Run that by me again, Moses

[bdavidc]

Golly good fun, isn't it? Not very edifying, but remember whose thread you are on.

Much love!

Fun, fun, grin. Thanks for the reminder. I am finished with this foolishness, so I put him on ignore.

 

[Matthias]

I’m a Jewish monotheist who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, Son of the living God. I believe the Bible.

Which came first in the church: Jewish unitary monotheism or trinitary monotheism?

Jewish monotheism came first in the church.

 

[marks]

He is on the thread of Jewish monotheist who believes that Jesus of Nazareth - himself a Jewish monotheist - is the Messiah, the Son of God.

That's one description, yes, but I think after one reads through your threads and gets the real flavor, perhaps a different description may prevail?

And your claims of "Jesus Himself a Jewish Monotheist" are the most self-serving mis-appropriation I can imagine! Jesus made perfectly clear that He was God come to earth, as did His apostles. And the prophets. Even His enemies knew what He was saying. It's why they wanted Jesus dead. So no, Jesus was not there in some form of self-denial, as if He "knew perfectly well that He isn't God". That's just you acting as though He did so you can make you posts sound better.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that @bdavidc is on the thread of a fellow who will even put his own words in the mouth of Jesus Christ, falsely, to bolster his case. Now there's a thread for ya!

More of your ongoing rebellion against Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

That's one description, yes, but I think after one reads through your threads and gets the real flavor, perhaps a different description may prevail?

And your claims of "Jesus Himself a Jewish Monotheist" are the most self-serving mis-appropriation I can imagine!

It’s a historical fact. A concession made by trinitarian scholarship.

Jesus made perfectly clear that He was God come to earth, as did His apostles. And the prophets. Even His enemies knew what He was saying. It's why they wanted Jesus dead. So no, Jesus was not there in some form of self-denial, as if He "knew perfectly well that He isn't God". That's just you acting as though He did so you can make you posts sound better.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that @bdavidc is on the thread of a fellow who will even put his own words in the mouth of Jesus Christ, falsely, to bolster his case. Now there's a thread for ya!

More of your ongoing rebellion against Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God.

Much love!

You’re happily constructing a straw man and bearing false witness against me. I will use it to my advantage.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes, sometimes someone was sent as an agent of another, for instance Abraham sending his servant to obtain a wife for Isaac. This was made plain in the Bible.

Paul, urging us on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

There are times that someone was acting as an agent of others, and we are told so. IMO, the problem arises when someone applies agency when there isn't a Scriptural declaration of such. The concept becomes a device to deny the plain reading of Scripture.

Much love!

It's literally commandment #2. Don't use the Lord's name in vain - meaning don't speak for God unless He gave you that authority specifically.

edit: in case it isn't clear, I'm sure Moses was legit in doing so

 

[Matthias]

That's what it's about, isnt it?

No, but when you or others offer me that tool I’ll use it.

You don't fool me.

Much love!

I’ve never attempted to fool you, nor anyone else.

I’m a primitive Christian, not a Nicene Christian.

 

[marks]

It’s a historical fact. A concession made by trinitarian scholarship.

Well, if you put it that was, then OK, yes, Jesus was a monotheist, in that Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit are indeed one God, and Jesus of course knows that truth. Not everyone does, but He certainly does!

But I don't really think that was what you meant, was it? And now are you telling me trinitarian scholarship (???) says Jesus was a monotheist, in the way you mean? Right. That sounds like another misappropriation. And maybe you'll have some slick explanation that you think will justify you, but it's all just word games to me, nothing like handling truth.

I will use it to my advantage.

That's what it's all about for you, isn't it?

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Well, if you put it that was, then OK, yes, Jesus was a monotheist, in that Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit are indeed one God, and Jesus of course knows that truth. Not everyone does, but He certainly does!

The God of a Jewish monotheist is only one person. That’s unitarianism.

Jesus is a Jewish monotheist; a unitarian. His God is only one person, the Father. The personal name of his God and Father is the tetragrammton.

