What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[bluebell]

No, what you have provided is NOT examples of "monotheistic background", but rather examples of God's preeminence.

Yes, that is an example of preeminence, not exclusion.

I really wish djholmess would take the time to do some research on these verses because your point is very valid. These verses ARE mean to show preeminence and if I understand correctly from my studies, that's exactly how the Israelites interpreted them.

The doctrine of the Trinity isn't "monotheistic".

I wonder if djholmess realizes that Judaism believed that trinitarianism was polytheistic?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, what you have provided is NOT examples of "monotheistic background", but rather examples of God's preeminence.

Yes, that is an example of preeminence, not exclusion.

TRUE!!! Because "monotheism isn't found there either.

One wonders if you understand the meaning of "monotheism". The doctrine of the Trinity isn't "monotheistic".

It tries to be by saying that 3 = 1.

[Vance]

Therefore in the words of the NT, against the background of the OT view of there only being one God in existed who has existed as God forever, we get a clear picture of person of Jesus Christ being the God of the OT.

We fully accept that the pre-mortal Jesus was the God of the OT.

So, what is your point?

Yet not in a way the negates the Father also being the God of the OT

Agree, so what is your point?

You have described TWO separate and distinct individuals as being God. So, how is that truly "monotheistic"?

It is rather OBVIOUS that you don't really understand what we believe about God, the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. But hey, you keep beating that strawman, if it makes you feel better.

[Vance]

3) Jesus Christ isn’t equal with the Father

This one is EASY!!!

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

And just for good measure.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So, clearly God, the Father is the God of Jesus Christ (who is also a God). Thus making the Father a God of gods.

[Vance]

I really wish djholmess would take the time to do some research on these verses because your point is very valid. These verses ARE mean to show preeminence and if I understand correctly from my studies, that's exactly how the Israelites interpreted them.

Well, by his own admission, if it doesn't agree with his preconceptions then it can't be true. So, maybe he will keep to his "head in the sand" approach to this topic.

I wonder if djholmess realizes that Judaism believed that trinitarianism was polytheistic?

So do other groups.

But hey, TRI (3) nitarianism is not really TRI (3) nitarianism but rather MONO (1) ism. <= See the logic that is SOOOOO convincing.

[djholmess]

But hey, TRI (3) nitarianism is not really TRI (3) nitarianism but rather MONO (1) ism. <= See the logic that is SOOOOO convincing.

The Tri in trinity is referring to 3 persons, the mono in monotheism is referring to 1 God. Your above quote is just Childish. One of the three tenants of the Trinity is monotheism as well you know. Don't you guys see the hypocrisy of saying I misrepresent your views and then you just act like that.

[Vance]

Just some things I have collected along the way.

Many Christian writers identified Jesus with Yahweh. And until the 5th century, it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second God", the chief angel, or both. It was also made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.

Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the "first-begotten", the Logos, "is the first force after the Father": he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure.

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel..."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the "glorious...angel" or "most venerable...angel"

The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: "And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God."

Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause".

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8

Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

At the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus "the Angel of [God's] counsel"

Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

Tertullian spoke of Christ as "second" to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the "only true God" and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

Origen could speak of Jesus as a "second God"

Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

Origen added a qualification: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." (Very LDS btw)

Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

In what sense are they one? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)

Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.

Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.

Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.

Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical "oneness", but unity of will. (LDS again)

Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels "gods" as well: "If even the angels themselves...as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."

Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God.

Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

However, after the Council of Nicea, such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a "second God" was unheard of in the "orthodox" faith.

Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, 1988)

[Vance]

The Tri in trinity is referring to 3 persons, the mono in monotheism is referring to 1 God.

3 Persons does NOT a monotheism make. Three people/persons/beings/entities are MORE than one, no matter how you count them.

Your above quote is just Childish.

Well, what can I say. EVEN a child can see that 3 does NOT equal 1.

One of the three tenants of the Trinity is monotheism as well you know.

Such convoluted contortions are without logic or reason.

Don't you guys see the hypocrisy of saying I misrepresent your views and then you just act like that.

WHAT??? You don't like being treated the way you treat us? How interesting.

[djholmess]

Just some things I have collected along the way.

