What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Aunty Jane]

How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? The law had not been given. God had to have taught Adam notice that Abel knew what to sacrifice.

Since Moses gave us that information thousands of years after the fact....do we suppose that Moses was told every detail about that story?
The clean and unclean animals were something that Abel knew because its in the Bible that his sacrifice was better than Cain's. But there is no record of any sacrifice offered by Adam and his wife. They knew that they were unforgivable. No remorse was ever expressed, just acceptance of the inevitable penalty.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Angels can do a lot of things

God can do better....

 

[RLT63]

Since Moses gave us that information thousands of years after the fact....do we suppose that Moses was told every detail about that story?
The clean and unclean animals were something that Abel knew because its in the Bible that his sacrifice was better than Cain's. But there is no record of any sacrifice offered by Adam and his wife. They knew that they were unforgivable. No remorse was ever expressed, just acceptance of the inevitable penalty.

So Adam and Eve were unforgiven? I would ask if they are in Hell but have no idea what you believe about the afterlife

 

[Matthias]

“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-Chalcedon 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.’”


(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 431)

Bold is mine.

Dr. Brown acknowledges the transition from unitarianism to trinitarianism. He even includes for his readers the Athanasian Creed in this quotation. The man is historically grounded.

Where am I in this? I’m in the unitary monotheism of Israel.

 

[Phoneman777]

I never read about any such mysteries in the Bible.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV and 2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV.

 

[Matthias]

“5. The Problem. The immediate problem, which the Church has to solve, was stated in two questions: (1) How could the Church escape from subordinationism? or how could it get away from viewing Christ as kind of a “second God”... (2) How could the Trinity of special persons (hypostasianism) be maintained without sacrificing Christian monotheism? Thus far subordinationism had been the safeguard of monotheism.”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 108)

“Christian monotheism“ at this point in Church history was still Jewish unitary monotheism. Subordinationism was the safeguard of it. In order for the transition from unitary monotheism to trinitarian monotheism to occur in the Church, subordinationism had to be demolished; Church history documents that it was. A non-trinitarian who denies this is a history denier. Let’s not do that.

Dr. Neve (a Lutheran) has set the stage for us to read about Origen.

 

[Matthias]

”6. Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view of the Apologists and of Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of the creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but He is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”

(J.L. Neve, A History Of Christian Thought, p. 108)

Pay close attention to this. This is a game changer. A key moment in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Church isn’t there yet but this paved the way. It’s a key. Whatever else you do, don’t lose it.

P.S.

btw, for anyone who may be wondering, I’m a Monarchian. There are two kinds: Dynamic and Modalistic (or Sabellian). I’m a Dynamic Monarchian.

If you’re keeping score at home, this is where the Church begins to knock me out of the Church. We’re not to Nicaea yet, but it’s looming and quickly approaching.

 

[Matthias]

What’s that, you say? You don’t think Origen is an important figure? Consider this.

“Three centuries after his martyr’s death, Origen was to be posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). It is ironic that orthodoxy ultimately condemned him, for it is to Origen that orthodoxy owes the key to its understanding of the Trinity as three persons but one God, without which orthodoxy would not exist.“

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, Heresy And Orthodoxy In The Church, p. 88)

Bold is mine.

Without Origen‘s understanding, the key - what the Lutheran scholar Neve calls his “helpful suggestion” - orthodoxy would not exist.

Origen, c. 185-253 AD

Christianity, c. 30 AD

Christianity existed for centuries before Origen’s understanding / “helpful suggestion”.

If you’re a trinitarian, read Origen. He’s a colorful character but pivotal, crucial, for you to be aware of.

He went off the deep end but he gave the Church something to build on that it held onto and hasn’t relinquished.

 

[Heart2Soul]

I'll see tomorrow, if I log in, and are banned, so be it, if not, you showed chesed.
You want to get to know me?

Sure...you can get to know me as well.

 

[Heart2Soul]

How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? The law had not been given. God had to have taught Adam notice that Abel knew what to sacrifice.

You two are totally off topic...please stay on topic.

 

[RLT63]

”6. Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view of the Apologists and of Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of the creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but He is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”

(J.L. Neve, A History Of Christian Thought, p. 108)

Pay close attention to this. This is a game changer. A key moment in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Church isn’t there yet but this paved the way. It’s a key. Whatever else you do, don’t lose it.

P.S.

btw, for anyone who may be wondering, I’m a Monarchian. There are two kinds: Dynamic and Modalistic (or Sabellian). I’m a Dynamic Monarchian.

If you’re keeping score at home, this is where the Church begins to knock me out of the Church. We’re not to Nicaea yet, but it’s looming and quickly approaching.

Didn't Origen teach something about the pre existence of souls? And I' thought the " Word was a god" was attributed to him.

 

[RLT63]

..

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

So Adam and Eve were unforgiven? I would ask if they are in Hell but have no idea what you believe about the afterlife

They're not in Hell. No one is until the judgement. [Revelation]

I'd say they aren't destined for Hell either.

 

[Matthias]

Didn't Origen teach something about the pre existence of souls? And I' thought the " Word was a god" was attributed to him.

He had some of the craziest thoughts we can imagine. But for the cause of the Trinity, he came up BIG.

After I get back to Tertullian and finish reading / re-reading him, I plan to go back, strap in tight, and read / re-read Origen.

I was working full-time when I went back to college to earn my BTh in theology. I read the Ante-Nicene Fathers (and others) in a bit of a fog. I was exhausted and read only what the professors required. Naturally the reading assignments included prominent Church figures pre and post Nicaea. It didn’t require reading everything they wrote. (I would have died if it had!)