You aren’t a Jewish monotheist. He is. (Scripture knows it. Trinitarian scholarship knows it.)

I am a Jewish monotheist because Jesus himself is a Jewish monotheist.

 

[Matthias]

Jewish monotheism came first in the church.

The average trinitarian isn’t likely to tell us that because the average trinitarian doesn’t know it. There are, of course, many trinitarians who do know and will tell anyone who asks about it.

I’ve quoted many trinitarian scholars when speaking about church history who’ve acknowledge this historical constraint. For example -

”To call Jesus Son of God was therefore to accept the claim implied in his words and actions that he was totally obedient to the divine will, that he could give authoritative teaching about God, and that he was empowered to act as God’s authorized representative and agent. … the notion of a teacher and leader fully authorized by God, disobedience towards whom would be tantamount to repudiation of God himself, was well understood in the Old Testament.

The crucial text is Deuteronomy 18:18-20: …”

(A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 164)

The concept of agency isn’t a man-made tradition, as has been asserted repeatedly in this thread (and others). It is the cultural context of Hebraic / Jewish thinking.

”Jesus, in his teaching, his prophetic actions, and in his obedience which led to his death, was acting as God’s agent and representative on earth. It was as if, when he spoke and acted, God himself was present. In Luke’s phrase, ‘God was with him’; in Paul’s, ‘God was in Christ’. That this was so had been demonstrated by the resurrection, after which Jesus had necessarily been given the highest place, under God, which could be awarded to any living being. Christians could now confidently join in the worship and praise due to the one who had been given (again under God) a name which is above every name, and through whom the Holy Spirit was now active among those who acknowledged his lordship. It was as far as one could possibly go (these Christians felt) in ascribing unique dignity to Jesus consistently with respecting the constraint of monotheism.”

(Ibid., p. 173)

That isn’t Nicene Christianity. That’s Jewish monotheism; the monotheism of primitive Christianity.

The author didn’t bold the remainder of the quote. I’m going to do that in order to emphasize my very simple point.

”In later times the church, no longer perceiving the power and decisiveness of the agent-son-representative model, and having among its members men used to a more philosophical analysis, felt it necessary to go further in the direction of metaphysical identity between Jesus and his heavenly father: released from the constraint of Jewish monotheism, gentile Christians began to think of Jesus as also, in some sense God.”

(Ibid.)

That’s where Nicene Christianity came from.

The trinitarian scholar is giving us a brief, but superb, synopsis of church history.

Nicene Christianity anathematizes Jewish monotheists who believe Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God. Primitive Christianity certainly doesn’t.

Primitive Christianity - which is where I’m properly located on the church timeline - preceded Nicene Christianity by several centuries.

 

[Matthias]

Before a trinitarian treats Harvey in the same way Witherington was -

“I would not wish to deny that the seeds of a later Christology are present in the New Testament, nor that the subsequent doctrine of the divinity of Christ may have been a proper or even inevitable development. I am concerned only to show that there is no unambiguous evidence that the constraint of monotheism was effectively broken by any New Testament writer.”

(A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, Appendix III, p. 177)

Harvey recognized and ackowledged the proper location of my Jewish monotheism in church history without any intention of damaging the proper location of his trinitarianism in church history.

The importance of his concession: The New Testament writers were Jewish monotheists, primitive Christians; not Nicene Christians. They wrote nothing that “broke” Jewish monotheism.

Compare this with one of the greatest voices of 4th century Nicene Christianity, Gregory of Nyssa-> Jewish monotheism is heretical and the Jewish dogma has been destroyed by the Christian (i.e. trinitarian) conception of God.

That’s historical fact. That’s the reality of church history. Whether anyone likes it or not, as Walter Cronkite might say if he were still alive: ”And that’s the way it is. April 16, 2025.”

That brings us to what I have called in lectures “The crucial question“ -> the question posed by the trinitarian scholar Dr. Harold O.J. Brown.

 

[Matthias]

Fun, fun, grin. Thanks for the reminder. I am finished with this foolishness, so I put him on ignore.

