First Word of Jesus was repent

[Cor]

Hi, This is somewhat my experience. But the input they put in has that output. So if you want to change the output you have to change their?

Repentance and forgiveness of sin would be preached in Jesus name, that sounds like a reference to the kingdom.

For it also at His name people will bow.

What is it that their foundation is layed upon? Is it believing what He did to secure salvation[heaven when one Dies] or is their foundation Jesus Christ....His name in my view would be about who He is. From a passage I read...and I need to find that Sunday School book when people came to enlightenedment if who He was they had to bow down. This type of humbling from recognizing who you are not in the presence of God in my opinion is a form of repentance.

But people have not imputed the foundation that Christ is the son of God that came from heaven and was before us all. So this may be why they do not turn to Him in repentance but turn to as foundational what He did to secure their salvation. And so it this renders a different output of ideals and therefore course of behavior patterns

That is the first thing...John was preaching...Repentance for the kingdom was at hand. And one cannot have a kingdom without a king.

It sound like if you want to enter The kingdom you must accept the king. Repentance made them ready to receive their king. They had to be in the right Spirit in their minds to receive. Most likely I would rethink how I was living , which recognizes I'm a sinner. Yet there were pharasees that came to John to be Baptized and why was it John refused to Baptize them at that moment? They would have done it out of religiosity. Not because they truly believed they needed forgiveness or such....For why then does John tell them to bring forth fruit of repentance and do not say Abraham is your father. I would say because You cant come asking for something without the right heart. Meaning you cant come to Jesus any kind of way. Were they humbled if they believe just because they were biologically Abraham's seed they would inherit the blessings? What were they missing?

Yes they could come to him as they were dirty sinners, but in which way could they not? IN THE WRONG ATTITUDE.

Example might be: you cursed your mom and dad because you could not get what you wanted. And now you want something else and you go back to them. Have you first tried to mend what you broken? Have you even asked for forgiveness or confessed your sins, have you even showed fruits that you were wrong? Trying to change your attitude.

 

[Cor]

Great question! In man's eyes it is something unattainable, but in the eyes of the Father, it is being covered by the blood of His dear Son.

Depends on context...when something is full grown, or takes on its purpose, maturity

 

[Mattathias]

What is your understanding of the difference between the meanings of the words yachid and echad in the Bible?

In regard to “echad,” I commented in post #192 and post #193 on counting in Biblical and Modern Hebrew. I began addressing “yachid,” in post #194 and continued on that subject in post #195. I‘ll build on them in this post.

The Strong’s number for “yachid” is H3173. The Strong’s number for “echad” is H259. Hebrew Lexicon’s confirm that both Hebrew words are singular and both are numeric.

Are you saying that you don't know how many people are speaking in this verse?

No. I commented previously that there is only one person speaking in that verse. You replied that there are two persons speaking. I remarked that there are several ways we could determine whether there is one person or two persons speaking. The first way is by asking, and answering, the question: When did these last days begin?

If you know, then just tell me who you think is speaking.

As I said previously, the speaker is the Father.

I wasn't going out of my way to be rude. It was an honest thought.

I don’t doubt that your comment was driven by an honest thought. It came across as rude. I was raised to keep thoughts to myself when saying or writing them would harm others. I strive to “treat others as you would have them treat you” in words and actions. (I assume that as a Christian you do, too.) Unfortunately, and for a variety of reasons, I’m not always successful in executing that upbringing. I could point to many comments I’ve made with good intentions which would have been better left unsaid; relationships and conversations have ended due to

The 2 categories of "the First and the Last...

-Biblically, how did you come to that conclusion?

What do the phrases “Alpha and Omega,” “the First and the Last” mean? Years ago I heard a commercial on the radio where the phrases were used by a plumbing company. The catch phrase, as best I recall it now, went like this: “When it comes to plumbing, we are the alpha and omega, the first and the last. Give us a call. We do it all...for less than the other guys.” There was also an implied message that the company‘s competitors within the parameter of plumbing services didn’t possess that same ability.

How did I biblically come to the conclusion I did? First, I read others who came to that conclusion. Second, I evaluated their conclusion and agreed with them that there are some things the human Messiah did that his deity, the deity, his Father didn’t. And of course, vice versa. This difference places them in different categories.

The human Messiah is “the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last“ in everything we know about him in the human category.

The deity, the human Messiah’s God and Father, is ”the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last” in everything we know about him in the deity category.

No, I am not, and neither is any consistent Trinitarian.
When we say "Jesus is God" What we mean is that Jesus is Devine. We are not saying that Jesus is identical with that being which is God (which I would suggest is the whole Trinity). And Jesus is not identical with the whole Trinity, He is one member of the Trinity. Everyone who understands the doctrine understands that when Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are called "God", three Gods are not postulated because those are not identity statements. Those are predicate statements. Those statements predicate the properties of those persons, namely, the property of being Devine.

