More on the deity of Christ

[lforrest]

Thanks. That’s not how I would harmonize it. I don’t have an issue with “selective awareness” (which is to say, I’m fine with it as an explanation) but I’m curious about how you see that working with omniscience.

I believe Psalm 103:12 "As far as the east is from the west, So far hath he removed our transgressions from us."
So we have a God who can forgive and forget sins yet he is omniscient. Its a variation of the old paradox, can an omnipotent God make a rock so big he can't lift it? Can God who knows all things forget? I wouldn't believe it if it were not written.

 

[Matthias]

I believe Psalm 103:12 "As far as the east is from the west, So far hath he removed our transgressions from us."
So we have a God who can forgive and forget sins yet he is omniscient. Its a variation of the old paradox, can an omnipotent God make a rock so big he can't lift it? Can God who knows all things forget? I wouldn't believe it if it were not written.

So God can choose not to know something as well as not to remember something. (Nothing is impossible with God.)

Did God choose not to know what was happening to - to use your terminology - the second person of himself?

 

[Matthias]

If the early church fathers explicitly affirmed Jesus’ deity before Nicea, then how can anyone claim that it was an invention at Nicea?

Over and over studies are published showing that most people don’t read their Bibles regularly. In light of the fact, with what frequency then would we hazard a guess - greater or lesser - that they’re reading the early church fathers? (“LESSER” rings the bell and wins the Kewpie doll.)

From my X / Twitter “For you feed” today:

”The teaching of the early church fathers wasn’t perfect - they made mistakes. But God’s word never errs.

We don’t understand the Bible in light of the early fathers - we must test even the early fathers according to Scripture.”

(Gabriel Hughes)

https://x.com/pastor_gabe/status/1915145381652160542?s=61

The pastor is right.

Mistakes? What mistakes did the early church fathers make?

Take Tertullian for example. I can quote him until I’m blue in the face (and have) saying, “There was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father”. (Everyone who reads Tertullian knows he said it and knows he believed it.)

It typically doesn’t matter. People believe what they want to believe, and what trinitarians want to believe about Tertullian is that Tertullian believed what they believe.

“There was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father.” What kind of “God“ is that, Tertullian?

Tertullian is dead. What kind of “God” doesn’t eternally exist with the Father, KUWN?

***

I highly encourage people to read the Bible, and also the early church fathers. It falls largely on deaf ears.

My particular area of interest is in the Ante-Nicene fathers - of which Tertullian is one. I’m keenly interested in them because their writings document the gradual shift which occurred in the early church - from Jewish monotheism in the 1st century to trinitarianism in the 4th century.

People sometimes hear snippets of the early church fathers and think they understand them. They don’t. They have to read their writings in full to gain a proper understanding of them.

The facts overwhelmingly confirm that the deity of Christ was not invented at Nicea. In fact, this belief was birthed out of the original disciples’ close interaction with Jesus. Consequently, Jesus’ words and actions led the disciples to the only reasonable conclusion: Jesus is God. And this belief was passed down through church history.

If all you want me - a Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus is the Messiah, Son of the living God - to do is say / confess that “Jesus is divine” and / or ”Jesus is God” then consider it done.

I’ve quoted A.E. Harvey frequently of late. (Jesus and the Constraints of History.) I might as well be playing a kazoo and marching up and down sand dunes in the middle of the Sahara Desert. This trinitarian scholar - and he isn’t the only trinitarian scholar who does - hands it to us on a silver platter.

Who is reading him / them? The people who seldom read their Bibles? The people who even less seldom read the early church fathers?

P.S.

I‘m about to turn in for the night but wanted to add a quick word about the Nicene fathers. They too are of great interest to me, but in a slightly different way than are the Ante-Nicene fathers.

For decades I‘ve publicly called for the early church fathers / church history to be taught in every church (and privately in homes). Trinitarians, binitarians, and unitarians have typically declined to join with me in calling for it. I‘m extending a personal invitation to you. Will you join with me in calling for it to be done?

The early church fathers / church history are a boon to Jewish monotheists who follow the Messiah. It can work for you too, but few people have any interest in it.

 

[Matthias]

“Tertullian denied that a Father / Son relationship was eternal with the Trinity, seeing it rather as a new development emerging from God’s plan to make the world. Such temporal paternity and filiation distances Tertullian from the eventual Nicene consensus, which accepted instead the eternal generation theory of Origen. While Tertullian did propose some important terms that would gain traction among the Nicene fathers, he was also marked by a subordinationist tendency that had affinities with Arianism. … Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a far cry from being fully Nicene. Rather, he offered a clever but still imperfect half-step toward what would become official orthodoxy.”

(Bryan M. Litfin, “Tertullian on the Trinity,” Abstract)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332256750_Tertullian_on_the_Trinity

Tertullian would violate the current Board policy if he were to return to life, register here as a “Christian” member and state his position. He would have to register as “Other Faith” in order to do that.

Historical theologians do acknowledge that Tertullian was “a far cry from being fully Nicene”. I’ve elsewhere quoted the Lutheran scholar J.L. Neve (A History of Christian Thought) as an example.

