Who is Jesus to a Non-Trinitarian?

[PinSeeker]

It’s simple.

Sure. But not simplistic.

“Jesus is not a human person” - what trinitarianism teaches about Jesus.

“Jesus is a human person” - the presentation of Jesus in the Bible.

I think you're mixing contexts, here, Matthias. I would say there's nothing at odds between the former and the latter. Again, I encourage you to camp out in Philippians 2, specifically verses 5 through 11.

I frequently meet trinitarians who say they believe Jesus is a human person.

Sure, because, as I did, they don't get, at least at first, really what you're trying to say, what you're really meaning.

Which is to say, I frequently meet people who self-identify as trinitarian but do not believe - primarily because they’ve never heard in detail - what trinitarianism teaches about Jesus.

See, I think it's just what you're trying to say trinitarianism teaches about Jesus, either inadvertently or purposefully.

Is it a problem that they don’t believe what trinitarianism teaches about Jesus?

I don't think this is really the case. I certainly don't mean to offend in saying this, but it seems to be a "problem" of your own making. And that's a problem.

Grace and peace to you, Matthias.

 

[Matthias]

Sure. But not simplistic.

The trinitarian logic is simple. If we start with belief in a deity person then we cannot have a human person without having two persons. That’s why the human nature is impersonal. Personalit is provided by the deity person.

I think you're mixing contexts, here, Matthias. I would say there's nothing at odds between the former and the latter.

I’m presenting trinitarian teaching and contrasting it with non-trinitarian teaching.

Again, I encourage you to camp out in Philippians 2, specifically verses 5 through 11.

You act as if I’ve never considered the passage before. You remind me of students who foolishly ask their pastors and professors, “Have you ever read John 1:1?” - it doesn’t get much worse than that.

Sure, because, as I did, they don't get, at least at first, really what you're trying to say, what you're really meaning.

What “I’m really saying and meaning” is what the trinitarian scholars and theologians I quoted say and mean.

See, I think it's just what you're trying to say trinitarianism teaches about Jesus, either inadvertently or purposefully.

I quote what trinitarian scholars and theologians say in order to educate trinitarians and non-trinitarians about what trinitarianism teaches.

I don't think this is really the case.

Thanks. I know from decades of speaking with trinitarian scholars and clergy that it is.

I certainly don't mean to offend in saying this, but it seems to be a "problem" of your own making. And that's a problem.

Grace and peace to you, Matthias.

Then I sincerely hope that you’ll take what I’m about to say in that same spirit.

You’ve demonstrated from the beginning of our conversation that you’re, at best, confused. I’ve done what I can to help you but the problem remains. And that’s your problem. Maybe someone else - a trinitarian, I think would be best - can help you with it. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to.

 

[Matthias]

Okay, I think we were just missing a bit on the "Jesus is not a human person" thing, which I'll be glad to take the entire blame for. In this respect, right, He never was and will never be a human person ~ and one day we will be just like Him. But a person He always was, is, and will be ~ and again, one day we believers will be just like Him. Hey, in the sense that we're speaking here now, as Berkhof above, I would state that Adam was not, in this sense, a human person either before the events of Genesis 3.

Trinitarianism doesn’t teach that Adam was not a human person.

But of course the Fall occurred, plunging all of his posterity ~ the entire human race, and even creation itself ~ into this fallen state. From that point forward, he was a human person (along with Eve) and remained so until his death, and so it is with all men (and women).

Adam was, from the day he was created, a human person. Eve was, from the day she was created, a human person.

Again, one great Day, we will be just like Christ. Still not Christ, of course, but just like Him. We were all created in God's image, and one great Day this image will with absolute certainty be perfectly restored.

Christ was a mortal human person. Christ is now an immortal human person.

Well, sure, but it is necessary to understand what one means by "human person" (see above). Jesus did humble Himself for a time ~ His approximately 33 years on this earth as a man ~ and take the form of man, taking the very nature of man... though in the form of God, in the very nature of God (Philippians 2). This is what qualifies Him (and Him alone) as Mediator between God and man and able to accomplish our redemption and reconcile us to God, which He did in His death on the cross (Philippians 2). As He said in His last dying breath, "It is finished!" (John 19:30).