When asked, most people will say that what they are relationally (ex. father, son, brother, cousin, grandfather, husband, etc.) and what they do (ex. teacher, doctor, lawyer, salesman, etc.) are indispensable descriptors of who they are.

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is a human person? I have to go out for a while. I’ll explain why I’m asking you this question when I return. It’s fine with me if you want to wait until I provide an explanation. It’s also fine if you want to respond to the question before I return.

 

[Mattathias]

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is a human person?

The question is related to your phrase “consistent Trinitarian”.

When I mention in conversation with Trinitarians that scripture presents Jesus as a human person, the response is almost always that it does. If I go on to ask if that’s what Trinitarianism teaches about Jesus, the response is almost always that it is.

If instead I ask, “Are you aware that Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is not a human person?”, the response is almost always denial. This happened recently on CC, in the “Incarnation of God” thread.

The “Are you aware” question was hotly challenged. I posted links to two Trinitarian sources to support the historic orthodox Trinitarian position. I’m reposting the links here if you’re interested.

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/is-jesus-a-human-person

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

What I ran into in the “Incarnation of God” thread (and elsewhere over the years) is a “claimed orthodoxy“ (for lack of a better term) which teaches that Jesus is a human person, rejecting historic Trinitarian orthodoxy which teaches that Jesus is not a human person. Jesus can’t be a human person and not be a human person. He must be one or the other.

If a person who self-identifies as Trinitarian sees Jesus presented in scripture as a human person, believes that orthodoxy teaches that Jesus is a human person, and rejects historic orthodoxy which teaches that Jesus is not a human person, then aren’t we witnessing a modern-day renewal of the 4th century struggle to define orthodoxy?

 

[Funkus]

one good thing about orthodoxy is that everyone can pretend to agree while also having distinct views. that function of orthodoxy is to provide a nominal peg to hang your hat on so everyone is basically able to agree even if they think different things, all they have to do is share the same desire to prove their views are orthodox and other people can accept them while still disagreeing

 

[Diakonos]

Hebrew Lexicon’s confirm that both Hebrew words are singular and both are numeric.

Do you understand the difference between lemma and manuscript?

No. I commented previously that there is only one person speaking in that verse. You replied that there are two persons speaking. I remarked that there are several ways we could determine whether there is one person or two persons speaking. The first way is by asking, and answering, the question: When did these last days begin?

Could you list all the ways you would determine that? (with the conclusions).

How did I biblically come to the conclusion I did? First, I read others who came to that conclusion. Second, I evaluated their conclusion and agreed with them that there are some things the human Messiah did that his deity, the deity, his Father didn’t. And of course, vice versa. This difference places them in different categories.

The human Messiah is “the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last“ in everything we know about him in the human category.

The deity, the human Messiah’s God and Father, is ”the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last” in everything we know about him in the deity category.

When I say "Biblically" I'm asking for chapter and verse responses. Biblically, how does one come to the conclusion that there are 2 categories of "the First and the Last". I.e. 2 Firsts and 2 Lasts?

When asked, most people will say that what they are relationally (ex. father, son, brother, cousin, grandfather, husband, etc.) and what they do (ex. teacher, doctor, lawyer, salesman, etc.) are indispensable descriptors of who they are.

Yes, I am aware that a single person can wear many hats and be called may things. For example, I am a brother, a son, a cousin, a teacher and a student. But these different names that I (a single person) possess do not communicate with each other. My title's don't have conversations with themselves, because they all are different names for the same person (Me). People talk to other people.
But in the Bible, we see the members of the Godhead have conversations with each other. It's not Him talking to Himself. For example, in Psalm 110 David said that Yahweh said to Adonai "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet....You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek."
Who is God (the Father) speaking to?

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is a human person?

Of course, I do. (But that is only part of what I believe...I happen to believe that Jesus has 2 natures (100% Divinity and 100% humanity).
"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many" (Rom 5:15)

You never responded to the fact I pointed out: Jesus forgave people's sins.
How can anyone but God forgive sins?

 

[Mattathias]

Do you understand the difference between lemma and manuscript?

Yes.

Could you list all the ways you would determine that? (with the conclusions).

In all the ways I would approach the question, the conclusion is the same. In the passage we are discussing, the speaker is only one person, Yahweh, God, the Father - Jesus’ God.

The question: When did these last days begin?

Answer: The first century A.D.

Follow-up question: When did God began speaking to us in his son?

Answer: The first century A. D.

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”

(Hebrews 1:1-2 NASB)

When I say "Biblically" I'm asking for chapter and verse responses. Biblically, how does one come to the conclusion that there are 2 categories of "the First and the Last". I.e. 2 Firsts and 2 Lasts?

When I asked you what the phrase meant, I anticipated that you would respond with an answer. While waiting for your response - I’m still waiting for you to comment on what the phrase means - I used a secular illustration of categories within a job function.

