they asked to reject orthodoxy. They wanted to learn about orthodoxy and were taught orthodoxy, using nothing but sources from orthodoxy and the Bible. Students had the liberty of using any English translation - NIV and KJV were the two most popular with students. I primarily used NASB95.

 

[Matthias]

其实你不必纠结所谓的三位一体理论，
耶稣道成肉身，
圣经中这样描述唯一的真神，太初有道，道与神同在。
耶稣与神都是神的话语。
圣灵也是神的话语。
他们都是神的话语。
这是我自己学习的理解，但这不是支持三位一体的根据，因为我们都不清楚三位一体的具体解释以及定义到底是什么。

他们的统一表现是在神的话语。
以色列的历史以及圣经告诉我们要顺服神的话语，就会被赐福被祝福。

神的话语是唯一真神的具体体现。
无论耶稣是人子还是神子，都不会动摇他代表神的话语的本质。争论的焦点不应该是耶稣是人还是神，而是我们是否认识耶稣，进而认识神，然后在圣灵的帮助下，顺服神的话语。


Actually, you don’t need to get caught up in the so-called doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus is the word of God became flesh, and the Bible describes the one true God this way: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (John 1:1).

Jesus and the Father are both the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit is also the Word of God.
They are all the Word of God.

This is my personal understanding from studying Scripture, but it’s not meant to support the Trinity, because none of us fully grasp the specifics or definition of the Trinity.

Their unity is manifested in the Word of God.

The history of Israel and the Bible teach us that obedience to God’s Word brings blessing and favor.

The Word of God is the ultimate expression of the one true God.

Whether Jesus is the Son of Man or the Son of God, it doesn’t change the fact that He embodies the Word of God. The focus of debate shouldn’t be whether Jesus is human or divine(god), but whether we know Jesus, and through Him, know God. Then, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can obey God’s Word."

What you’re expressing isn’t historical orthodox trinitarianism. You do understand that, don’t you?

If you were alive and said this in Western civilization as recently as three hundred years ago, you would have been persecuted by enforcers of orthodoxy.

 

[soberxp]

What you’re expressing isn’t historical orthodox trinitarianism. You do understand that, don’t you?

To be honest, I can't understand their words at all, because I have never heard a reasonable understanding process and explanation from them. So I never understood exactly what they were trying to say.

If you were alive and said this in Western civilization as recently as three hundred years ago, you would have been persecuted by enforcers of orthodoxy.

So I live three hundred years later, and I'm still in China.LOL.