To the only God our Savior

[Matthias]

Less concentration on the technical aspect,,, and more on how you see the Greek rendering it.
Then offer to show them your justification if they should ask.
Doing it the way you did, can confuse someone first learning doctrine and scare them off.

Thanks.

My presentation is accurate and, as you noted, concentrated on the technical aspect - the details. Without the details the doctrine is gutted. That is something which an uneducated person might do out of ignorance, or an educated person might attempt to do in order to deceive the ignorant. The details are essential to present, preserve and defend the doctrine.

Gutting the doctrine isn’t my purpose. It would be a disservice to my readers. Doctrine is teaching I’m an educator. I want my readers to be properly equipped.

When people who read the Bible are first exposed to the technical details of the doctrine they instinctively recognize that it doesn’t come to us from within the Bible; it isn’t what they see in scripture. Unless they are properly educated on the matter they won’t know that it comes to us post-biblically from the church.

Doing it the way I did is doing it the way it is done in the ivory towers of academia. There is a disconnect between teachers and the average person sitting in the pews week by week, month by month, year by year.

Most pastors have the technical expertise but they don’t pass it on from their pulpits and it isn’t taught in their Sunday schools. Why is that? You put your finger on one of the reasons - fear of scaring off the people who are sitting in the pews when they first learn the doctrine.

They have to learn the doctrine sometime. When and where if not in church? They aren’t flocking to learn it in Bible colleges and seminaries. They aren’t putting in the work privately on their own.

I’ve several times mentioned and quoted a book (in this thread and others) written by one of my favorite trinitarian authors (Dr. Harold O.J. Brown). He lamented the lack of teaching the doctrine in the church and did what he could to try to reverse the trend. That resonates strongly with me but it falls on deaf ears. If he were alive today I’m sure he would be disappointed, but he wouldn’t have abandoned the cause. Calling people to - and back to - Chalcedon and Nicaea was his purpose in life. I respect his dedication.

P.S.

The title of the book is Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church.

If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it to you.

 

[Matthias]

An excerpt from a book that I have on my reading list for this year but haven’t gotten to yet. After recent conversations here, I’m thinking about moving it up in the planned order.

“… some years ago, while I was teaching a college religion class, our admissions officer showed up with a young woman in tow who was interested in religion classes. Because I was eager to find new recruits for our department, I told the class to take five and turned my attention to her. I asked what type of subjects she was interested in and she said she wanted Bible courses. I assured her that we had a number of them. Then, always eager to sell my own wares, I told her that we offered church history courses as well. She gave me a strange look and asked, ‘Why in the world should I ever study anything like that?’ I did my best to explain that we understand ourselves, our world, and our faith in ways that have been handed down to us. These beliefs become so much a part of us that they influence us in ways we do not know. Our views of everything ate, to some extent, shaped by the traditions that have been handed down to us. I finished by suggesting that none of us reads Scriptures ‘pure,’ but see them through the lenses of our backgrounds. She looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘I read them pure.’ Then she walked out the door. I never saw here again.”

(Douglas W. Johnson, The Great Jesus Debates: 4 Early Church Battles about the Person and Work of Jesus, p. 9)

So far as I’m aware, I’ve never met the unnamed woman this trinitarian scholar is talking about. But I’ve met her thousands of times, in others.

With few exceptions, people don’t go to church to learn church history, they don’t go to school to learn church history, and they don’t learn church history on their own.

“… it is no wonder that many Christians are interested in the Bible and current events, with nothing in between. This bias against the study of history and the ethical, religious, and other constraints and consequences of such study is particularly insidious when it pervades the Christian community.“

(Ibid., p. 12)

That is why readers will hear me often speaking about the constraints of history. In that regard, the trinitarian and I are on the same page.

 

[Matthias]

“To be ignorant about these debates is to be ignorant of how we Christians came to be who we are. To know about them is to have a fuller understanding of our faith and what it means for our lives today.”