Yes, I am aware that a single person can wear many hats and be called may things. For example, I am a brother, a son, a cousin, a teacher and a student. But these different names that I (a single person) possess do not communicate with each other. My title's don't have conversations with themselves, because they all are different names for the same person (Me). People talk to other people.

My point is that people commonly equate their titles with their identity; the titles of others with the identity of others.

You have acknowledged that the title “theos” doesn’t identify all persons having that title ascribed to them in scripture as the deity of Israel.

Countless times I‘ve heard people say “Jesus is God” because that is a title ascribed to him in scripture. That, they say, settles the matter - the title is equated with his identity.

But in the Bible, we see the members of the Godhead have conversations with each other.

So says trinitarianism.

It's not Him talking to Himself.

How many selves is God?

If “God Himself” is three persons, then it is Him talking to Himself.

If “God Himself” is one person, then it is not Him talking to Himself.

For example, in Psalm 110 David said that Yahweh said to Adonai "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet....You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek."
Who is God (the Father) speaking to?

This is another of the ways that I would use to determine who the speaker is in the Isaiah verse we’ve been discussing.

The speaker in Psalm 110:1 is Yahweh. God. The Father. Jesus’ God. However, the Father is not speaking to “Adonai“; he is speaking to ”adoni“.

The Hebrew word “adoni” occurs 195 times in the OT. It is always used in reference to someone who isn’t God himself.

Psalm 110:1 “Yahweh (the personal name of God) said to my lord (Heb. “l’adoni”) ...”

Who is “God (the Father)“ speaking to in Psalm 110:1? He is speaking to unnamed human person. The NT identifies that human person as Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Of course, I do. (But that is only part of what I believe...I happen to believe that Jesus has 2 natures (100% Divinity and 100% humanity).
"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many" (Rom 5:15)

Please see post #204.

You never responded to the fact I pointed out: Jesus forgave people's sins.
How can anyone but God forgive sins?

I did respond. I said that the people marveled that God (I’ll add here, “Himself, Yahweh, the Father“) has allowed that function of his to be exercised by a man.

 

[garee]

Repentance for the kingdom is at hand. That is a living commandment that must be obeyed.

Its that work of God which turns us toward God not seen. So that in turn we can repent and comfort ourselves. This is in so much that when we deny Him as faithless mankind God cannot deny those he has begun the good work of salvation in . (Philipian1:6)

Its like the commandment study to show oneself approved to God .Its not just a god suggestion but a work that can work in a believer to both will, give us his understanding and do, empower us by him who does dwell in these earthen bodies .

He gives ears to hear his loving commandments as a will .

A beautiful gospel commentary on repentance .

Jeremiah 31:18-20 King James Version (KJV) I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. (childishness faithless )

Two turning or works of repenting. First Christ to comfort his own-self and then to comfort us

20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord.

Not a work we can without him moving us to turn towards Him .he is not served by human hands. .We walk or move by faith .It is shown in the parable below.

Acts14: 7-10 And there they preached the gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked: The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.

Faith working in action . . I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord.

 

[Blik]

I believe His first message is found here...

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

That is a message to His parents, not a statement about what His message to all people was. Matthew tells us Christ began His ministry by a message to repent.

That is the message of the gospel. We are to take our sins to Christ who will wipe us clean of the sin, but we are to take the sin to Him not aim to keep the sin. That is what repent means.

 

[Mattathias]

When I say "Biblically" I'm asking for chapter and verse responses. Biblically, how does one come to the conclusion that there are 2 categories of "the First and the Last". I.e. 2 Firsts and 2 Lasts?

You indicated in post #206 that you believe Jesus was/is a human person. I assume that it’s not necessary for me to post chapter and verse to persuade you that scripture presents him that way to us.

Do you acknowledge that “human person” describes a category of being?

Do you acknowledge that “deity” describes a category of being?

Does scripture acknowledge a distinction between categories of being? Surely it does. Do we really need to post chapter and verse for one another before we can agree that it does? Aren’t the words, “plants,” “animals,” ”people” and “God” sufficient to satisfy us that the Bible refers to multiple categories of being?

”Biblically,” there are two persons (the Father and Jesus) who are each called “the First and the Last”. The phrase is a title shared by God and Christ. (See our discussion on titles in general, and shared titles in particular.)

 

[Diakonos]

Yes.

