Are you here to convert people?

[Behold]

I think if I were to say, “What I do is try to rescue good people who love Jesus” - my accuser would probably reply, “See. I told you so!”

Unless you tell me otherwise, I’m putting you on the “I’m not here to convert people” side of the ledger.

Souls are converted.
People are led.

"conversion", as in "being born again".... happens when the Holy Spirit of God, ("God is A Spirit") and ("Christ is THAT Spirit")...births your spirit into the Holy Spirit.

See, "conversion", is not deciding to believe in Jesus.
"conversion" is not being a mormon one year, and a baptist the next year, and a Catholic for the last 6 yrs, but now you think you'll go and try out the Jehovah's Witness situation next.

"conversion" is God taking your faith in Christ and performing a spiritual resurrection of your spirit, on the inside of you.
Colossians 2:11 says its a spiritual "circumcision".
This is God literally disconnecting your spirit from your old man of flesh, by reconnecting your now born again spirit, into Himself.

All this is, in simple terms, is...

Jesus said, "you must be born again"..

= What Adam lost, God now restores unto the BELIEVER = based on the Cross of Christ.

1st Adam lost spiritual union with God, and 2nd Adam who is Jesus, came to restore us back into "1st Adam" spiritual union with God.

 

[Matthias]

Souls are converted.
People are led.

"conversion", as in "being born again".... happens when the Holy Spirit of God, ("God is A Spirit") and ("Christ is THAT Spirit")...births your spirit into the Holy Spirit.

See, "conversion", is not deciding to believe in Jesus.
"conversion" is not being a mormon one year, and a baptist the next year, and a Catholic for the last 6 yrs, but now you think you'll go and try out the Jehovah's Witness situation next.

"conversion" is God taking your faith in Christ and performing a spiritual resurrection of your spirit, on the inside of you.
Colossians 2:11 says its a spiritual "circumcision".
This is God literally disconnecting your spirit from your old man of flesh, by reconnecting your now born again spirit, into Himself.

All this is, in simple terms, is...

Jesus said, "you must be born again"..

= What Adam lost, God now restores unto the BELIEVER = based on the Cross of Christ.

1st Adam lost spiritual union with God, and 2nd Adam who is Jesus, came to restore us back into "1st Adam" spiritual union with God.

Sounds like I‘ve pictured you on the correct side of the ledger.

There’s nothing I can say that will change my accusers mind. That’s his problem, not mine.

So far, no one has said that they are here to convert people. So far, I’m the only one falsely accused of being here to convert people. Let’s hope it stays that way.

 

[GEN2REV]

I’ll leave that study to you. His ethnicity doesn’t concern me

It would if you fully understood the depth of the implications.

Do you then believe Jesus was a jew by religion?

 

[Matthias]

It would if you fully understood the depth of the implications.

Do you then believe Jesus was a jew by religion?

Can you tell me how you see this fitting in with trying to convert people?

I started the new thread so that the issue of Jesus is or isn’t a Jew could be discussed separately. However, if it has relevance to converting people then I would like to hear what you think that relevance is.

 

[RLT63]

It would if you fully understood the depth of the implications.

Do you then believe Jesus was a jew by religion?

He was raised as one. Remember the story about when he was a child and said he had to be about his father’s business?

 

[GEN2REV]

Can you tell me how you see this fitting in with trying to convert people?

I started the new thread so that the issue of Jesus is or isn’t a Jew could be discussed separately. However, if it has relevance to converting people then I would like to hear what you think that relevance is.

We arrived at the topic organically from your first post, but I'm fine discussing it in the other thread.

He was raised as one. Remember the story about when he was a child and said he had to be about his father’s business?

Uhh ... yeah.

???

His Father is God.

 

[RLT63]

We arrived at the topic organically from your first post, but I'm fine discussing it in the other thread.

Uhh ... yeah.

???

His Father is God.

But where was he at and who were the teachers that were amazed at him?

 

[Matthias]

We arrived at the topic organically from your first post, but I'm fine discussing it in the other thread.

I made no mention of it in my first post. I think you’re reading more into it than what I had in mind. Let’s do discuss it in the other thread. I really would like to hear how you see confessing Jesus was a Jew relates to being here to convert people. (As you indicated in the new thread that the majority of the members of the Board believe Jesus was a Jew and would pile on you, it seems logical to conclude that you would or might think the majority of the members on this Board are trying to convert people.)

 

[RLT63]

We arrived at the topic organically from your first post, but I'm fine discussing it in the other thread.

Uhh ... yeah.

???

His Father is God.

Luk 2:46 - And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

 

[GEN2REV]

But where was he at and who were the teachers that were amazed at him?

Those teachers were more about babylonian talmudism than anything taught in the Scriptures and Jesus berated them for their hypocrisy in that way all throughout the gospels.