We should still read Tertullian. He’s an important intermediary figure in the post-biblical transition period. He’s not a Jewish monotheist and he’s not a Nicene trinitarian. He’s a precursor of Arianism.

People would know this if they read Tertullian for themselves.

This isn’t controversial. It’s simple church history.

***

Dr. Litfin is a trinitarian scholar. For those who are unfamiliar with him:

Dr. Bryan Litfin | Rawlings School of Divinity | Liberty University

www.liberty.edu

 

[Matthias]

“It’s fun to have fun but you have to know how.” - Theodor Seuss Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss)

“Jesus is divine and Jesus is God but you have to know how.” - Matthias

 

[Pierac]

Jesus had a special relationship with the Father, it was that relationship which was temporarily severed on the cross when Jesus took on our sins. The father can not look on sin. Jesus' nature was unchanged, he was still divine.

For we who are evil it may not seem alarming when God is silent.

So... You agree that Jesus had a special relationship... with his Father

Jesus had a special relationship with the Father, it was that relationship which was temporarily severed on the cross when Jesus took on our sins. The father can not look on sin. Jesus' nature was unchanged, he was still divine.

For we who are evil it may not seem alarming when God is silent.

As you teach...
It's not about relationship... The spirit is not the same as the soul. The Soul does not immediately return to God at death, but the Spirit does! As Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Psalms 146:4 clearly teaches! (see below) Read Psalms 146:4 again, and note it does not teach his body returns to the earth but “he” or his body perishes but “thoughts.”

(Ecc 12:7) and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit (Breath rûaḥ) returns to God who gave it.

(Psa 146:4) His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.

Other support verses are…

(Gen 2:7) The Spirit is the breath of life

(Job 7:21) "Why then do You not pardon my transgression And take away my iniquity?

For now I will lie down in the dust; And You will seek me, but I will not be."

(Psa 104:29) You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire And return to their dust. 30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.

Spirit - The word spirit usually brings to mind to most a ghostly image that separates from our bodies at death and departs to either heaven or hell. This definition which most of us are so familiar with is 100% Greek philosophy. It is pure Platonism. To Greek philosophers the words "spirit" and "soul" are interchangeable, they mean the same thing. To a Jew they are vastly different.

Platonism - Believed that we must be capable of existing apart from our bodies. The flesh is evil. The body is a prison. It is bad for the soul (i.e. spirit) to be in the body. Platonism suggests the immortality of the soul, and the soul then becoming incarnate (Grolier’s Encyclopedia (GE)).

This definition of "spirit" if used, will completely change the meanings of many passages in the Bible, and lead to false conclusions. It has inherent problems right away. First, only God is immortal (1 Timothy 6:15-16). Second, I do not know of anyone that would dispute that judgment happens at the return of Christ. So how then can your spirit or soul go to heaven or hell at death if you have not yet been judged? This should be a clue that something is wrong with this definition of "spirit."

Let us now examine what "spirit" means to a Jew. The word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruah" and in Greek it is "pneuma." The Jews used ruah in the same way that they used pneuma.

"Unlike the Greeks, who found dissolution of the body desirable (cf Socrates), Paul has a Jewish horror of it" (Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB)).

Spirit - (ruah & pneuma) - Breath of life. The vital principal by which the body is animated (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (VED)).

In other words, it is the life force that God gives to people and animals that animates their bodies, which gives them life. When He takes it away they die.

Examples:
Psalms 104:29 -30: "When you take away their breath (ruah), they perish and return to the dust from which they came. When you send forth your breath (ruah), they are created."

Ecclesiates 12:7: "And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath (ruah) returns to God who gave it."

Psalms 33:6: "When his spirit (ruah) departs he returns to his earth; on that day his plans perish."

This understanding is critical when one interprets a verse such as Luke 23:46:

"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit;" and when he said this he breathed his last.

If you use the Greek philosophical definition as most people do, you will arrive at the conclusion that at that moment Jesus’ Greek type spirit went to heaven to be with God. This of course is not possible because in John 20:17 when Jesus was raised from the dead after three days, he appeared to Mary of Magdala and told her:

"Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father."

Jesus is clear that he has not yet been to the Father after he gave up his Spirit!!!. Where has he been for three days? He has been in Sheol, the pit, the grave, the earth. Jesus himself tells us in John 12:32:

"And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."

Jesus has been dead as Scripture says of him. On the third day God resurrected him.

If we use the Jewish definition of spirit it will make perfect sense. Jesus’ breath of life returned to the Father and he died and was in the earth for three days. There is then no conflict with John 20:17.

So the best observation comes from Jesus Himself, at His death He teaches… (Luke 23:46) And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last. Read again what Jesus said… Jesus gave up his Spirit but not His Soul An example that supports this is when Mary at Jesus’ tomb turned and saw Jesus. She naturally got excited and
Jesus told her… John 20:17 … Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.

Do not miss this connection, Jesus gave up his Spirit to the Father at death but told Mary He had not yet ascended to the Father after His resurrection... It is clear the scriptures never teach that the soul is or has an immortal subsistence. As both Jesus’ body and soul died and went to hades!