Then you also know that lexicons only provide information about a word's base meaning. For example, if you looked at 1 Tim 2:13, Paul gives the first of two reasons that women are not to exercise authority over men: "Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα".
If you only used a lexicon, this is the translation you will get: "For Adam first form, then Eve." What does that mean? Does it mean that Adam was doing the forming, or does it mean that Adam was the one formed? Well, it's unknowable if a lexicon is the only tool a person uses for translation. The lexicon doesn't tell us the stem, case, person, voice, tense, whether it's transitive or not, temporal/non-past, etc. The only way of knowing with certainty is if one knows the language. I can tell you that ἐπλάσθη is nominative, aorist, passive, indicative, third-person, singular. That means that it is an action done in the past, Adam is the subject of the clause, and the action was done to Adam, not by Adam...because He is receiving the action (passive verb tense). Adam (was) form(ed). The lexicon would telly tell you "Adam form".
This demonstrates that merely using a lexicon will only tell you the general meaning of a word. But it cannot inform you whether a word is singular, plural, dative, genitive, singular, plural, infinitive, aorist, pluperfect, hiphil, qal, subjunctive, nominative, passive, active, transitive, etc...
Word studies are nearly useless without syntax studies.
So echad is "singular" in its base meaning. But It's conjugated meaning is altered depending on how an OT author uses the word. For example, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh".
That is a unity of 2 people. I.e. 2 people, 1 unit.

In the passage we are discussing, the speaker is only one person, Yahweh, God, the Father - Jesus’ God.

Then what is the role of "and is Redeemer" in that verse? If He is not also speaking, then what is He doing?

When I asked you what the phrase meant, I anticipated that you would respond with an answer. While waiting for your response - I’m still waiting for you to comment on what the phrase means - I used a secular illustration of categories within a job function.

I don't remember what phrase you asked me about. Can you remind me? I am not interested in secular reasoning. The question was: "Biblically, how do you come to the conclusion that there are 2 categories of 'the First and the Last'? I.e. 2 Firsts and 2 Lasts."

Who is “God (the Father)“ speaking to in Psalm 110:1? He is speaking to an unnamed human person. The NT identifies that human person as Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

By your own admission, The Father spoke to Jesus (The Son) in the Old Testament. That means that Jesus (The Son of God) existed before he was born of the virgin Mary.

Please see post #204.

Jesus can’t be a human person and not be a human person. He must be one or the other.

Do you acknowledge that “human person” describes a category of being?
Do you acknowledge that “deity” describes a category of being?

No, I do not.
It would be ridiculous to say that Jesus is "human" and "not human". Trinitarians do not make this claim. We say that Jesus has 2 natures. He is human and divine. We acknowledge that He has always been divine and that human nature was added to Him in the incarnation.
Being divine does not mean "not human". Some make that assumption. It means possessing the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, worthy of worship, etc. If "divine" meant "not human", then we could start calling cats "divine"...which they would probably like us to do, haha.

the people marveled that God (I’ll add here, “Himself, Yahweh, the Father“) has allowed that function of his to be exercised by a man.

Actually, it just says "they were all amazed and were glorifying God".
But to comment on your interpretation of this:-
-Yes of course the people glorified the Father. That was Jesus' goal. Jesus constantly was seeking to glorify the Father. He did this to show us by example how we are to live and who we are to serve. The members of the Trinity, render honor to each other because honor is due to all three. Jesus glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son. The mystery of the Trinity (along with 6 other mysteries) was hinted at but ultimately hidden until the new covenant. (not enough time to go into this discussion. For more info, you could search something like "the 7 mysteries revealed in the NT".

the Father has allowed that function of his to be exercised by a man.

You need to read the whole context. Jesus said, "The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins" (Himself). This means that when Jesus said "child, your sins are forgiven", He wasn't telling him that the Father forgave him. Jesus forgave the man's sins.
5 And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,
7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?

(Side note- 1 Chr 6:30...Only God knows the hearts of men)

9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’?
10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He *said to the paralytic,
11 “I say to you (not the Father), get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”
12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God (The Father), saying, “we have never seen anything like this.”

 

[Mattathias]

Then you also know that lexicons only provide information about a word's base meaning. For example, if you looked at 1 Tim 2:13, Paul gives the first of two reasons that women are not to exercise authority over men: "Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα".
If you only used a lexicon, this is the translation you will get: "For Adam first form, then Eve." What does that mean? Does it mean that Adam was doing the forming, or does it mean that Adam was the one formed? Well, it's unknowable if a lexicon is the only tool a person uses for translation. The lexicon doesn't tell us the stem, case, person, voice, tense, whether it's transitive or not, temporal/non-past, etc. The only way of knowing with certainty is if one knows the language. I can tell you that ἐπλάσθη is nominative, aorist, passive, indicative, third-person, singular. That means that it is an action done in the past, Adam is the subject of the clause, and the action was done to Adam, not by Adam...because He is receiving the action (passive verb tense). Adam (was) form(ed). The lexicon would telly tell you "Adam form".
This demonstrates that merely using a lexicon will only tell you the general meaning of a word. But it cannot inform you whether a word is singular, plural, dative, genitive, singular, plural, infinitive, aorist, pluperfect, hiphil, qal, subjunctive, nominative, passive, active, transitive, etc...
Word studies are nearly useless without syntax studies.
So echad is "singular" in its base meaning. But It's conjugated meaning is altered depending on how an OT author uses the word. For example, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh".
That is a unity of 2 people. I.e. 2 people, 1 unit.

