More on the deity of Christ

[Matthias]

Tomorrow also marks two weeks since the new rules were announced. A quick perusal of the forums this morning seems to indicate that they are accomplishing - at least in regard to discussion of the Trinity - the intended purpose.

How many members have opted to change their registration from “Christian” to “Other Faith” during the time frame? There may be some, but I don’t know of any.

How many members will opt to change their registration from “Christian” to ”Other Faith” moving forward? No one knows but it’s probably going to be a very small number, if any.

There isn’t much interest in the Trinity in forums open to “Other Faith” members.

It’s early, but the new strategy appears to be effective.

 

[Matthias]

Evaluating some of the data. (A proclivity of my profession which has followed me into retirement and into other fields.)

***

To date, 10 members (including myself) have posted in this thread.

9 of the members are registered “Christian”. 1 member (yours truly) is registered as “Other Faith”.

I’ll be intentionally more vague now.

The majority of the “Christian” members posting in the thread are dissenters (i.e., they don’t affirm historical orthodox trinitarianism) and are prohibited by the new rules from discussing the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ with any member of the board. They‘ve ceased discussing the topic and, as of 5 minutes ago, have not opted to change their registration from “Christian” to “Other Faith”.

Moderators have exercised restraint and allowed a short period of time for dissenters to adjust to the new rules in this thread. I find that commendable.

Where the thread stands presently. Those who affirm orthodoxy have shown no interest since last Thursday (3/6/25) in further discussing the topic with me. That leaves me talking to the wind.

Where will the thread go from here? Unless other members who are registered “Other Faith” join the conversation, or until members who affirm orthodoxy resume the conversation, not far.

 

[lforrest]

The dead horse has been beaten for so long it has been rendered into glue that is flaking off with the old wallpaper.

 

[Matthias]

The dead horse has been beaten for so long it has been rendered into glue that is flaking off with the old wallpaper.

As I mentioned, I’m open to reexamining my position. The “Christian” members haven’t shown much interest in helping me to do that. That’s fine, I’m doing it on my own via reading books and articles authored by trinitarians. I know very well the historical orthodox trinitarian position, usually better than the average trinitarian does. What I’m looking for isn’t arguments in favor of orthodoxy (my personal library is filled with them and I taught it to college students) but rather arguments against my position (Jewish monotheism).

Taking another wack at the dead horse? I have no interest in doing that.

 

[lforrest]

L

As I mentioned, I’m open to reexamining my position. The “Christian” members haven’t shown much interest in helping me to do that. That’s fine, I’m doing it on my own via reading books and articles authored by trinitarians. I know very well the historical orthodox trinitarian position, usually better than the average trinitarian does. What I’m looking for isn’t arguments in favor of orthodoxy (my personal library is filled with them and I taught it to college students) but rather arguments against my position (Jewish monotheism).

Taking another wack at the dead horse? I have no interest in doing that.

I would encourage everyone to analyze their presuppositions. Those often shape our interpretations. Aside from those the Spirit guides us into understanding. And we may not know we were inspired when forming an understanding. But looking back at the whole of our learning experiences I hope we can see a difference between how we have come to understand scripture compared to other sources.

And if we then revisit these understandings that we may not recognize as being inspired, can we expect the same subtle inspiration a second or third time?

 

[Brakelite]

A “trinitarian” who believes there was a time when the Son did not exist isn’t in the fold of orthodoxy. The new rules require such a person either not to speak about the Trinity or change their registration to “Other Faith”.



Confirmation from your own lips that you know that what you believe isn’t orthodox.



Being an Arian, he would quickly run into trouble here under the new rules.

P.S.

Are you familiar with the term “elemental trinitarianism”?

“If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us that there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus … They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine if the Triune God may be formulated.

To study the gradual transition from an unformulated Biblical witness to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to a dogmatic formulation of a doctrine of the Triune God, we look first to the Eastern Church where most of thus development took place place.”

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine if the Trinity, pp. x, xvi)

Fortman was a Roman Catholic scholar.

You and the Bishop you quoted would theologically fall into his category of “elemental trinitarianism”. Ironically, so would I.