See above.

See, now this is puzzling. I mean, you seem to shift back here to the misunderstanding I had of what you were saying with the whole "human person" thing ~ which is missing Louis Berkhof's point in the passage from his Doctrine that you cited above. Yes, that's quite astonishing. Okay, so be it. We could look at several things throughout the New Testament (and the Old, too, actually), but I would encourage you to... well, "hang out," so to speak, and meditate on the Philippians 2 passage I cited above. Or Colossians 1 and 2... Or Hebrews 7... It's all over. May the Holy Spirit ~ not the force... ~ be with you.

Grace and peace to you, Matthias.

As I mentioned in my last post to you, you are, at best confused; “puzzled,” if you prefer.

 

[Gregory]

No the Son is Eternal and has the same Divine essence/substance, nature, being as the Father and Holy Spirit- Spirit. They all share the exact same Divine attributes as God. God is Immutable. The Son became flesh ( a man ) but remained fully God. The Father and Holy Spirit did not become man only the Son became man.

hope this helps !!!

So you believe the Son is Spirit, even though in Luke 24 he testified from his own mouth that he is flesh and bone? "for a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have". This creates a problem for you because you have to deal with Jesus being flesh and bone after his resurrection.

And the other problem is that if Jesus is a being of flesh and bone, (and I will say resurrected flesh and bone), and the Son shares the exact same Divine attributes of God His Father, who is Immutable, it means the Father also has a resurrected body of flesh and bone, just like his Son Jesus Christ.

Hope this discussion helps.

 

[PinSeeker]

The trinitarian logic is simple.

It is, yes, because the Bible is simple. But not simplistic (in either case).

If we start with belief in a deity person then we cannot have a human person without having two persons.

Nobody is talking about "two persons," at least not in the simplistic, literal sense (which I'm not sure if you are holding to or not), but in the sense of having two natures/essences, in the case of Jesus the deific nature being natural and from all eternity to all eternity, and the human nature during His very physical, literal life on earth, and able to be tempted in every way we are, but yet remaining without sin. Hey, just regarding yourself (and me, and every other person on this earth), why do you think it is that Paul exhorts us to put off the old man and put on the new? Do you not think that we Christians, having been born again of the Spirit, now have two natures in us, the natural and the spiritual, that are at war within us? Because... this is the case. If your are of that understanding, then it should be quite easy for you to correlate that ~ on a higher plane, of course ~ to Jesus and understand that He, during His life, fully had these two natures within Himself, the difference being that His being fully in the form of God enabled Him to fully resist temptation and fully overcome ~ for our sake ~ the form of man that he had taken on, thereby fulfilling the entire Law and redeeming us to the Father. This is the Gospel, by the way...

That’s why the human nature is impersonal.

This is astonishing. As a human, Matthias, is your own nature impersonal to you? Wow...

Personality is provided by the deity person.

Wh... What??? My goodness.

I’m presenting trinitarian teaching and contrasting it with non-trinitarian teaching.

Not really, no, you're not. I mean, hey, I'm very trinitarian, and quite deeply so, but I what you're trying to say ridiculous. LOL!

You act as if I’ve never considered the passage before.

This was regarding Philippians 2:5-13... This was not my intent. But the Word of God is formative. He is making us into who He wants us to be. I know you don't really think this, but you're really kind of acting like once you've read it, you don't need to ever read it again.

What “I’m really saying and meaning” is what the trinitarian scholars and theologians I quoted say and mean.

What you think they're saying and meaning, and what you think seems to be very different than what they are really saying and meaning... and that's my point. I don't mean to put myself out there as some kind of genius, but again, I, as a trinitarian thoroughly schooled in the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Louis Berkhof, Abraham Kuyper, etc., am just kind of astonished, and not in a good way, at the comments you are making here in these last few posts.

I quote what trinitarian scholars and theologians say in order to educate trinitarians and non-trinitarians about what trinitarianism teaches.

Right, well, you're unintentionally misleading, and that seems to be because you are quite misled yourself.

You’ve demonstrated from the beginning of our conversation that you’re, at best, confused.