They taught the Law but never obeyed it.

Read Matthew 23 and John 8.

Do those chapters give you any impression at all that Jesus was speaking of, or to, His own?

Let's discuss this in the new thread @Matthias started on this topic so we don't derail this one.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His always having been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

Name that author?

Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3.

Do you also believe, as Tertullian did, that there was a time when the Son didn’t exist with the Father? (I do.)

My beliefs are based on the Bible and conformed by the Holy Spirit. I just me tioned that scholars on the first few centuries believed in the deity of Jesus and the triune God. As most scholars today believe fthe same, some very off that path.
As for your question, Tertullian's logic is good. There was a time when there wasn't sin, probably less then nine months after Adam and Even were created. But the knowledge of evil already existed. Lucifer was really the first one to violate God's rule in heaven. Of course Elohim knew that would happen, therefore was judicial in His plan which was fully constructed on His mind. So He was judge before creation. He became Father on a particular day which some.may argue was at Jesus conception or birth;
but the pre-incarnate Jesus/God always existed. "He became flesh and dwelt among us."

Dr. Brown was an expert on the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Church Fathers and the Nicene Church Fathers. Church history was his forte

I am sure he had some good theological ideas, but as with all scholars, they are not perfect and do ere. The Holy Spirit, we can trust. However, though many have the Spirit, they still differ in views. Why? Because we have thoughts of our own that are not His thoughts. Sometimes we attribute some of these bad ideas, that is wrong to Him.

 

[Matthias]

My beliefs are based on the Bible and conformed by the Holy Spirit. I just me tioned that scholars on the first few centuries believed in the deity of Jesus and the triune God. As most scholars today believe fthe same, some very off that path.
As for your question, Tertullian's logic is good. There was a time when there wasn't sin, probably less then nine months after Adam and Even were created. But the knowledge of evil already existed. Lucifer was really the first one to violate God's rule in heaven. Of course Elohim knew that would happen, therefore was judicial in His plan which was fully constructed on His mind. So He was judge before creation. He became Father on a particular day which some.may argue was at Jesus conception or birth;
but the pre-incarnate Jesus/God always existed. "He became flesh and dwelt among us."

Tertullian didn’t believe that the Son had always existed. And Ante-Nicene writers up until Origen in the 3rd century were subordinationists. It was his contribution concerning the eternal generation of the Son that was a major step toward Nicene Christianity in the next century.

Even as late as AD 380 the Church was struggling with defining who or what the Holy Spirit is. This is well documented in works on Church history. I recommend Schaff’s History of the Christian Church as an excellent trinitarian source in support of Dr. Brown.

It wasn’t until AD 381 at the Council of Constantinople that the issue was officially resolved. Before then the Church believed a number of things which don’t agree with your doctrine. After 381 is a different story. Before 381 there was a variety of beliefs about God which were accepted and practiced in the Church. After 381 a person either embraced what was finally established as orthodoxy or the person was considered no longer to be a part of the Church.

It’s simple history and it’s very well preserved for anyone interested in reading it.

I am sure he had some good theological ideas, but as with all scholars, they are not perfect and do ere. The Holy Spirit, we can trust. However, though many have the Spirit, they still differ in views. Why? Because we have thoughts of our own that are not His thoughts. Sometimes we attribute some of these bad ideas, that is wrong to Him.

He wasn’t talking about “good theological ideas”. He was talking about Church history and the process of post-biblical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. What he knew and was forced to concede about the Church in the first two centuries is, in large part, what prevents me from returning to trinitarianism.

What was erroneous about the trinitarian doctrine which Dr. Brown affirmed? From a trinitarian perspective, nothing. He’s one of the finest trinitarian scholars this country has produced. He was orthodox to the core.

P.S.

Tertullian, when examined closely, was a unitarian. Arians love him. Arius himself sounded a lot like Tertullian. Nearly all of my students reading the Tertullian quote I provided for the first time incorrectly attributed it to Arius. (I enjoy reading Tertullian - I’ve read and reread everything he wrote which is extant - but I’m not an Arian, and I don’t agree with Arian Christology.)

If you’re really interested in Tertullian then you may enjoy the linked paper.

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Matthias]

Does a knowledge of Church history contribute to people being converted? It did in my case; it probably doesn’t in most cases.

 

[RLT63]

Those teachers were more about babylonian talmudism than anything taught in the Scriptures and Jesus berated them for their hypocrisy in that way all throughout the gospels.

They taught the Law but never obeyed it.

Read Matthew 23 and John 8.

Do those chapters give you any impression at all that Jesus was speaking of, or to, His own?

Let's discuss this in the new thread @Matthias started on this topic so we don't derail this one.