Father Fortman knew orthodoxy is a post-biblical development. (That’s what his book is about.) He isn’t the only one. The process and time frame is well-preserved in church history.

”There was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father” -> welcome to the infamous hallway of heresy.

The new rules allow non-trinitarian Christians to register as “Christian”, but with a catch -> non-trinitarian Christian members are prohibited from speaking with any other member about the Trinity. (Non-trinitarian Christians who wish to do so are offered an alternative - they may change their registration to “Other Faith”.) Defining the Trinity in an unorthodox manner is speaking against orthodoxy, which is precisely and expressly what the new rules were designed to prohibit “Christian” members from doing.

As someone who doesn’t affirm historical orthodox trinitarianism but is registered as “Christian”, are you concerned about a moderator enforcing the new rules against you for speaking about the Trinity?

Are there any ethical issues in your mind connected with you being registered as “Christian” and not abiding by the new rules?

I'm a Christian. There are a few biblical suggestions that denying the name of Christ before men... Well, I'm sure you know the rest. Just not comfortable with saying I'm of another faith other than Christian. I am a Seventh Day Adventist. There are not a few here who would suggest any change in my status would be a step toward admitting truth. I'm not interested in giving them satisfaction on that count.
Historic Adventism didn't officially include the Trinity into its fundamental beliefs until 1980. And that wasn't without opposition. There still quite the debate with Adventism over the matter. Here's a link to a web site put together by an Adventist dissenter in Britain. He's not a pastor, just a layman, but an excellent student of the scriptures, and presents some very thought provoking arguments in favour of our pioneers' position.

The Prophet Still Speaks

I think I agree with you that we would fit into somewhat of a similar mould as yourself, except for perhaps our church's position, both old and new, in favour of the full deity/divinity of the Son of God. Which puts in a unique position compared with other non trinitarians on the forum.

 

[Matthias]

I'm a Christian.

You’re a a registered “Christian” member who, by order of the new rules, isn’t allowed to speak openly with any member of the Board about the Trinity. Orthodoxy is the voice of this land.

There are a few biblical suggestions that denying the name of Christ before men... Well, I'm sure you know the rest. Just not comfortable with saying I'm of another faith other than Christian. I am a Seventh Day Adventist. There are not a few here who would suggest any change in my status would be a step toward admitting truth. I'm not interested in giving them satisfaction on that count.
Historic Adventism didn't officially include the Trinity into its fundamental beliefs until 1980. And that wasn't without opposition. There still quite the debate with Adventism over the matter. Here's a link to a web site put together by an Adventist dissenter in Britain. He's not a pastor, just a layman, but an excellent student of the scriptures, and presents some very thought provoking arguments in favour of our pioneers' position.

The Prophet Still Speaks

I think I agree with you that we would fit into somewhat of a similar mould as yourself, except for perhaps our church's position, both old and new, in favour of the full deity/divinity of the Son of God. Which puts in a unique position compared with other non trinitarians on the forum.

Thanks. I don’t think many, if any, of the other non-trinitarian Christian members will change their registration from “Christian” to “Other Faith” either.

I respect your decision to maintain your registration status. You must respect their rules concerning closed hand issues in order to abide here. So do I.

We’re in orthodox territory. It’s the law of this land.

We’ve been gagged - you in one way, me in another - and decided to stay. You have the run of all of the forums with your decision. I don’t with my decision. That’s a privilege you have that I‘m denied. I’m confined to the reservation. Take off the gag you’ve agreed to wear and you’ll eventually be escorted out of the land. I don’t want to see that happen to you so I won’t discuss the Trinity any further with you. (I will discuss it with interested trinitarian Christian members; a privilege I have which you are denied.) If you persist and are banned it will be because of you, not me. I wish you well.

 

[Matthias]

“Jesus’ beliefs, therefore, remained thise of a first-century Jew, committed to the coming kingdom of Israel’s god. He did not waver in his loyalty to Jewish doctrine. But his beliefs were those of a first-century Jew who believed that the kingdom was coming in and through his own work. His loyalty to Israel’s cherished beliefs therefore took the form of critique and renovation within; of challenge to traditions and institutions whose purpose, he believed (like prophets long before, and radicals in his own day), had been grievously corrupted and distorted; and of new proposals which, though without precedent, were never mere innovation. They always claimed the high ground: fulfillment, completion, consummation.