(Douglas W. Johnson, The Great Jesus Debates, p. 12)

No Christian teacher should ever want those in his or her care to live in ignorance about the history of Christianity.

“It has been said that history is written by the winners. This remark holds true for the present volume. The main characters treated will be primarily those whose ideas and beliefs emerged victorious in the theological battles.”

(Ibid., p. 13)

That such theological battles happened in the church is beyond dispute.

I would like for my readers to recall at this point what of one of those major characters - Gregory of Nyssa - said about what the ideas and beliefs of the “winners” did to Jewish monotheism - it destroyed it.

This is a historical fact which should be ingrained in the mind of every human being. I’m very interested in finding out whether or not the trinitarian author addresses this point in his book. I don’t think he will but he might. I hope that he does.

P.S.

There is no mention of Gregory of Nyssa on the timeline the author uses. In fairness to him, he does tell his readers - “I have attempted to keep matters as simple as possible. Some scholars may object that I have included the wrong individuals and excluded the most relevant ones. It is a judgment call.“ That’s a little disconcerting but at least he draws our attention to it.

The book doesn’t contain an index of characters. Gregory of Nyssa may yet be included in the 4th century narrative.

P.S.S.

He does, in a very small section dedicated to discussing the Cappadocians (pp. 99-101). Perhaps then he will be elsewhere also.

 

[Matthias]

Well, I’ve allowed Dr. Johnson to distract me from some other things which I should have been doing this afternoon. He has some interesting things to say that I’ll want to come back to at some point.

In the meantime, I’m going to do something that I’ve never done outside the classroom before. I’m going to invite my readers to provide a list of names for Jewish monotheists who lived in biblical days. This was an interesting classroom exercise which produced some surprising responses. That may or may not prove to be the case here.

List up to five Jewish monotheists mentioned by name anywhere in the Bible:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

In the classroom, the students were not allowed to use their Bibles for the exercise. They were given 5 minutes to write down their answers and turn in their papers. The papers weren’t graded. I didn’t even ask them to put their names on their papers. This was what one of my own college professors referred to as an ice breaker.

If anyone decides to do the exercise here, none of the conditions imposed on my students is applicable. Feel free to use your Bibles, list however many you want to, and take as long as you want.

Does the exercise have a point? Yes. In fact it has more than one point.

 

[GeneZ]

Well, I’ve allowed Dr. Johnson to distract me from some other things which I should have been doing this afternoon. He has some interesting things to say that I’ll want to come back to at some point.

In the meantime, I’m going to do something that I’ve never done outside the classroom before. I’m going to invite my readers to provide a list of names for Jewish monotheists who lived in biblical days. This was an interesting classroom exercise which produced some surprising responses. That may or may not prove to be the case here.

List up to five Jewish monotheists mentioned by name anywhere in the Bible:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

In the classroom, the students were not allowed to use their Bibles for the exercise. They were given 5 minutes to write down their answers and turn in their papers. The papers weren’t graded. I didn’t even ask them to put their names on their papers. This was what one of my own college professors referred to as an ice breaker.

If anyone decides to do the exercise here, none of the conditions imposed on my students is applicable. Feel free to use your Bibles, list however many you want to, and take as long as you want.

Does the exercise have a point? Yes. In fact it has more than one point.

Hey! Come back here...
The Trinity is One God! Not three.

One same God who has a way to make Himself knowable in three ways.

Two of the Trinity have two natures in union with the One and the same God!

God does not want to make it simple for the overly complex.

 

[Matthias]

Hey! Come back here...
The Trinity is One God! Not three.

I’m still here. (I can do tomorrow what I should have done this afternoon, and if tomorrow never comes then it won’t matter anyway.)

The Trinity is one God. Not three.

Many of my freshmen trinitarian students didn’t know a lot but they all knew that.

One same God who has a way to make Himself knowable in three ways.

Two of the Trinity have two natures in union with the Oneand same God.