Let’s take a look at some definitions:

Soul (Heb. nepes) - 1. living being, self, life, person. 2. The inner person, seat of emotions and passions (VED & The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB)).

Soul (Gk. psuche) - 1.own self, the natural life of the body. 2. The seat of feelings, desires, affections, aversions (VED & Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (TGEL)).

In both languages the definitions are almost identical. When a person or animal receives the breath of life (spirit) he becomes a living soul (a living being). Example:

Genesis 2:7: "The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life (ruah), and so man became a living soul (nepes)."

Here are some other examples of the usage of the word "psuche:"

Acts 15:24: "Since we have heard that some of our members who went out without mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind (psuche)."

Matthew 10:39: "Whoever finds his life (psuche) will lose it, and whoever loses his life (psuche) for my sake will find it."

These are excellent examples. Genesis is self-explanatory. Acts 15:24 uses the definition of "the seat of your emotions." When your peace of mind is disturbed it really means that you are emotionally upset. Matthew uses the definition of "life" for psuche. This is what "soul" means to a Jew. It is never used to imply that it is something separable from the body. Even the definition of "the seat of your emotions" does not come close. Your emotions cannot be separated from you. When you die, your emotions die with you. These are the definitions that one must keep in mind when reading the Bible in order to understand the meanings of the verses as the writer intended.


How do you not know these things?

 

[lforrest]

How do you not know these things?

Jesus wasn't dead yet when he called out: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

But even though you misunderstood my point, going of on a tangent about the afterlife.

 

[marks]

Jesus himself tells us in John 12:32:

"And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."

That's not what Jesus was saying. Being "lifted up" was idiomatic for being crucified, as demonstrated in the next verse.

John 12:32-33 KJV
32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Just like us saying, "they're going to give him the needle", or some such.

Do not miss this connection, Jesus gave up his Spirit to the Father at death but told Mary He had not yet ascended to the Father after His resurrection...

That is non sequitor. Neither statement addresses the continuation of the spirit or soul. You've reworded Jesus' words so they seem to lend more to your point.

Much love!

 

[marks]

How do you not know these things?

This question is for you.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

“If you're not a trinitarian, I really don’t want to hear about your doctrinal positions on anything else.”

(Dr. Michael J. Svigel)

https://x.com/svigel/status/1916646740117037161?s=61

I respect his stance and would tell him so if we were ever to meet in person. Then I would shake his hand, tell him that I’m a Jewish monotheist and leave him alone.

***

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

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

Dr. Svigel is a theology professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. He knows Jewish monotheists aren’t trinitarians.

Michael J. Svigel

www.dts.edu

A word to non-trinitarians. When you encounter someone who makes it clear to you that he or she doesn’t want to hear you, leave them alone.

 

[Matthias]

“When people try to appeal to ‘the Fathers’ to win their argument, I ask: ‘Which Fathers? Second century? Third century? Fourth? Fifth? What they all hold in common? With the same allowable diversity?‘ In the end, some - but not much - is resolved by appealing to ‘the Fathers.’

(Dr. Michael J. Svigel)

https://x.com/svigel/status/1916330828642058328?s=61

This is Dr. Svigel’s area of expertise.

 

[OreCove]

Why do you say that you are a “really bad person”?

I believe Jesus has human parents for body and God is the father of his Spirit. For me more important is his teaching and not the physical death. Narrow gate is not what you can get from believing to something or someone, demons also believe and tremble and many who used Jesus to fight demons and make miracles are not recognized by God. It's not my words. The most difficult thing to apply for yourself is to reject yourself. I know the way to do it and how get the biggest treasure.

 

[David Lamb]

I believe Jesus has human parents for body and God is the father of his Spirit. For me more important is his teaching and not the physical death. Narrow gate is not what you can get from believing to something or someone, demons also believe and tremble and many who used Jesus to fight demons and make miracles are not recognized by God. It's not my words. The most difficult thing to apply for yourself is to reject yourself. I know the way to do it and how get the biggest treasure.

Not according to the bible. When the angel Gabriel visited Mary, she asked him how she could have a son, as she did not "know" a man (the word "know" there referred to having intimate relations with a man). Gabriel replied:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Lu 1:35 NKJV)

No suggestion there that His body came from Mary and Joseph, with God being His Father only of His Spirit.

 

[Matthias]

I believe Jesus has human parents for body and God is the father of his Spirit.

”Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.”

(Matthew 1:18, DRA)

I selected this particular translation for two reasons: (1) The body of the child in the womb wasn’t caused by a sexual relationship between the parents of Jesus; and (2) A counter to Origen‘s idea of eternal generation.

”Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away.”

(Matthew 1:19, DRA)

Joseph knew that he wasn’t the cause of Mary being pregnant. He naturally thought the involvement of another man was the cause for her pregnancy. Then comes the all important revelation by the angel that rids him of that thinking.

”But while he thought of these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.”

(Matthew 1:20, DRA)

Mary’s pregnancy was not caused by a man - any man - but by God himself.

A human child - not just a human body and not just a human spirit, a human person - Jesus, was miraculously conceived in her womb.