I have copied your list (to save for later) and they are all certainly things for me to look into. However 1) I derive my theology from the Bible not men 2) going on our past conversations I don't trust that you are actually representing any of these quotes..hence why I am intrested in looking into them myself.

[djholmess]

3 Persons does NOT a monotheism make. Three people/persons/beings/entities are MORE than one, no matter how you count them.

My apologies, I thought you understood the trinity and were intentionally misrepresenting it. From your above quote is seems you don't understand.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a summary title for 3 clear biblical teachings;

1) There is only 1 being of God in existence

2) There are three persons (not beings) who all share the being of God

3) The persons are co-equal and co-eternal

Edited August 1, 2012 by djholmess

[Zakuska]

djholmes:

Im waiting...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58519-what-is-the-new-testament-definition-of-christian/page__st__80#entry1209155590

[Zakuska]

My apologies, I thought you understood the trinity and were intentionally misrepresenting it. From your above quote is seems you don't understand.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a summary title for 3 clear biblical teachings;

1) There is only 1 being of God in existence

2) There are three persons (not beings) who all share the being of God

3) The beings are co-equal and co-eternal

Don't you mean the "persons" are co-equal and co-eternal?

If they are co-equal, why does Jesus say.

"My Father is greater than I"

Edited August 1, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

No, what you have provided is NOT examples of "monotheistic background", but rather examples of God's preeminence.

Yes, that is an example of preeminence, not exclusion.

Ok so then explain to me from the context of Deuteronomy 4 how you can justify limiting there is ‘none else’ in heaven or earth to mean there is no god that takes eminence over God?

Deuteronomy 4:35&39

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him... know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

[djholmess]

Don't you mean the "persons" are co-equal and co-eternal?

Opps

[bluebell]

The Tri in trinity is referring to 3 persons, the mono in monotheism is referring to 1 God. Your above quote is just Childish. One of the three tenants of the Trinity is monotheism as well you know. Don't you guys see the hypocrisy of saying I misrepresent your views and then you just act like that.

Despite one of the tenets of Trinitarianism, Judaism still sees it as polytheism masquarading as a monotheistic religion.

Not that what a Jewish person believes about your faith should matter to you, but hopefully it will help you to understand that just because a different religion is determined to see your beliefs in a certain way it doesn't mean they have any authority to interpret your beliefs for you or that they have given you any reason to take their interpretation seriously.

How you view the Jewish understanding of the Trinity, is probably exactly how we view your understanding of our belief about Jesus. Sometimes its helpful to see how our arguments look in another person's eyes.

Edited August 1, 2012 by bluebell

[Zakuska]

Opps

How can a "co-equal" person be "subject" to someone else?

1 Cor 15

27 For he (ie God the Father) hath put all things under his(ie Jesus Christ) feet. But when he(ie Prophet whom Paul is quoting) saith all things are put under him (ie Jesus Christ) , it is manifest that he(ie God the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him (ie Jesus Christ).

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him,(ie God the Father) then shall the Son(ie Jesus Christ) also himself be subject unto him(ie God the Father) that put all things under him (ie Jesus Christ) , that God may be all in all.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

You are once again setting yourself up as a judge of the Latter-day Saints and if they believe in God, receive knowledge through the Holy Spirit or know Christ.

It is getting very difficult to accept you know anything about us at all.

CFR that we believe:

1) that Jesus Christ hasn’t existed eternally as God

2) that God isn’t the only God in existence (but 1 of many)

3) Jesus Christ isn’t equal with the Father

5) was begotten in the flesh by the father

CFR that the Bible teaches

4a) Jesus Christ created everything including the devil

Please use our doctrines (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants - and throw in General Conference addresses for good measure) and not some anti-Mormon screed.

Ok so answer my questions then....

1+3) Do you believe Jesus has eternally existed as God - with all his atributes and power. Or do you believe he was once an intelligence that has gotten to the state he is now in?

2) Do you believe there are other beings of Gods in existance other than the Father or is there only 1 being of God in existance?

4) Do you believe Jesus created the Devil or is he a spirit son of the Father as the Devil is?

5) Do you believe Jesus incarnation began with his conception in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit or by an act of the Father?

They are all simple questions. If you can't go with one of my statements then you can make up one of your own to explain.