We can summarize Jesus’ beliefs in terms of three mist fundamental Jewish beliefs: monotheism, election, and eschatology.

Jesus believed there was one God who made the world, and who called Israel to be his people; that this one God had promised to be with his people, and guide them to their destiny, their new exodus; that his presence, guidance and ultimately salvation were symbolized, brought into reality, in and through Temple, Torah, Wisdom, Word and Spirit. He was a first- century Jewish monotheist.”

(N.T. Wright, Jesus And The Victory of God, p. 652)

“[Jesus] was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”

I’m a twenty-first century Jewish monotheist. It is through the appellation “Jewish monotheist” - which fits under the registration process here into the category of “Other Faith” - not “Christian”, that I self-identify with him.

Anyone and everyone who has known me for any length of time has heard me speak about the constraints of history.

Orthodoxy identifies Jewish monotheism as “another faith” and labels that “other faith” as heresy. That’s simply an undeniable, indisputable, historical fact.

The theology officially endorsed by, and the rules promulgated for, Christianity Board reflect and align with that longstanding Christian heritage.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm not interested in giving them satisfaction on that count.

Neither am I.

 

[Matthias]

Neither am I.

I am. As dissenters, we are offered two paths to membership here. You’ve chosen one path, which I respect, and I the other. (I chose my path over two years before the administration offered it. I had no idea at the time that they eventually would.)

I’m a Jewish monotheist who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, Son of God. (You already knew that, but others reading this thread might not.) It’s more important to me to register that way for all to see, to live peacefully as far as it depends on me, and as a witness of my faith in the one true God and his Messiah to those who don’t consider me “Christian” as well as to those who do consider me “Christian”.

Just as you wouldn’t consider changing your registration here from “Christian” to “Other Faith”, I wouldn’t consider changing my registration here from “Other Faith” to “Christian”.

It has worked well for me but I recognize and acknowledge that it may not work well for others.

 

[Matthias]

The witness of historical orthodox trinitarianism against Jewish monotheism @KUWN.

“The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ‘the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)

I commend you for bringing church history into the discussion. As you perhaps know, Gregory of Nyssa is one of the key figures in 4th century Nicene Christianity; one of the Cappadocian Fathers. A true champion of orthodoxy.

I don’t know why you’ve not called upon him, especially in conversation with me, a Jewish monotheist.

My monotheism is the monotheism of the Jews; that which orthodoxy calls heresy.

My dogma is Jewish; that which is destroyed by orthodoxy.

“[Jesus] was a first-century Jewish monotheist.” - N.T. Wright (see post #108)

It is his monotheism, his Jewish dogma, that orthodoxy destroys.

 

[Matthias]

@KUWN the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD is something that you have working partly in your favor. I say partly because the creed it produced had to be revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Why?

Perhaps you know, I presume that you do, but others reading this thread might not. As someone who has said he is “sick and tired” of peoples ignorance about the Council of Nicaea, it’s a responsibility that you’ve taken upon yourself to inform them.

The Nicene Creed had to be revised because the Nicene Christians were still unsettled on the question of the Holy Spirit.

“Even among the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy an uncertainty still for a time prevailed respecting the doctrine of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the Spirit to be an impersonal power or attribute of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the expressions of the Scriptures. Gregory of Nazianzen, who, for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable concession: ‘Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others a creature, others God himself, and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy Ghost, and strike a middle course, which is in fact, a bad one.’”

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit)

P.S.

Link provided for the convenience of our readers.

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

 

[Matthias]

I fully agree with the sentiment expressed in this Christian meme.

Whether or not someone views me as ”Christian”, I can (and do) say this as a Jewish monotheist.

My board registration fairly limits where I can speak and how I can speak, but it doesn’t prohibit or restrict me in any way from holding, expressing and encouraging certain beliefs which are widely recognized and acknowledged as “Christian”.

I’m ready, willing and able to agree with members who are registered “Christian” on a great many things. There is more to discuss within the broad historical stream of Christianity - Jewish monotheism is found at the very beginning of that stream - than those things which later divided it into branches.