Every standard Lexicon I’ve seen confirms that “echad” is singular and numerical, while also confirming that the singular, numerical sometimes modifies a plural. 2 people can certainly be 1 (“echad”, singular, numerical) unit (collective noun, plural).

1 unit/team is numerically 1 (”echad”, singular, numerical) unit/team (collective noun, plural).

The number of people there are on the unit/team (be it 2, 10, 123 or any other number of your choosing) doesn’t change the singular, numerical meaning of ”echad”.

Then what is the role of "and is Redeemer" in that verse? If He is not also speaking, then what is He doing?

The Father is the only one speaking in the verse. The Father saves his people by redeeming them.

I don't remember what phrase you asked me about. Can you remind me?

The phrase I asked about is “the First and the Last”.

I am not interested in secular reasoning.

Then why do you use analogies when posting to me?

The question was: "Biblically, how do you come to the conclusion that there are 2 categories of 'the First and the Last'? I.e. 2 Firsts and 2 Lasts."

I attempted to reason with you from the Bible. I see categories of being expressed throughout scripture.

Trinitarianism taught me that Jesus is located in two categories of being: God and human. Neither trinitarianism nor the Bible taught me that God and man is the same category of being.

By your own admission, The Father spoke to Jesus (The Son) in the Old Testament.

Yes, I admit that the Father spoke to Jesus (the Son) in the Old Testament.

That means that Jesus (The Son of God) existed before he was born of the virgin Mary.

The Father spoke prophetically to Jesus (the Son) in the Old Testament. That means that Jesus (the Son of God) was foreknown by the Father before he was born of the virgin Mary.

God knows people and events in his foreknowledge before they literally exist.

No, I do not.

I do. I’m truly surprised that you don’t. I’ve discussed this with hundreds of people over the years, from diverse faith traditions inside and outside of Christianity, and even with people who were agnostic and atheist. You’re the first person I’ve encountered who answered “no“ in response to those two questions. That in itself doesn’t make you wrong; it makes you unique in my experience.

It would be ridiculous to say that Jesus is "human" and "not human".

Trinitarianism taught me that Jesus is both God (not human) and man (human). How many times down through the ages have trinitarians said “God became a man”? Too many times to count. In order to become a man (human) one first has to be someone who is not a man (not human).

We say that Jesus has 2 natures. He is human and divine. We acknowledge that He has always been divine and that human nature was added to Him in the incarnation.

See again post #204. The links provided there are to orthodox Trinitarian sources explaining precisely why Jesus is not a human person in historical, orthodox trinitarian doctrinal teaching.

I‘m fine with you rejecting what they said. All I will say about it is this:
1. It’s what trinitarianism taught me in the church I was raised in (Southern Baptist);
2. It’s what trinitarianism taught my wife in the church she was raised in (Roman Catholic);
3. Acceptance by some trinitarians and rejection by other trinitarians is a demonstration of inconsistency.

You need to read the whole context. Jesus said, "The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins" (Himself). This means that when Jesus said "child, your sins are forgiven", He wasn't telling him that the Father forgave him. Jesus forgave the man's sins.

Who gave him this authority? His God. The Father.

(Side note- 1 Chr 6:30...Only God knows the hearts of men)...

In addition to being the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Jesus is the prophet like Moses whom his God promised to raise up from among his people.

 

[Mattathias]

See again post #204. The links provided there are to orthodox Trinitarian sources explaining precisely why Jesus is not a human person in historical, orthodox trinitarian doctrinal teaching.

I‘m fine with you rejecting what they said. All I will say about it is this:
1. It’s what trinitarianism taught me in the church I was raised in (Southern Baptist);
2. It’s what trinitarianism taught my wife in the church she was raised in (Roman Catholic);
3. Acceptance by some trinitarians and rejection by other trinitarians is a demonstration of inconsistency.

I began the discussion about Jesus not being a human person in orthodox trinitarian doctrine in post #204. The links I referred to above (post #212) are actually contained in my continuation of that discussion in post #205.

 

[Mattathias]

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/is-jesus-a-human-person

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

I read an article this evening titled, “Is Jesus a Human Person?” The Catholic author writes, “...one of our readers could not get past how we can say that Christ was truly human and fully man and yet not a ‘human person‘“.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-jesus-a-human-person

The author then goes on to explain how Jesus is not a human person.

I read a second article this evening titled, “Is Jesus the Christ a Human Person? Think before you answer that question.” http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/human.htm

The Catholic author begins by writing,

“I asked that question of so many of my friends recently and almost all, save for only one, gave me the wrong answer. Some even became indignant for my even asking the question. Why they became indignant, I have no clue. Nevertheless it is an important question about the person of Christ.