Right back at you, Matthias. Right back at you.

I’ve done what I can to help you but the problem remains. And that’s your problem. Maybe someone else... can help you with it. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to.

LOL! Again, right back at you, Matthias. Every word... except the "your problem" thing...

Trinitarianism doesn’t teach that Adam was not a human person.

God made man ~ male and female... human beings ~ and initially, they were not in a fallen state.

Adam was, from the day he was created, a human person. Eve was, from the day she was created, a human person.

I agree, but I think here you are shifting back to the understanding of "human person" that I always thought you were propagating. Drawing from Berkhof's words that you cited earlier, Matthias, you're really ~ and I know you will disagree, but... ~ making some kind of false dichotomy between "human person" and "divine person."

Christ was a mortal human person. Christ is now an immortal human person.

Sure. Any trinitarian would agree with this, Matthias. But Christ was never and will never be not divine. He was and is in the form of God and in the form of man, as Paul says. Again, when you say, "Christ was a mortal human person," you're taking trinitarians ~ Berkhof, specifically, and maybe others ~ out of context.

See above.

Okay, well again, same to you.

As I mentioned in my last post to you, you are, at best confused; “puzzled,” if you prefer.

Again, right back at you, Matthias. It seems that you're somehow confusing or puzzling yourself.

Grace and peace to you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Matthias]

It is, yes, because the Bible is simple. But not simplistic (in either case).


Nobody is talking about "two persons," at least not in the simplistic, literal sense (which I'm not sure if you are holding to or not)l, but in the sense of having two natures/essences, in the case of Jesus the deific nature being natural and from all eternity to all eternity, and the human nature during His very physical, literal life on earth, and able to be tempted in every way we are, but yet remaining without sin.


This is astonishing. As a human, Matthias, is your own nature impersonal to you? Wow...


Wh... What??? My goodness.


Not really, no, you're not. I mean, hey, I'm very trinitarian, and quite deeply so, but I have... no idea what you're trying to say. LOL!


This was regarding Philippians 2:5-13... This was not my intent. But the Word of God is formative. I know you don't really think this, but you're really kind of acting like once you've read it, you don't have to read it again.


What you think they're saying and meaning, and what you think seems to be very different than what they are really saying and meaning... and that's my point. I don't mean to put myself out there as some kind of genius, but again, I, as a trinitarian thoroughly schooled in the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Louis Berkhof, Abraham Kuyper, etc., am just kind of astonished, and not in a good way, at the comments you are making here in these last few posts.


Right, well, you're unintentionally misleading, and that seems to be because you are quite misled yourself.


Right back at you, Matthias. Right back at you.


LOL! Again, right back at you, Matthias. Every word... except the "your problem" thing...


God made man ~ male and female... human beings ~ and initially, they were not in a fallen state.


I agree, but I think here you are shifting back to the understanding of "human person" that I always thought you were propagating. Drawing from Berkhof's words that you cited earlier, Matthias, you're really ~ and I know you will disagree, but... ~ making some kind of false dichotomy between "human person" and "divine person."


Sure. Any trinitarian would agree with this, Matthias. But Christ was never and will never be not divine. He was and is in the form of God and in the form of man, as Paul says. Again, when you say, "Christ was a mortal human person," you're taking trinitarians ~ Berkhof, specifically, and maybe others ~ out of context.


Okay, well again, same to you.


Again, right back at you, Matthias. It seems that you're somehow confusing or puzzling yourself.

Grace and peace to you.

I’m looking for something which you’re apparently incapable of providing. I’ll find it with others.

 

[PinSeeker]

I’m looking for something which you’re apparently incapable of providing.

LOL! Well, if you were even somewhat adept at coherently explaining what you're looking for, then that would certainly help.

I’ll find it with others.

That's kind of the problem; folks "find" what they want to find, usually.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

LOL! Well, if you were even somewhat adept at coherently explaining what you're looking for, then that would certainly help.

It wouldn’t help you.

That's kind of the problem; folks "find" what they want to find, usually.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

“Third, Christ’s impersonal human nature … negatively we predicate of his human nature no personality. So his human nature is impersonal. The personality of our Lord is attached to his divine being, Capital B, the fact positively.”

(Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, from his sermon titled “The Man Christ Jesus: The Peculiarities”)

The Man Christ Jesus: The Peculiarities - SLJ Institute

 

[PinSeeker]

It wouldn’t help you.

So you think. So be it. Yes, you're coherent explanation of your own understanding and position on things would help me to understand where you are on said things. That's kind of how conversation works. But, insult my intelligence as you like; it matters not to me.

“Third, Christ’s impersonal human nature … negatively we predicate of his human nature no personality. So his human nature is impersonal. The personality of our Lord is attached to his divine being, Capital B, the fact positively.”

(Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, from his sermon titled “The Man Christ Jesus: The Peculiarities”)

The Man Christ Jesus: The Peculiarities - SLJ Institute

LOL! He's saying, Matthias, that one's nature is not a distinct person, and refuting the notion that Christ Himself was, during His life on earth ~ or now, I guess... ~ two persons rather than just one, and affirming that He was one person with two natures. This is precisely what he says in that paragraph you're quoting from:

"Christ’s impersonal human nature; now, we’re going to deal more fully with this later, but let me just say a word or two about this. The fact, negatively, Christ’s human nature did not form a distinct person. The Lord Jesus was not too persons, but one person. But in him the divine and human natures were united into one undivided and indivisible person. So in the case of our Lord Jesus, we have one person with two natures, not two persons. Not a divine person and a human person united in one human body, but one divine person who existed before he took another nature to himself, who took this second nature so that we have one person but two natures. Now, that follows from the peculiar mode of the incarnation. He did not assume a human person, he assumed a human nature. In other words, the human nature was received into the person of the logos, or into the person of our Lord.... Human nature was taken by the Word, the logos, received to himself. So, negatively we predicate of his human nature no personality. So his human nature is impersonal."​

Which, Matthias, is exactly what I've been saying. Again, by "impersonal," he's saying Christ's nature is not itself a person. Why he would feel the need to make that distinction is a bit incredulous, because I don't think anybody actually thinks Jesus was schizophrenic. Obviously, he was just expounding on Christ's two natures.

The statement that "Jesus is not a human person but a divine person" is itself ambiguous, really. He became flesh, as John 1:14 clearly states. So in the elemental sense, He was most certainly a "human person" in that he was flesh and blood and bone just as you and I are ~ and in full possession of the human nature. But in the spiritual sense, He was not a "human person" in that he was never merely possessing of the human nature, as we were from our birth. He was also in full possession, not only from birth but from all eternity, of the divine nature of God.

In any case, for anyone, yes, the nature is not the person, the person is the person, and has a nature ~ possibly two, which was the case with Christ, and is the case with all Christians, who are born again of the Spirit, which is what Paul is saying by speaking of the "old man" he exhorts us to "put off" and the "new man" he exhorts us to "put on."

This whole ridiculous conversation is quite enough to give one a headache.

Grace and peace to you. Especially grace, which, quite honestly, is not very evident in your mode of "conversation." But yes, grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

So you think. So be it. Yes, you're coherent explanation of your own understanding and position on things would help me to understand where you are on said things. That's kind of how conversation works. But, insult my intelligence as you like; it matters not to me.


LOL! He's saying, Matthias, that one's nature is not a distinct person, and refuting the notion that Christ Himself was, during His life on earth ~ or now, I guess... ~ two persons rather than just one, and affirming that He was one person with two natures. This is precisely what he says in that paragraph you're quoting from:

"Christ’s impersonal human nature; now, we’re going to deal more fully with this later, but let me just say a word or two about this. The fact, negatively, Christ’s human nature did not form a distinct person. The Lord Jesus was not too persons, but one person. But in him the divine and human natures were united into one undivided and indivisible person. So in the case of our Lord Jesus, we have one person with two natures, not two persons. Not a divine person and a human person united in one human body, but one divine person who existed before he took another nature to himself, who took this second nature so that we have one person but two natures. Now, that follows from the peculiar mode of the incarnation. He did not assume a human person, he assumed a human nature. In other words, the human nature was received into the person of the logos, or into the person of our Lord.... Human nature was taken by the Word, the logos, received to himself. So, negatively we predicate of his human nature no personality. So his human nature is impersonal."​

Which, Matthias, is exactly what I've been saying. Again, by "impersonal," he's saying Christ's nature is not itself a person. Why he would feel the need to make that distinction is a bit incredulous, because I don't think anybody actually thinks Jesus was schizophrenic. Obviously, he was just expounding on Christ's two natures.

