Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

[Matthias]

Jesus and the Pharisees were in agreement about the identity of the one God. Neither he nor they believed the one God is the Trinity. They all knew and agreed that the one God is the Father.

Jesus aligned himself with the one God. The Pharisees* aligned themselves against the one God. Hence Jesus’ pronouncement that their father is the devil.

* There were exceptions among the Pharisees; those who came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Jew whom their God raised up and sent.

 

[synergy]

Jesus and the Pharisees were in agreement about the identity of the one God. Neither he nor they believed the one God is the Trinity. They all knew and agreed that the one God is the Father.

They were all so much in agreement that the Pharisees tried to stone Jesus to death.

Jesus aligned himself with the one God. The Pharisees* aligned themselves against the one God. Hence Jesus’ pronouncement that their father is the devil.

That was after Jesus declared that he existed as the "I Am" of the OT even before Abraham's time. Thus totally disrupting Pharisaic Monotheism in their minds.

* There were exceptions among the Pharisees; those who came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Jew whom their God raised up and sent.

There were some Pharisees who came to believe Jesus as God, most notably after his Divine Resurrection.

 

[synergy]

You speak presumptuously.

Is the Bible presumptuous when it declares the Jewish Diaspora as the Elect in 1 Pet 1:1-2, for the purposes of spreading the Gospel?

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

 

[Matthias]

They were all so much in agreement that the Pharisees tried to stone Jesus to death.

See Mark 12:28-34. Jesus and the Jewish scribe were in complete agreement about the identity of their God. Their God is only one person, the Father. That’s Jewish monotheism, not trinitary monotheism.

That was after Jesus declared that he existed as the "I Am" of the OT even before Abraham's time. Thus totally disrupting Pharisaic Monotheism in their minds.

The question in the scriptures isn’t who the God of Israel is. The question in the scriptures is who is the God of Israel’s promised Messiah.

John, in full agreement with all of the apostles, says it best for them all and for all who read him and them -> “but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name.“

There were some Pharisees who came to believe Jesus as God, most notably after his Divine Resurrection.

There were no Pharisees who changed their minds about who their God is. There were some Pharisees who changed their mind on the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah sent by the God of Israel.

 

[Matthias]

Is the Bible presumptuous when it declares the Jewish Diaspora as the Elect in 1 Pet 1:1-2, for the purposes of spreading the Gospel?

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

The scriptures are true. It’s the later trinitarian understanding and interpretation of the scriptures which sets trinitarianism against the Jewish monotheism of Peter.

What did you bold in verse 2? The identity of the one God.

Trinitarianism destroyed the Jewish dogma.

Shout it from the rooftop! Let it roll like thunder from the pulpit!

 

[Matthias]

The foreknowledge of God the Father -> ideal preexistence.

 

[Fred]

Jesus and the Pharisees were in agreement about the identity of the one God. Neither he nor they believed the one God is the Trinity.

Zero passages from the Bible to back up your claim.

Matthias says so, which means (in his mind) it must be believed.

 

[Matthias]

“In a sense, John’s prologue was simply extending the same theological logic: as the practitioners of the Wisdom tradition in early Judaism claimed that the divine wisdom so unattainable elsewhere was now to be found in the Torah, so John in effect made the same claim in reference to Jesus. As valuable as was the Torah, it was in Jesus, God’s only Son, that the creative, revelatory, redemptive Word had come to humankind, that the divine Wisdom had made God known; ‘the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ‘ (John 1.17).”

(Dunn, Ibid., p. 351)

 

[civic]

appeal to authority fallacy duly noted.

 

[Matthias]

appeal to authority fallacy duly noted.

I’m not a prophet, but I told you know who this morning that this is what he would see you do. I also told him what it is and what I hoped he would do with it. We’ll see what he does with it.

 

[civic]

I don't read any of your secondary sources. I do not care about the opinions of fallen men who are uninspired by God.

Knock yourself out with extra biblical sources. Its not my cup of tea. I'm a Biblicist.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Matthias]

I don't read any of your secondary sources.

You’ve read many of them. I don’t get the impression that you’re as well read as I am, but I know that you’ve done some reading; I suspect quite a bit, and much more than the average trinitarian.

I do not care about the opinions of fallen men who are uninspired by God.

If you didn’t care then you wouldn’t say anything about them. You say something about them because you care.

Knock yourself out with extra biblical sources.

I’ll continue to quote them but it doesn’t knock me out when I do. At least one other member of the forum is interested in reading them. I’ll do it for him and for others.

Its not my cup of tea. I'm a Biblicist.

hope this helps !!!

Dunn is a Biblicist. So are all of the other trinitarians I’m quoting.

 

[civic]

Like Burger King you can order a hamburger any way you like. Some do the same with the Bible , God and Theology. As Burger King says - have it your way. .