1. Is Jesus the Christ a human person?
2. Is Jesus the Christ a Divine person?...”

After walking us through various early church councils, the writings of ancient trinitarian scholars and scripture, the author concludes the article by providing the correct answers to these two questions.

”Is Jesus the Christ a human person. NO! Holy Scripture has clearly instructed us that He could not be a human person.

”Is Jesus the Christ a Divine person? YES! Holy Scripture has clearly taught us that He is a Divine person.”

 

[garee]

No, I do not.
It would be ridiculous to say that Jesus is "human" and "not human". Trinitarians do not make this claim. We say that Jesus has 2 natures. He is human and divine. We acknowledge that He has always been divine and that human nature was added to Him in the incarnation.
Being divine does not mean "not human". Some make that assumption. It means possessing the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, worthy of worship, etc. If "divine" meant "not human", then we could start calling cats "divine"...which they would probably like us to do, haha.

He is human powered with divine.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

I would suggest the word Jesus is not a reference to flesh and blood. It means; savior. Jehovah is referred as Savior.

Jesus Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God, the Son of God provided the power within Jesus the Son of man ,.

Jesus the Son of men as a prophet, apostle was sent with words of the father that worked in Jesus' earthen body of death .he did not do the corrupted will of the flesh.

The power was not of Him. Again .Jesus did not do the will of the flesh .When the father would rebuke the spirit of Lies .He would put his words on the mouth of the Son of man. Like in Mathew 16 . Rebuked the devil and the Lord not seen forgave Peter of his blasphemy against the Son of man all in one breath .

A distinction must be made between the Devine (things of God not seen) and the temporal (things of corrupted mankind seen )

It is where and when the father of lies can get his foot in the door to sell his lying wonders .(things of men seen or that of God not seen

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mathew 16:22-23

There our Father is instructing the spirit of error to get under the control of Him not seen, the law of of Christ's faith, not Peter seen used as one of the many antichrists. ( false teachers)

2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

 

[Mattathias]

Of course, I do.

From an essay titled “The Incarnation of Jesus Christ”, published on February 7, 2020, by the St. Philip Institute of Catechesis and Evangelization. The author writes,

”In my experience as a catechist, I have found there is a desire to know Christ more but also that there are many misunderstandings about what has been revealed. As an example, some people are shocked to learn Jesus Christ is not a human person.”

https://stphilipinstitute.org/2020/02/07/the-incarnation-of-jesus-christ/

I don’t know if you’re shocked or not, Diakonos. I don’t mind telling you that I was when I learned it.

Based on many years of personal experience, I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority of trinitarians haven’t learned it. I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the clergy.

 

[Mattathias]

Of course, I do. (But that is only part of what I believe...I happen to believe that Jesus has 2 natures (100% Divinity and 100% humanity).
"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many" (Rom 5:15)

Continuing on the subject of trinitarianism teaching that Jesus is not a human person. The following quote is from an article titled “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”, written by William Lane Craig, a Southern Baptist.

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person... There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-worship-of-jesus-idolatry

There is no human person named “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Every “consistent Trinitarian” (to borrow your phrase) should be saying this.

 

[Diakonos]

Every standard Lexicon I’ve seen confirms that “echad” is singular and numerical, while also confirming that the singular, numerical sometimes modifies a plural. 2 people can certainly be 1 (“echad”, singular, numerical) unit (collective noun, plural).

1 unit/team is numerically 1 (”echad”, singular, numerical) unit/team (collective noun, plural).

The number of people there are on the unit/team (be it 2, 10, 123 or any other number of your choosing) doesn’t change the singular, numerical meaning of ”echad”.

I think I can agree with this. We agree now that echad is not only used to describe a single person/thing, but it also is used of units (of more than one person/thing). Because even numbers have singular and plural forms. This means that the numerical meaning of echad depends on how it is conjugated....which happens to be plural in the shema.

The Father is the only one speaking in the verse. The Father saves his people by redeeming them

It says The LORD and His Redeemer.....says " ........"

I attempted to reason with you from the Bible. I see categories of being expressed throughout scripture.

Trinitarianism taught me that Jesus is located in two categories of being: God and human. Neither trinitarianism nor the Bible taught me that God and man is the same category of being.

Just because you see two categories, doesn't mean there are. You have to reason with the scriptures, rather than just stating that you see two categories.
Do you understand the difference between identity statements and predicate statements?

The Father spoke prophetically to Jesus (the Son) in the Old Testament

That is an assumption, not derived from the passage

I do. I’m truly surprised that you don’t. I’ve discussed this with hundreds of people over the years, from diverse faith traditions inside and outside of Christianity, and even with people who were agnostic and atheist. You’re the first person I’ve encountered who answered “no“ in response to those two questions. That in itself doesn’t make you wrong; it makes you unique in my experience.