The statement that "Jesus is not a human person but a divine person" is itself ambiguous, really. He became flesh, as John 1:14 clearly states. So in the elemental sense, He was most certainly a "human person" in that he was flesh and blood and bone just as you and I are ~ and in full possession of the human nature. But in the spiritual sense, He was not a "human person" in that he was never merely possessing of the human nature, as we were from our birth. He was also in full possession, not only from birth but from all eternity, of the divine nature of God.

In any case, for anyone, yes, the nature is not the person, the person is the person, and has a nature ~ possibly two, which was the case with Christ, and is the case with all Christians, who are born again of the Spirit, which is what Paul is saying by speaking of the "old man" he exhorts us to "put off" and the "new man" he exhorts us to "put on."

This whole ridiculous conversation is quite enough to give one a headache.

Grace and peace to you. Especially grace, which, quite honestly, is not very evident in your mode of "conversation." But yes, grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus.

See my comment in another thread this afternoon on watching a donkey show.

 

[PinSeeker]

See my comment in another thread this afternoon on watching a donkey show.

LOL! No thanks. I've... kind of been watching one right here...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

LOL! No thanks. I've... kind of been watching one right here...

Grace and peace to you.

You remind me of “CS”. You may or may not be him but you would easily pass for him.

The last word is yours, if you want it.

 

[Matthias]

Who is Jesus to a non-trinitarian?

That depends on what kind of non-trinitarian the non-trinitarian is.

At one end of the spectrum, non-trinitarians believe he is Almighty God. At the other end of the spectrum, a fictional character. Those are the extremes. There are, of course, various non-trinitarian beliefs between the extremes.

For this non-trinitarian he is the human Messiah, the Son of the living God.

 

[PinSeeker]

You remind me of “CS”. You may or may not be him but you would easily pass for him.

I'm not "CS;" I have no idea who that is. If you're equating me in some way to the great Clive Staples Lewis, then, well, he was just a man, but I'm deeply humbled.

For this non-trinitarian he is the human Messiah, the Son of the living God.

That He was and is. You're so close... If Jesus is not God and also man, then no ne has any hope of salvation... there is no Way, Truth, or Life. But thanks be to God for sending Him, and then sending us another Helper in Jesus's name.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

I had a trinitarian professor when I a college student who challenged his students to think, not just memorize and repeat what they were given.

Before every class he would write something on the chalk board (dating myself now) that would challenge his students to think. He spent the first five, sometimes ten, minutes of each class discussing the thought provoking question of that day. The professor taught trinitarian and non-trinitarian students, but the ratio of trinitarian to non-trinitarian was probably around 85/15 in favor of trinitarian students.

One day the question on the chalkboard was - Who is the most famous trinitarian in the world today? Responses varied, naturally, but Billy Graham emerged as the consensus.

One day the question on the chalkboard was - Who is the most famous non-trinitarian in the world today? A much more challenging question, and naturally the responses varied. There was no consensus. Ghandi eventually received the most support - but only after the professor stepped in to rule out from consideration such notorious or controversial persons as Ghengis Kahn, Ho Che Minh, the Dalai Lama and George Carlin, to name only a few.

The classroom was near bedlam when the professor ended the pre-lecture discussion period. Not unusual for the exercise, but more raucous than was typically the case.

The professor walked to the chalkboard, erased all of the names that had been suggested, and then wrote in large, white cursive letters under the question of the day JESUS OF NAZARETH.

Turning back to face us he said, “THIS is who should have been in the minds of young theology students. Why wasn't he?” (I remembered at the time thinking about the old Sunday School joke - if the Sunday School teacher asks a question and you don’t know the answer, say “Jesus”.)

