Worshipping The Son

[Matthias]

And equal ontologically as well which is Trinitarianism.

That concept comes centuries later during the post-biblical development / formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. No one in the Bible is speaking about ontological equality.

 

[Fred]

No one in the Bible is speaking about ontological equality.

By being the proper recipient of prayer proves He is ontologically equal.

 

[civic]

That’s concept comes centuries later during the post-biblical development / formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. No one in the Bible is speaking about ontological equality.

The doctrine may of came later but the teaching/concept comes straight out of Jesus Himself with His claims.

I think I already mentioned that I can argue and support God is Plural without the creeds and only use scripture. I can be either a biblical trinitarian without needing the creeds or a creedal trinitarian depending upon who I am dialoging with.

 

[Matthias]

The doctrine may of came later …

We know from church history that it did.

… but the teaching/concept comes straight out of Jesus Himself with His claims.

That’s where we disagree. Gentile theologians centuries later struggled to explain what the Jew Jesus said. They interpreted his claims from a non-Jewish perspective, using Greek philosophy.

The Jesus story is an all Jewish affair. When understood from a Jewish perspective, which makes much better sense to me, the result, as we see, is much different than understood from the perspective of Greek philosophy.

I think I already mentioned that I can argue and support God is Plural without the creeds and only use scripture. I can be either a biblical trinitarian without needing the creeds or a creedal trinitarian depending upon who I am dialoging with.

There are no trinitarians in the OT or the NT. That’s a major concession made by trinitarian scholarship, especially Catholic scholarship.

 

[civic]

We know from church history that it did.



That’s where we disagree. Gentile theologians centuries later struggled to explain what the Jew Jesus said. They interpreted his claims from a non-Jewish perspective, using Greek philosophy.

The Jesus story is an all Jewish affair. When understood from a Jewish perspective, which makes much better sense to me, the result, as we see, is much different than understood from the perspective of Greek philosophy.



There are no trinitarians in the OT or the NT. That’s a major concession made by trinitarian scholarship, especially Catholic scholarship.

I believe that is a false assumption made in ignorance. I can show all the way back from Genesis 1 that God is Plural, not singular in Person. There are numerous OT passages declaring the Plurality of God. I did it earlier with the angel of the Lord showing He is YHWH and Jesus said no man has seen the Father nor heard His voice in the OT.

 

[Fred]

People worshiped Him and He accepted their worship. Jesus also promised His disciples that after He Ascended into heaven that they could ask Him anything ( pray to Him ) and he would grant them their requests. See John 14:14, John 16:24. And we see Stephen upon His death pray to Jesus to receive his spirit. That would be idolatry for any Jew.

A topic Matthias is cowering from.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Would you be persuaded by a Jewish monotheists perspective on that or any other passage?

I'll listen to the Truth. I don't care where it comes from. All perfect things come from above.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I’m multi-tasking this morning. Appealing to the books invites readers to respond with either an acknowledgement of having read them or expressing an interest in then. If the former, there’s probably no need for me to quote from them. If the later, there’s an opening for me to provide quotations.

If there is no interest, quotations are probably a waste of time.

Include a reference to a specific point you like to make or make the argument your own.

The trinitarian authors make the point for me. Would a trinitarian be more open to hearing the concessions of trinitarian theologians to my position or to hearing me, a Jewish monotheist and ex-trinitarians, make the argument?

I’ve learned from three decades of experience that it’s the former.

This isn't a book recommendation forum. We debate the Scriptures. Not that you can't appeal to a book. Please do. Appealing to a book doesn't establish the facts of an argument. I can tell you from experience that I wish I had a dollar for every time someone appealed to an author's argument only to abandon it later in the discussion.

Make the argument your own.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The man Messiah Jesus is functionally equal with the Father, which is Jewish monotheism.

Simple question.....how many others are functionally equal to the Father? Was David "functionally" equal to the Father. There is an easy argument that destroys such a position. Commit and I'll respond.

 

[Matthias]

I believe that is a false assumption made in ignorance.