 

[GeneZ]

I’m still here. (I can do tomorrow what I should have done this afternoon, and if tomorrow never comes then it won’t matter anyway.)

The Trinity is one God. Not three.

Many of my freshmen trinitarian students didn’t know a lot but they all knew that.

The problem is... what you say contains too much ambiguity.

Monotheism limits access to God.
The same God.

Ironically...

All what the alleged monotheist know about God, came courtesy of the Son of God! (John 1:18)

The Soul and Deity of Jesus (sans body) was always existing during the OT days.

 

[Matthias]

The problem is... what you say contains too much ambiguity.

I’m just parroting historical orthodox trinitarianism. It doesn’t fit well with your “fresh concept” of the Trinity.

 

[GeneZ]

I’m just parroting historical orthodox trinitarianism. It doesn’t fit well with your “fresh concept” of the Trinity.

OK... which orthodoxy?

Come on! Mary is the mother of God?

 

[Matthias]

OK... which orthodoxy?
Come on! Mary is the mother of God?

I’ve already commented that historical orthodox trinitarianism was defined by the church at the Council of Nicaea (325), the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Chalcedon (451). That is what I was taught and that is what I taught. When I read about the Trinity it is historical orthodox trinitarianism that I’m reading.

In post #534 you told me that you follow orthodoxy and that it is not orthodoxy that you criticize. You added that your issue is with those who can not present a refreshed presentation.

In post #537 you elaborated, saying that your issue is with the way it is presented, not what is presented.

Now you’re asking me, which orthodoxy?

What you believe is your business but what you believe isn’t what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches.

 

[GeneZ]

I’ve already commented that historical orthodox trinitarianism was defined by the church at the Council of Nicaea (325), the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Chalcedon (451). That is what I was taught and that is what I taught. When I read about the Trinity it is historical orthodox trinitarianism that I’m reading.

In post #534 you told me that you follow orthodoxy and that it is not orthodoxy that you criticize. You added that your issue is with those who can not present a refreshed presentation.

In post #537 you elaborated, saying that your issue is with the way it is presented, not what is presented.

Now you’re asking me, which orthodoxy?

What you believe is your business but what you believe isn’t what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches.

I believe in the Trinity.

And, even believe that the Lord God of Israel (to be revealed later as Jesus Christ) was always being two natures in One, even before the Incarnation.

It's in the Torah!
But, one must have eyes to see to know it is there!
You want to see it?

 

[Matthias]

I believe in the Trinity.

You believe in a Trinity which you’ve decided on, which isn’t the Trinity which the church decided on.

And, even believe that the Lord God of Israel (to be revealed later as Jesus Christ) was always being two natures in One, even before the Incarnation.

Confirming my point.

It's in the Torah!

Your assertion defies the constraints of history.

But, one must have eyes to see to know it is there!
You want to see it?

You’ve already given me a sample of what you see there. That’s enough for me.

 

[Matthias]

It’s against the new rules for any member registered ”Christian” to speak against orthodoxy @GeneZ. I’m not registered as “Christian“ but you are. The new rules allow “Christian” members to privately disagree with historical orthodox trinitarianism but those who do so are required to either be silent on the matter or change their registration to “Other Faith”. I respect your right to believe what you believe but discussing it any further may result in you being banned. I don’t want that to happen to you.

I’m more interested in discussing Jewish monotheism, and there is no rule prohibiting anyone from speaking against that.

What I see presented in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament is Jewish monotheism. What I see in church history is that Jewish monotheism was eventually destroyed.

 

[GeneZ]

It’s against the new rules for any member registered ”Christian” to speak against orthodoxy @GeneZ. I’m not registered as “Christian“ but you are. The new rules allow “Christian” members to privately disagree with historical orthodox trinitarianism but those who do so are required to either be silent on the matter or change their registration to “Other Faith”. I respect your right to believe what you believe but discussing it any further may result in you being banned. I don’t want that to happen to you.