Then followed the lecture he had prepared. The subject of the lecture - which I thought in real time was going to be on Jesus - was actually about theological presuppositions / prejudices and how they can cause us not to think about and ask “the right questions”. (Jesus appeared in the lecture, but only marginally.)

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm not really saying anything underhanded with this question, Matthias, but if the question on both occasions was regarding the most famous (fill in the blank) in the world today, Matthias, then why was his answer to the questions "Jesus of Nazareth"? Did he actually think Jesus was in the world today (back then, of course)? Do you? Or did you question that? Was he a preterist? Are you?

Now, if you're saying ~ in an underhanded way ~ that the "right question" is, "Did Jesus teach that God is a trinity?" and the "right answer" is then no, that nothing Jesus taught intimated that God was a trinity, and thus antithetical to any idea of God as a trinity, I would direct you to... well, several places in John's gospel, but particularly John 6, 8, 10, and 14 ~ particularly 14, where He is much more explicit.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

I'm not really saying anything underhanded with this question, Matthias

Against my better judgement, I’ll answer your questions about the incident.

… but if the question on both occasions was regarding the most famous (fill in the blank) in the world today, Matthias, then why was his answer to the questions "Jesus of Nazareth"?

It wasn’t. It was his answer on only one occasion; to the question about the most famous non-trinitarian in the world today.

Did he actually think Jesus was in the world today (back then, of course)?

No.

Do you?

No.

Or did you question that?

Grace and peace to you.

No. There was no reason to. The entire class - trinitarian (including the professor) and non-trinitarian alike - were all in agreement that Jesus is presently sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, that he hasn’t yet returned.

 

[Matthias]

Who is Jesus to a non-trinitarian?

Peter, a Jew, is a non-trinitarian.

Peter, who do you say Jesus is?

“You [Jesus] are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

A trinitarian reply to Peter, as helpfully provided by a trinitarian in this thread - “That He was and is. You’re so close. … If Jesus is not God and also man, then no one has any hope of salvation … there is no Way, Truth or Life. But thanks be to God for sending Him, and then sending us another Helper in Jesus’s name.”

Peter doesn’t know anything about the doctrine of the hypostatic union. The doctrine is formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Peter and Jesus are Jews. Peter and Jesus are non-trinitarians.

The God of Peter and Jesus is the God of Judaism, not the God of Chalcedonian Christianity.

The God of Peter and Jesus is the God of Abraham, the living God.

 

[Matthias]

“Thanks be to God for sending him.”

How many persons are in this proposition?

Who is “God”?

Well, if “God” is the Trinity then three persons sent “him”.

Who is “him”?

The proposition, as stated, doesn’t identify who the “him” is.

“Him” is a singular pronoun. “Him” is one person.

Well, let’s say that the “him” in the proposition is Jesus of Nazareth.

The proposition restated: “Thanks be to God for sending Jesus of Nazareth.”

If God is the God of Chalcedonian Christianity, the Trinity, then: “Thanks be to the Trinity for sending Jesus of Nazareth.”

But what if “God” isn’t the Trinity? What if “God” is the God of Judaism?

The proposition restated: “Thanks be to the God of Judaism for sending Jesus of Nazareth.”

The God of Judaism is the God of Abraham, the living God.

The proposition restated: “Thanks be to the God of Abraham, the living God, for sending Jesus of Nazareth.”

The God of Abraham, the living God is the God of Peter and Jesus.

“Thanks be to the God of Peter and Jesus, the living God, for sending Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus is quite clear that God is his Father.

“Thanks be to the Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Peter and Jesus, the living God, for sending Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus is the Son of the living God = Jesus is the Son of the Father.

“Thanks be to the Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Peter and Jesus, the living God, for sending Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the living God.”

Back to the question, how many persons are in the proposition - “Thanks be to God for sending Jesus of Nazareth”?

Two persons.

“God” is the Father. One person. The living God. He is the sender.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Son. One person. The Son of the living God. He is the one whom the Father sent.

“Thanks be to the Father for sending his Son.” Yes.

“Thanks be to the Trinity for sending his Son.” No.

Thanks be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or, as Peter expressed it -

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

Peter is blessing his God and Jesus’ God - the God of Judaism, not the God of Chalcedonian Christianity.