[djholmess]

How can a "co-equal" person be "subject" to someone else?

1 Cor 15

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

They are co-equal in their attributes but in the working out of salvation Father, Son and Spirit have taken on different roles.

So as we see in Philippians 2:5-6

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,^[a]6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Jesus did not 'grasp' equality with the Father (even though it was his by right) but rather in redemptive history he humbled himself so that as we read a few verses later "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

So in redemptive history we see that the three persons of the Trinity - or the three persons of the one being of God have taken on different roles in how redemption will be brought about.

Edited August 2, 2012 by djholmess

[Zakuska]

Still waiting...

Another way that Jesus divinity is demonstrated is through the fact that He shares in the glory of God – the glory which is due to no other thing in existence.

Isaiah 42:8

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 48:9-11

For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was

<snip>

So according to you God will not give his Glory to another being "in all of existance" yet... isn't that exactly what John/Jesus says he did?

John 17

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.According to this God won't give his Glory to another yet he gave it to the Son and then the son gave it to the disciples?!

Why is God contradicting himself?

[djholmess]

Despite one of the tenets of Trinitarianism, Judaism still sees it as polytheism masquarading as a monotheistic religion.

Not that what a Jewish person believes about your faith should matter to you, but hopefully it will help you to understand that just because a different religion is determined to see your beliefs in a certain way it doesn't mean they have any authority to interpret your beliefs for you or that they have given you any reason to take their interpretation seriously.

How you view the Jewish understanding of the Trinity, is probably exactly how we view your understanding of our belief about Jesus. Sometimes its helpful to see how our arguments look in another person's eyes.

But the difference is that we claim to share the same scriptures and derive our understanding of who Jesus is from the same scriptures. I would be happy to agree with a Jew that from their scriptures monotheism is clearly taught, I would then point them to the NT where this concept is kept but the nature of God is further revealled.

[djholmess]

Still waiting...

So according to you God will not give his Glory to another being "in all of existance" yet... isn't that exactly what John/Jesus says he did?

John 17

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.According to this God won't give his Glory to another yet he gave it to the Son and then the son gave it to the disciples?!

Why is God contradicting himself?

I'm off now, but i will explain how I understand this when I get back.

[bluebell]

But the difference is that we claim to share the same scriptures and derive our understanding of who Jesus is from the same scriptures. I would be happy to agree with a Jew that from their scriptures monotheism is clearly taught, I would then point them to the NT where this concept is kept but the nature of God is further revealled.

A Jewish person would be as impressed by you using the NT to explain a 'further revealed' God as you would be right now if we were to attempt to use the Book of Mormon to explain further revelations to you.

They would want you to use ONLY the scriptures they believe are truly scriptures, just as you do with LDS. You would be forced to use the OT alone to prove your points.

[Vance]

My apologies, I thought you understood the trinity and were intentionally misrepresenting it. From your above quote is seems you don't understand.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a summary title for 3 clear biblical teachings;

1) There is only 1 being of God in existence

The problem here is that is NOT what the Bible teaches. That is ONLY your interpretation of certain portions of the Bible. Nothing more.

2) There are three persons (not beings) who all share the being of God

The problem here is that is NOT what the Bible teaches. That is ONLY your interpretation of certain portions of the Bible.

3) The persons are co-equal and co-eternal

I have already shown that Jesus disagreed with the "co-equal" part. We agree on the "co-eternal" part.

[Vance]

I have copied your list (to save for later) and they are all certainly things for me to look into. However 1) I derive my theology from the Bible not men 2) going on our past conversations I don't trust that you are actually representing any of these quotes..hence why I am intrested in looking into them myself.

1) You derive your theology based on preconceived notions read into your interpretation of the Bible. Not from the Bible.

2) The point is that your definition of "monotheism" doesn't align with the pre-trinitarian Christian concept of God. Jesus being the "Second God" should be a clue for you.

Clearly pre-trinitarian Christians didn't accept the doctrine of the trinity/monothesism as you are presenting it. That begs the question, "Were they Christians?"

[Vance]

Don't you mean the "persons" are co-equal and co-eternal?

If they are co-equal, why does Jesus say.

"My Father is greater than I"

Freudian slip there. LOL!!!