Now that I’m retired and have time to do what I want on my hands, I’m reading writings that I either didn’t get to back in those days, nor since, and re-reading those that I did.

Some retired people hunt. Some retired people fish. Some retired people golf … this retired person reads. (I don’t have the time, nor do I have the interest, in hunting, fishing and golfing. I do make time for college baseball. I’m a baseball season ticket holder at the University of Kentucky.)

I have a passion for something most people think is dry, dusty, boring and unnecessary to have knowledge or interest in - Church history.

What about yourself? Surely you must have had a similar type of reading experience in pursuit of your theology degree. I’d love to hear more about it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks. No worries,you didn't upset me.

Would you like to suggest where in Job 38 my question is answered ???

 

[Peterlag]

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV and 2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV.

Nothing I care about. Does not seem to have anything to do with the Christian that is grown feeding off the meat and not the milk.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The bigger question, I think, is does Tertullian think the Trinity is three beings? It appears that he does. Trinitarians should reject that immediately, yet they commonly champion and parade him as a trinitarian.

What do you think by this:


“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance (?) but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

 

[Peterlag]

The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus is divine. When He came to Earth to die on the cross for humanity, He was God in the flesh (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15-19). Jesus unhesitatingly called attention to this fact on several occasions since the acknowledgment of this truth is necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9-10). Recall the incident 1,500 years before Jesus came to Earth when Moses was tending livestock in the desert and encountered a bush that was on fire but continued to burn unconsumed. Warning him to keep his distance and remove his shoes, God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Announcing to Moses his mission to return to Egypt to proclaim to Pharaoh God’s demands, Moses proceeded to offer a series of quibbles designed to justify his reluctance to go. One of those excuses was framed in this question: “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3:13, ESV). God’s response was decisive: “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (vs. 14).

The import of God’s declaration on this occasion pertains to the eternal nature of deity. God is the Eternal Present, i.e., He has always existed and always will because, unlike everyone else, He possesses infinite eternality. Incredibly, the same may be said of Jesus. He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He declares: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End…who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8)—precisely the same thing that is said about God (Revelation 4:8). Since the purpose of the Gospel of John is to cause people to believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), it is to be expected that the book should contain multiple allusions to the deity of Christ—and such is certainly the case. In fact, we encounter several instances in John where Jesus applies to Himself the same expression that God used at the burning bush: “I AM.”

For example, on the occasion when Jesus faced the incessant unbelief of the Jews, He forthrightly declared to them: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). The word “He” is in italics in the NKJV and several other translations,1 indicating the translators’ insertion. However, in keeping with the theme of John, as well as the immediate context, its insertion is unwarranted and obscures the power of Jesus’ statement. He was, in fact, forthrightly declaring His deity to the hard-hearted Jews by identifying Himself with the same Deity that Moses encountered at the burning bush.2 This fact is evident in the context. Three verses later, Jesus again states: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things” (vs. 28). Once again, the NKJV places “He” in italics. And then, for a third time, Jesus pointedly presses the fact to bring closure to His confrontation: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (vss. 55-58). The Jews correctly understood that Jesus was making a direct claim to Deity, evidenced by the fact that they prepared to execute Him for the capital crime of blasphemy.3 Jesus stressed this same point to the Samaritan woman with whom He engaged in a conversation regarding His identity. His remarks were such that she first considers Him to be a prophet (John 4:19). But as He continues to speak, she admits that she is aware of the fact that the Messiah/Christ was yet to come. He uses her admission to declare: “I who speak to you am He” (vs. 26).4 Once again, in various translations, the word “He” is in italics to denote its insertion. But I suggest that Jesus was connecting Himself with the “I AM” of the burning bush.
"I Am He" or "I Am"? - Apologetics Press

The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus is divine, but does not teach that he is God. Further more the Bible does not teach that God died on the cross. It plainly says a man had to do that. And there's nothing in Romans 10:9-10 that even hits that one must believe Jesus is God to be saved. Now let's look at this John 1:14

The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

 

[Peterlag]

Here's a little on John 1:14
The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

 

[Matthias]

What do you think by this:


“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance (?) but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

He’s definitely using the term “trinity” (even using the phrase “unity in trinity”) and that’s what trinitarians latch on to. However, even trinitarian scholars (Catholic and Protestant) acknowledge that he doesn’t pass the test of orthodoxy. In historical context, he couldn’t.

Tertullian certainly links belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or Ghost) with salvation. Ask any binitarian if they do too. Ask any unitarian if they do too. All Christians do.

Tertullian “the orthodox trinitarian” is a fiction.

The Church is moving away from unitarian monotheism, toward trinitarian monotheism, in his days, but it wasn’t there yet. Tertullian is caught in the transition period, and he’s not the only one.

Perhaps you’ve heard people say that Tertullian (and other prominent figures in the Church prior to Nicaea and, later, Chalcedon) would have embraced orthodoxy if he had lived to see it. Maybe he would have, but that’s a matter of speculation.

I think we must allow people to be what they actually were. Tertullian wasn’t a Jewish unitary monotheist (which is what I am) but neither was he an orthodox trinitarian (which is what trinitarians tend to make him out to be.) Dr. Dale Tuggy (a non-trinitarian colleague of mine) makes a case for Tertullian being a unitarian, which sounds odd at first blush given the “trinity” word in Tertullian’s mouth. I’ll try to locate it and post it for anyone who might be interested in reading it.