@marks doesn’t want you or anyone else to hear my voice. He liked that you put me on ignore. Will he now do the same or will he act hypocritically? Let’s watch and see.

 

[Wick Stick]

I’m a primitive Christian, not a Nicene Christian.

I resemble that remark!

 

[Lambano]

The concept of agency is also in the term "prophet" (speaker for God) and "apostle" (literally, "a sent one")

One of my textbooks described a prophet colloquially as "God's mouthpiece".

Jesus often described his own role as a prophet. (Since we're approaching Good Friday, how about "It cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem" as an example?) One of the members of my Bible Study group had converted from Islam, which considers Jesus to be "just" another prophet like Moses (though lower than Mohammed, peace be upon him), and he found the fact that Jesus considered Himself to be ("just") a prophet to be disturbing. "Why did I convert if Jesus is just another prophet?" (Okay, maybe his wife had something to do with that.)

In what way is Jesus more than a prophet? If indeed He is?

 

[Matthias]

One of my textbooks described a prophet colloquially as "God's mouthpiece". 

A prophet of God is someone who isn’t God.

Jesus often described his own role as a prophet. (Since we're approaching Good Friday, how about "It cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem" as an example?) One of the members of my Bible Study group had converted from Islam, which considers Jesus to be "just" another prophet like Moses, (though less than Mohammed, peace be upon him), and he found the fact that Jesus considered Himself to be ("just") a prophet to be disturbing. "Why did I convert if Jesus is just another prophet?" (Okay, maybe his wife had something to do with that.)

In what way is Jesus more than a prophet? If indeed He is?

Jesus is greater than Moses, and / or any of the other biblical prophets.

He is a prophet and he is more than a prophet. That might be a good topic for a thread of its own.

 

[Wrangler]

In what way is Jesus more than a prophet? If indeed He is?

The expression "just" is disrespectful dehumanization. No one is "just" anything. Everyone is multidimensional, especially in our relationships. I am a son, brother, husband, friend, neighbor, etc. Therefore, every prophet is more than a prophet as everyone person is more than just a statistical person.

Some put it this way. Moses gave us the Law. Jesus gave us Grace. It's the 1-2 punch. We are not saved by the law. It only shows us our guilt. Without guilt, grace has no application.

For some reason this pedigree story came to mind. Joe Dimaggio was the great New York Yankees centerfielder. When he retired, he was replaced by the great Mickey Mantle. As he neared retirement, my 6th grade teacher was offered a contract by the New York Yankees to fill that role. (He declined as they paid people relative peanuts back than as everyone wanted to play for the Yankees). None of these men are "just" ball players.

He is. That might be a good topic for a thread of its own.

Agreed. A thread I'll avoid.

 

[Lambano]

A prophet of God is someone who isn’t God.

If I understand the statement of "trinity" (which I don't), the theologians have redefined the term "God" from being a specific person to a nature or "ousia". Pretty sneaky of them.

 

[Wrangler]

If I understand the statement of "trinity", (which I don't), the theologians have redefined the term "God" from being a specific person to a nature or "ousia".

I took @Matthias statement a reflection of logic and language usage not the forbidden (closed handed) topic. An agent of X is not X. Pretty straight forward.

 

[Lambano]

I took @Matthias statement a reflection of logic and language usage not the forbidden (closed handed) topic. An agent of X is not X. Pretty straight forward.

X and X's agent are separate Persons, which is affirmed by the closed-fist doctrine. Don't confuse the Persons with their ousia. Remember what the doctrine actually claims.

 

[Wick Stick]

A prophet of God is someone who isn’t God.

The Hebrew word translated "prophet" is Nebo/Nebu, which is the proper name of a foreign god.

You probably know him (it?) as the Greek Hermes or Latin Mercury

 

[Matthias]

X and X's agent are separate Persons, which is affirmed by the closed-fist doctrine. Don't confuse the Persons with their ousia. Remember what the doctrine actually claims.

Would you be able to agree that no one in the Hebrew Bible and / or in the New Testament said anything like “don’t confuse the persons with their ousia”?