I have met many Trinitarians who are not consistent and are not scriptural at every point. I'm sorry if you assumed I was in agreement with all of them. I don't get my doctrine from men.

Trinitarianism taught me that Jesus is both God (not human) and man (human. You Whatever version you learned was wrong and not Biblically consistent.

In order to become a man (human) one first has to be someone who is not a man (not human).

Yes absolutely! great logic. The Divine added humanity to His nature....resulting in a 2 nature. I think where people get confused is when they assume that "human" necessarily means "not divine". Any consistent trinitarian should not say "Jesus switched from God to man"...No...but rather "Jesus added to Himself a human nature". As the creed says "Jesus Christ...truly god and truly man".

orthodox Trinitarian sources explaining precisely why Jesus is not a human

I am not an orthodox trinitarian. I am sorry you and your wife were taught an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

Who gave him this authority? His God. The Father

So you're saying that Jesus merely possessed the qualities and abilities and attributes of the Devine, but is not Divine?...because the Father gave him authority?
I mentioned earlier that Jesus was put to death because He claimed to be Devine (equal with the Father) and it was treated as blasphemy. But you rejected the idea. Take a look at this verse:
“I and the Father are one.” (Greek equivalent of echad)
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”
The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

In addition to being the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Jesus is the prophet like Moses whom his God promised to raise up from among his people

Prophets can do amazing things. But never anything like "knowing the hearts of men" as Solomos said only God Himself can do.

 

[Mattathias]

I think I can agree with this. We agree now that echad is not only used to describe a single person/thing, but it also is used of units (of more than one person/thing).

We’ve been in agreement on that point from the beginning.

Because even numbers have singular and plural forms.

What are the singular and plural forms of the number 2?

This means that the numerical meaning of echad depends on how it is conjugated....which happens to be plural in the shema.

“Echad” is singular in the Shema, just as it is in every occurrence in scripture.

It says The LORD and His Redeemer.....says " ........"

”This is what the LORD, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts, says: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God besides me.”

(Isaiah 44:6 HCSB)

This is the God of Jesus, the Father, speaking, not the the Father and Jesus speaking.

Just because you see two categories, doesn't mean there are. You have to reason with the scriptures, rather than just stating that you see two categories.

I tried to reason with you from the scriptures.

That is an assumption, not derived from the passage

”In this royal psalm the psalmist announces God’s oracle to the Davidic king.” - NET note on Psalm 110.

The psalm is messianic. Jesus of Nazareth, we learn in the NT, is the Davidic king. This is the Father’s oracle to the Messiah, Jesus.

I have met many Trinitarians who are not consistent and are not scriptural at every point.

Not at all uncommon in my own experience with trinitarians.

I'm sorry if you assumed I was in agreement with all of them.

I didn’t assume that you were in agreement with all of them. I assumed that you were in agreement with historical orthodox trinitarianism. I see now that that was a false assumption on my part.

I don't get my doctrine from men.

There is no developed doctrine of the Trinity presented in the Bible.

Yes absolutely! great logic. The Divine added humanity to His nature....resulting in a 2 nature. I think where people get confused is when they assume that "human" necessarily means "not divine". Any consistent trinitarian should not say "Jesus switched from God to man"...No...but rather "Jesus added to Himself a human nature". As the creed says "Jesus Christ...truly god and truly man".

The second person of the Trinity took upon himself impersonal human nature. (So says historical orthodox trinitarianism.)

Is a trinitarian who rejects historical orthodox trinitarianism a consistent trinitarian?

I am not an orthodox trinitarian.

Thank you for making that clear to me.

I am sorry you and your wife were taught an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church teach the historical, orthodox view of trinitarianism.

In summary,

Me: The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church teach the historically consistent, orthodox, view of trinitarianism.

You: The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church teach an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

Your position begs the question: By name, which trinitarian Church denomination(s) rejects the historical orthodox view of trinitarianism and teaches a consistent view of trinitarianism?

So you're saying that Jesus merely possessed the qualities and abilities and attributes of the Devine, but is not Divine?...because the Father gave him authority?

I’m saying that Jesus functions as Yahweh, by the authority of Yahweh.

I mentioned earlier that Jesus was put to death because He claimed to be Devine (equal with the Father) and it was treated as blasphemy. But you rejected the idea. Take a look at this verse:
“I and the Father are one.” (Greek equivalent of echad)
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”
The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

The Messiah stands in God’s place. He functions as God. He is, as one theologian calls him, God’s final envoy.

IF Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah was false then he blasphemed by making the claim; he would have been bearing false witness against God.

Unbelieving Jews rejected him; they refused to believe that he is the Messiah raised up and sent by God. To reject Jesus is to reject the one who raised up and sent him.