I believe that’s what you believe, but the concessions made by Catholic and Protestant theologians to my position doesn’t persuade me that your view of me is correct.

I can show all the way back from Genesis 1 that God is Plural, not singular in Person. There are numerous OT passages declaring the Plurality of God. I did it earlier with the angel of the Lord showing He is YHWH and Jesus said no man has seen the Father nor heard His voice in the OT.

There are none when understood from the perspective of Jewish monotheism.

 

[civic]

I believe that’s what you believe, but the concessions made by Catholic and Protestant theologians to my position doesn’t persuade me that your view of me is correct.

That is an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There are no trinitarians in the OT or the NT. That’s a major concession made by trinitarian scholarship, especially Catholic scholarship.

Word parsing. I can do the same.... There are no monotheists in the OT or NT.

 

[Matthias]

This isn't a book recommendation forum. We debate the Scriptures.

I don’t debate. That may be part of the issue that we’re having. I debated for years before giving it up when I realized what it was doing to me and to those whom I debated. Both sides dug in their heels and hardened their hearts. That’s a lose-lose proposition.

Not that you can't appeal to a book. Please do.

Thanks. I did.

Appealing to a book doesn't establish the facts of an argument.

Agreed. In the classroom setting I always had a sign posted. The sign said: Read widely. Read Deeply. Read thoughtfully. Read critically.

I can tell you from experience that I wish I had a dollar for every time someone appealed to an author's argument only to abandon it later in the discussion.

Same.

Make the argument your own.

I make the argument to a trinitarian audience using trinitarian scholarship. I became a Jewish monotheist due to trinitarian scholarship, not unitarian scholarship. I seldom read unitarian scholarship.

 

[Matthias]

That is an appeal to authority fallacy.

No. It’s an appeal to read widely, deeply, thoughtfully and critically. I accept much of trinitarian scholarship because I find it persuasive. I don’t find all trinitarian scholarship persuasive. The same with unitarian scholarship, though I read unitarian scholarship much less frequently.

 

[Matthias]

Word parsing. I can do the same.... There are no monotheists in the OT or NT.

I don’t find your parsing persuasive.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don’t debate. That may be part of the issue that we’re having. I debated for years before giving it up when I realized what it was doing to me and to those whom I debated. Both sides dug in their heels and hardened their hearts. That’s a lose-lose proposition.

Debate has changed my life.

I make the argument to a trinitarian audience using trinitarian scholarship. I became a Jewish monotheist due to trinitarian scholarship, not unitarian scholarship. I seldom read unitarian scholarship.

So debate did change you. Which is it? Can you at least be consistent in your claims? You appeal to the lack of change then witness how you changed....

 

[Matthias]

Simple question.....how many others are functionally equal to the Father? Was David "functionally" equal to the Father. There is an easy argument that destroys such a position. Commit and I'll respond.

That’s a great question. I don’t have a number to give you but there are a number of people who are functionally equal to the Father. The most obvious OT example is Moses. God made Moses God to Pharaoh.

 

[civic]

No. It’s an appeal to read widely, deeply, thoughtfully and critically. I accept much of trinitarian scholarship because I find it persuasive. I don’t find all trinitarian scholarship persuasive. The same with unitarian scholarship, though I read unitarian scholarship much less frequently.

Just like I pointed out and you agreed yesterday many triniratians and even scholars do not understand Jesus is not a human person but a Divine Person. And in this case the majority here is incorrect once again.

 

[Matthias]

Debate has changed my life.

Mine, too. And not for the better. Worse still, it changed the lives of those whom I debated, too. And not for the better.

So debate did change you. Which is it? Can you at least be consistent in your claims? You appeal to the lack of change then witness how you changed....

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. My life has changed dramatically over the course of nearly 70 years.

 

[civic]

That’s a great question. I don’t have a number to give you but there are a number of people who are functionally equal to the Father. The most obvious OT example is Moses. God made Moses God to Pharaoh.

Moses was never worshipped as God. So there was no equality with God. Also Moses never preexisted his physical birth unlike the Son who preexisted creation and was together with the Father before anything came into existence. John 17:5.