I’m more interested in discussing Jewish monotheism, and there is no rule prohibiting anyone from speaking against that.

What I see presented in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament is Jewish monotheism. What I see in church history is that Jewish monotheism was eventually destroyed.

How is defining to verify what orthodoxy claims? Speaking against it?
Can you name one thing I said that denies what orthodoxy claims?

Your approach is just bland and boring. The Word of God is alive and powerful.
It's alive! It keeps growing. Growing in depth of better understanding it....

 

[GeneZ]

It’s against the new rules for any member registered ”Christian” to speak against orthodoxy @GeneZ. I’m not registered as “Christian“ but you are. The new rules allow “Christian” members to privately disagree with historical orthodox trinitarianism but those who do so are required to either be silent on the matter or change their registration to “Other Faith”. I respect your right to believe what you believe but discussing it any further may result in you being banned. I don’t want that to happen to you.

I’m more interested in discussing Jewish monotheism, and there is no rule prohibiting anyone from speaking against that.

What I see presented in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament is Jewish monotheism. What I see in church history is that Jewish monotheism was eventually destroyed.

We used to sing out loud every Saturday service in Synagogue...

"Shama, Yisra-el! Adonoy Eluhenu, Adonoy, Echad!"​

​

Meaning?

Hear O Israel! The Lord(1) your God(2) the Lord(3), is One! (being unique). ​

Three times mentioned!

The Trinity is supposed to confuse unregenerate souls....
It is only for those who have ears to hear...

 

[Matthias]

How is defining to verify what orthodoxy claims? Speaking against it?
Can you name one thing I said that denies what orthodoxy claims?

You‘ve already done that yourself. (“Which orthodoxy” was just the tip of that iceberg.)

Your approach is just bland and boring. The Word of God is alive and powerful.
It's alive! It keeps growing. Growing in depth of better understanding it....

Your approach while not bland and boring, is unorthodox, in more ways than one. I’m not particularly interested in speaking against what you define as orthodoxy, nor against what historical trinitarianism has defined as orthodoxy.

My interest in orthodoxy is what it has done to Jewish monotheism. If you aren’t interested in that then I don’t see that we have anything more to discuss on the subject.

 

[Matthias]

We used to sing out loud every Saturday service in Synagogue...

"Shama, Yisra-el! Adonoy Eluhenu, Adonoy, Echad!"​

​

Meaning?

Hear O Israel! The Lord(1) your God(2) the Lord(3), is One! (being unique). ​

Three times mentioned!

That interpretation is an example of speaking against Jewish monotheism. I’m interested in that.

The Shema is the creed of Judaism. It is the Messiah’s creed and it is my creed.

The Trinity is supposed to confuse unregenerate souls....
It is only for those who have ears to hear...

Wowzer! You haven’t had the trinitarian training that I was given.

 

[GeneZ]

That interpretation is an example of speaking against Jewish monotheism. I’m interested in that.

The Shema is the creed of Judaism. It is the Messiah’s creed and it is my creed.



Wowzer! You haven’t had the trinitarian training that I was given.

Have fun!

I'm... done!

I know the Messiah.
You only hope to.

 

[GeneZ]

Some believe in God, and also limit Jesus to Nazareth.
Others, have been made able by grace to believe in the eternal Son of God, Jesus of Heaven.

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." Col 2:9​

​

"And no one has gone up into heaven except the One having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man." John 3:13​

​

He was always God. He came down from Heaven to make Himself be as a man.
Just not always manifesting Himself as God in power, so he could die in our place as a man.


I am so glad I was born and raised a Jew, so no one could accuse me of having been brainwashed by attending church as a child.

I was made to know by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is God's means to make Himself knowable to men.

grace and peace ............

 

[Matthias]

Not very many religious Jews abandon Jewish monotheism, but some do. Jesus of Nazareth didn’t, and he’s the one to keep our eyes on.