 

[Brakelite]

You’re a a registered “Christian” member who, by order of the new rules, isn’t allowed to speak openly with any member of the Board about the Trinity. Orthodoxy is the voice of this land.

Yes, which is why I restricted my post to just 3 points... My church's historic position on the Trinity.... my reluctance to change my nomenclature as to being a Christian, for the simple reason as I said, I fully accept the deity and divinity of Jesus as the Son of God. Which is not dependent on any Trinitarian or non Trinitarian stance.

 

[Matthias]

I was going through an old file a few minutes ago looking for something when I came across something unrelated to what I was looking for:

Someone had asked me, “Is God a Jew?” I replied, “No, but his Son is.”

That brought to mind another quote from one of my favorite books written by a trinitarian author:

”Historians of Christianity and its relationship to society often claim that Constantine created Christian Europe, or Christendom, but that now we are in the post-Constantinian era. In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era. The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity. It can be compared only to the transition within biblical monotheism itself from the unitary monotheism of Israel to the trinitarianism of the Council of Chalcedon. The difference is symbolized by the transition from the prayer Shema Yisroel, of Deuteronomy 6:4 (‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord …’), to the confession of the Athanasian Creed, ‘We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity’.

Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tripersonal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 431)

Dr. Brown confirms that a transition took place from the creed of Judaism (which is popularly known as “the Jesus Creed”) and affirms the Athanasian Creed. Does he consider it a legitimate post-biblical development? Of course he does, and those who affirm orthodoxy logically should also.

I’m a Jewish monotheist because the Messiah, Son of God himself is a Jewish monotheist. For that I’m anathematized (cursed, condemned) by the Athanasian Creed and blessed (divinely favored) by the Creed of Judaism (the Shema) which - I earlier documented using the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (see post #41) - Jesus himself made his own.

The OP should have said to me what I’m saying to my readers.

 

[Matthias]

For Jewish monotheists, the deity of Messiah is his Father. As a Jewish monotheist, I see and hear the deity of Messiah when I see and hear Jesus of Nazareth. Not all Jewish monotheists do.

 

[Matthias]

“Christianity is Jewish!” - Edith Schaeffer

@KUWN what do you say in response to that?

I say amen in response to her, but with a word of caution.

 

[Matthias]

33 seconds of your time @KUWN. That’s all it will take for you to hear this trinitarian scholar (Dr. Ben Witherington, III) support my assertion that Jesus isn’t Yahweh.

Do you understand how he can say this and still be a trinitarian?

***

Dr. Ben Witherington III - Asbury Theological Seminary

Dr. Witherington joined the Asbury Seminary faculty in 1995 after teaching at Ashland Theological Seminary for more than a decade. He has also taught at High Point College, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Dr. Witherington has written more than 60...

asburyseminary.edu

Dr. James D.G. Dunn echoes Dr. Witherington’s point. (Other Christian New Testament scholars do also. I may or may not quote more of them. It isn’t about how many of them I‘m able to quote. Nor is it about an appeal to authority. They provide the reason(s) why they make the statement. Everyone must evaluate and decide for themselves whether or not the reason(s) are persuasive.)

“The New Testament writers are really quite careful at this point. Jesus is not the God of Israel. He is not the Father. He is not Yahweh.”

(Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, p. 142-144)

Jewish monotheism: The God of Israel is Yahweh. The God of Israel is the Messiah’s God. The God of Israel and the God of Jesus is the Father.

This is the monotheism, the Jewish dogma, which Gregory of Nyssa lambasted (see post # 111).

This is the unitary / personal monotheism of Israel which Dr. Brown talked about the church gradually transitioning away from (see post # 115).

 

[Matthias]

I pose this question to the OP in particular (who seems to have abandoned the thread) and to orthodoxy in general: Was Jesus of Nazareth a monotheist?

 

[Wrangler]

@KUWN, just out of curiosity, why do you suppose there is not a NT verse that explicitly states Jesus is a deity like YHWH is explicitly stated to be God in the OT?

I am Yahweh your God, and there is no other;
Joel 2:27