Believing Jews accepted him; they believed that he is the Messiah raised up and sent by God. To accept Jesus is to accept the one who raised him up and sent him.

Prophets can do amazing things. But never anything like "knowing the hearts of men" as Solomos said only God Himself can do.

God can reveal to anyone he chooses what is in the heart of another man.

 

[Diakonos]

What are the singular and plural forms of the number 2?

I misspoke. I meant to say "Numbers have plural forms." "two" is plural by nature." "One" is the only number that can be singular and plural because of the composite option.

“Echad” is singular in the Shema, just as it is in every occurrence in scripture.

Um actually, echad is used in the plural in many places: Genesis 11:1; Genesis 27:4; Genesis 29:20; Ezekiel 37:17; Daniel 11:20, etc.

”This is what the LORD, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts, says: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God besides me.”

(Isaiah 44:6 HCSB)

What's your point?

I tried to reason with you from the scriptures.

I know you tried. The issue is that at some point you have to anchor your position with at least 2 Scriptures (witnesses) that don't require any unitarian assumptions as a supportive text. All of your deflections have been with Scripture that requires some kind of Unitarian explanation for it to make sense in your doctrinal position. But you have (and cannot) provide an independent scripture that
1. affirms unitarianism without contradiction another passage
2. doesn't need a unitarian prerequisite assumption.

”In this royal psalm the psalmist announces God’s oracle to the Davidic king.” - NET note on Psalm 110.

The psalm is messianic. Jesus of Nazareth, we learn in the NT, is the Davidic king. This is the Father’s oracle to the Messiah, Jesus.

And....?
At one point in Israel's history, God wanted to be Israel's king, but Israel wouldn't have it. Does that mean that God wouldn't be God because if He is a king? Of course not. Taking on a role doesn't negate the properties of one's character of being. These are foolish and weak attempts to say that God doesn't mean what He said. The whole counsel of God declares the equality of 3 persons. We know this by faith. "It doesn't make sense" is not a legitimate argument as some think it is.

I didn’t assume that you were in agreement with all of them. I assumed that you were in agreement with historical orthodox trinitarianism. I see now that that was a false assumption on my part.

Glad we're on the same page about that now

There is no developed doctrine of the Trinity presented in the Bible.

Well, it is hinted at, but revealed clearly in the NT. Because it was hidden from past generations.
The Bible says there are 3 distinct people...and that these 3 people are Divine. These 3 people show up as a unit of 3 in the NT on several occasions (not a coincidence).

You: The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church teach an inconsistent view of trinitarianism.

I take each statement case by case. I cannot speak for an entire denomination. I can tell you if a statement is Biblical, not a people group. I've been to churches that profess to believe a doctrine when they actually do not. You don't actually know if a church is trinitarian until you visit their church and listen to the teaching.
I will say this...God doesn't like the idea of denominations and labeling ourselves according to them.

I’m saying that Jesus functions as Yahweh, by the authority of Yahweh.

That is dangerous reasoning.
If "God" allows another to function as "God" ...Then how would you know that the Father is really God? Couldn't He just be someone called "God" and who functions as God and another is really the higher being? Its called the fallacy of infinite regress. The one who functions the president is the president. The one who functions as the king is the king. The one who functions as God is God.

The Messiah stands in God’s place. He functions as God. He is, as one theologian calls him, God’s final envoy.

IF Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah was false then he blasphemed by making the claim; he would have been bearing false witness against God.

Unbelieving Jews rejected him; they refused to believe that he is the Messiah raised up and sent by God. To reject Jesus is to reject the one who raised up and sent him.

Believing Jews accepted him; they believed that he is the Messiah raised up and sent by God. To accept Jesus is to accept the one who raised him up and sent him.

Jesus did claim messianic status in other passages, but here in these verses, He didn't claim to be the Messiah...He claimed to be God.
You said earlier that when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" meant that they were one in purpose (or something similar). But The Jews wouldn't have responded the way they did if that's what that meant to a Jew. Making a claim like "being one" with the Father was a claim to divinity, hence, their urge to stone Him. Being "one (in purpose)" with the Father wouldn't be blasphemy, it what we all should be. We should all be in line with the Father in our activities.

God can reveal to anyone he chooses what is in the heart of another man.

1. He can, but He doesn't. Solomon clarified that. "You alone know the hearts of men."
2. This is proven by the active tense of the verbs attributed to Jesus in these verses about His omniscience: "Jesus knew their thoughts"... "knew"=active tense, meaning it was direct knowledge, not revealed to Him by the Father.
If it was revealed, it would have been a passage verb because the action would be done to Jesus (but it wasn't).
"I saw you under the fig tree" "saw"=active tense.

Jesus has direct knowledge about things only Yahweh knows. Direct knowledge means no one taught Him this knowledge.

Jesus is Yahweh, no way around it