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Have it your way

 

[Matthias]

”The christology of John’s Gospel should therefore not be divorced from the christology of the prologue. On the contrary, the Logos/Wisdom christology may provide the way to read the claims made for Jesus in the rest of the Gospel. That is to say, the dominant Father-Son christology should not be read as a distinct christology but should perhaps be better seen as a blending of the earlier divine agent - (prophet) christology and the advanced Wisdom/ Logos christology of the Johannine prologue. Alternatively expressed, John would no doubt have been well aware of the first person self-assertions made by Wisdom and the vivid imagery used to describe the revelatory and redemptive significance of Wisdom. He may even have been aware of the still more vivid imagery and language used for the Logos by Philo. So perhaps he crafted together Son of God and Logos/Wisdom in order that the highly personal and intimate language and imagery of Father-Son should serve as a still richer elaboration of the now revealed mystery of the Logos unuttered and the Logos uttered than anything previously suggested, and all impelled by the revelatory significance that was Jesus Christ.”

(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 352-353)

 

[civic]

extra biblical Platonism, Plato, greek philosophy, paganism, the wisdom of the world.

Colossians 2-
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

 

[Fred]

God is not the only one who is the object of latreuo in scripture.

God is the only proper object of latreuō in Scripture.
Since the Lord Jesus is the proper object of latreuo in Scripture demonstrates He is God.

 

[Matthias]

”The christology of John’s Gospel should therefore not be divorced from the christology of the prologue. On the contrary, the Logos/Wisdom christology may provide the way to read the claims made for Jesus in the rest of the Gospel. That is to say, the dominant Father-Son christology should not be read as a distinct christology but should perhaps be better seen as a blending of the earlier divine agent - (prophet) christology and the advanced Wisdom/ Logos christology of the Johannine prologue. Alternatively expressed, John would no doubt have been well aware of the first person self-assertions made by Wisdom and the vivid imagery used to describe the revelatory and redemptive significance of Wisdom. He may even have been aware of the still more vivid imagery and language used for the Logos by Philo. So perhaps he crafted together Son of God and Logos/Wisdom in order that the highly personal and intimate language and imagery of Father-Son should serve as a still richer elaboration of the now revealed mystery of the Logos unuttered and the Logos uttered than anything previously suggested, and all impelled by the revelatory significance that was Jesus Christ.”

(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 352-353)

“… various aspects of the Son christology should not be read independently of the Logos christology, but rather as intended to serve the Logos christology. I am thinking not simply of the accusation that Jesus was making himself equal with God (5.18) and Jesus’ striking claim to be one with the Father (10.30); for such claims are an obvious expression of Logos/Wisdom christology - Logos/Wisdom being the self-expression of the otherwise invisible God.”

(Dunn, Ibid., p. 353)

 

[Matthias]

“… various aspects of the Son christology should not be read independently of the Logos christology, but rather as intended to serve the Logos christology. I am thinking not simply of the accusation that Jesus was making himself equal with God (5.18) and Jesus’ striking claim to be one with the Father (10.30); for such claims are an obvious expression of Logos/Wisdom christology - Logos/Wisdom being the self-expression of the otherwise invisible God.”

(Dunn, Ibid., p. 353)

“Nor am I thinking only of the sending motif, where the Son sent is wholly representative of the Father who sent him (e.g. 10.36; 12:45). I am thinking more of the features of John’s Son christology normally referred to as the Son’s ‘subordination to the Father - summed up by 14.28, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ In fact, however, the thought is not so much of subordination, as though that was already an issue. The issue is not the relation between the Father and the Son (as later), but the authority and validity of the Son’s revelation of the Father, the continuity between the Father and the Son, between the logos unuttered and the logos uttered.”

(Dunn, Ibid., p. 353)

 

[Matthias]

“Nor am I thinking only of the sending motif, where the Son sent is wholly representative of the Father who sent him (e.g. 10.36; 12:45). I am thinking more of the features of John’s Son christology normally referred to as the Son’s ‘subordination to the Father - summed up by 14.28, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ In fact, however, the thought is not so much of subordination, as though that was already an issue. The issue is not the relation between the Father and the Son (as later), but the authority and validity of the Son’s revelation of the Father, the continuity between the Father and the Son, between the logos unuttered and the logos uttered.”

(Dunn, Ibid., p. 353)

“… the incarnate Logos is the self-expression of God. It is only when the early church’s Logos christology is supplanted by the Son christology of Nicaea, and the Son christology becomes detached from the Logos christology that the issue of personal relationships within the Godhead arises and talk of ‘subordination’ becomes necessary to maintain the balance within the by then much-refined monotheism of the Fathers.”

(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 354,355)