Jhn 1:11 - He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

[Matthias]

If we discuss Church history, are we trying to convert people?

I don’t think so, but maybe some do.

Speaking from personal experience, I’ve not met a lot of people (inside or outside of the Church) who were interested in Church history. It would be difficult to forge an effective evangelism campaign using Church history to garner people’s attention.

 

[Matthias]

Pre- Nicene scholars believed …

Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus Is God

For those who think Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ, here are thirty-six quotations from nine different church fathers that predate the Council of Nicea.

www.str.org

Who cares what pre-Nicene scholars believed?

If you approached the average man in the pew and asked him to name the Ante-Nicene scholars what would happen? Would Joe Average Trinitarian (JAT) rattle off an impressive list of names? Would JAT be licking his chops at the mere suggestion of discussing what Ante-Nicene scholars believed? Would JAT stare back at you with glazed eyes and a forced smile on his face? Would JAT quickly excuse himself and make haste for the nearest exit?

How many sermons has JAT heard about what the Ante-Nicene scholars believed? How many sermons would JAT like to hear preached on what the Ante-Nicene scholars believed? How many JAT’s would show up if their pastor announced that the month of ___ would be dedicated to preaching sermons on the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers?

Pastor suggests that his congregation read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to get a background before he begins his sermons on what they believed? …. and how it differed dramatically from what he and they believe now. Is JAT rushing to Amazon at break neck speed to stock up on the massive number of volumes which constitute their extant works?

JAT is probably looking for some excuse not to explain why he wont be able to attend Church that month.

Well, fine. Let’s not run off JAT.

How about if we advertise a month long campaign, with meetings every Tuesday night from 7:00 - 8:00 p.m., to attract non-Christians. Does that sound like a winner? Set up three chairs and prepare to be disappointed when they aren’t filled come Tuesday night.

Even so, there are a few people like me who are highly receptive to appeals to Church history. When you bring Church history to my attention - especially the works of the Ante-Nicene period - you hit the jackpot. That’s called “knowing your audience”.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Does a knowledge of Church history contribute to people being converted? It did in my case; it probably doesn’t in most cases.

God draws man to Himself through unique circumstances for each individual, orchestrating events and people that ultimately lead us to the truth, which is the Word. Commentary, history is helpful. The Word is the Light of men. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word is God ... the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
My conversion involved an orchestration that did not include Church history, Tertullian, or any other scholar, pre- or post- Council of Nicea. The Bible was sufficient.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

@Matthias
Church history did not lead you to Christ. Church history may confirm your conversion; but the Holy Spirit led you to Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Alpha and Omega, the Good Shepherd, the Bread of Life, the Vine, the Light of Men, the Door, the Creator. It is evident that you have a shallow, superficial, understanding of what those titles mean. He is the LIFE. Can you comprehend what He means by that? The source of physical and spiritual life itself.
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
Col. 1:16-17
All things "consist" , or in other words are held together in Him. That means every atom in the universe and all that is invisible in the spiritual realm. H E L L O!
Fragments of Church history that you chose to receive, while rejecting one of the most fundamental truths led you astray to believe otherwise.
The belief in the Diety of Christ is our reality and history. It is a foundational doctrine which cannot be dismissed. It is irrefutable and for those who try, labor in futility. Where is your peace? Do you have peace with Christianity or is this lifelong pursuit to dismantle His Holy nature left you in frustration and angst towards the BODY?
The Book of John presents Jesus as Deity throughout. If you cannot grasp this doctrine as truth and must seek outside information that has permeated the world from the beginning, you have not relied on the Spirit of Truth. One must acknowledge the Spirit of Truth as a person, Whom we as Christians desire a relationship with. The Father and Christ gave us another HELPER, Counselor to dwell in us and guide us. But evidently you did not receive this relationship, are in denial of and confused about the actual nature of God.
As for your claim to be Pre-Nicene Christian and presumption that somehow our Church Fathers, (Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Oregen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others) did not believe in Christ as God IS WRONG! I gave you quotes proving otherwise and you choose to dismiss them. They all believed in the DEITY OF JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DWELLS IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN.
Once again:

Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus Is God

For those who think Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ, here are thirty-six quotations from nine different church fathers that predate the Council of Nicea.

www.str.org

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias
Church history did not lead you to Christ. Church history may confirm your conversion; but the Holy Spirit led you to Christ…

Church history confirms that I have not gone beyond 1st century Christianity.

The belief in the Diety of Christ is our reality and history.

The belief in the Messiah’s deity is my reality and history. He has told me clearly who his God and my God is.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Church history confirms that I have not gone beyond 1st century Christianity.



The belief in the Messiah’s deity is my reality and history. He has told me clearly who his God and my God is.

It's okay, you can't grasp the concept. Jesus expected that some would not;
"Who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," Phil. 2:6