Announcing a Trinity Debate
August 13th, 2010 by Sean
Who is God? Is there any other question more important than this? Is God a singular individual or a multi-personal being? Has the Church been duped into settling for a philosophically sophisticated substitute in the place of the simple God of Judaism? Should Jesus be worshiped and if so how? Is the Holy Spirit a distinct person or is it/he just a way of talking about God’s presence in the world. These questions and many more demand satisfying and cogent biblical answers. To that kingdomready.org is hosting a written debate between Danny Andre’ Dixon and Marc Taylor. Each entry will be 1500 words or less posted each Tuesday and Saturday between August 17th and October 2nd. Everyone is welcome to participate in this debate by leaving comments on each post. We cannot guarantee that Mr. Tayor or Mr. Dixon will read your comments, but they very well may, depending on how many comments are made and how busy they are preparing for their next post. Please be sure to follow our Communication Policy when making comments.
Resolved: The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone God Almighty
Affirm: Danny Andre’ Dixon
Deny: Marc Taylor
1a) Tue, Aug. 17: Dixon: First Constructive Statement
1b) Sat, Aug. 21: Taylor: Rebuttal2a) Tue, Aug. 24: Taylor: First Constructive Statement
2b) Sat, Aug. 28: Dixon: Rebuttal3a) Tue, Aug. 31: Dixon: Second Constructive Statement
3b) Sat, Sept. 4: Taylor: Rebuttal
4a) Tue, Sept. 7: Taylor: Second Constructive Statement
4b) Sat, Sept. 11: Dixon: Rebuttal5a) Tue, Sept. 14: Dixon: Five Questions for Marc
5b) Sat, Sept. 18: Taylor: Answers to Questions
6a) Tue, Sept. 21: Taylor: Five Questions for Danny
6b) Sat, Sept. 25: Dixon: Answers to Questions7a) Tue, Sept. 28: Dixon: Concluding Statement
7b) Sat, Oct. 2: Taylor: Concluding Statement
 Marc Taylor graduated from Sacred Heart University with a B. A. in Political Science and from Southwest Bible College and Seminary earning an M. A. in Christian Education. He has taught English as a Second Language in Japan, South Korea and in the Philippines where he currently resides. Marc is a member of the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry where he has debated Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Marc participated in another written debate with strict monotheistic Danny Dixon on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (from June-October 2006). Click here to read a transcript of the debate in its entirety.
|
 Danny Andre’ Dixon is a Graduate of Abilene Christian University (B.A. Biblical Studies, M.A. Bible and Related Studies) and of Grand Canyon University (M.Ed. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). He has served churches as a youth minister in Las Vegas, Nevada; a campus minister in Blacksburg, VA to students at Virginia Tech, in St. Louis, MO to students at The University of Missouri at St. Louis (a college ministry of a city-wide church planting effort), and in Los Angeles to students at UCLA, USC, and Santa Monica College. He is author of four books: Discipling Ministries: An Inside Look (1987), Essential Christian Baptism (1990), Standing to Change/Changing to Stand (1993), and Baptism: Which One Did You Receive (1996). Danny has participated in two previous panel debates on topics related to the oneness of God: Trinity Truth or Tragedy with members of the Evangelical Debate Society (2005 and 2006). Danny has participated in three summer evangelistic mission efforts in off-hours of a 9 a.m.-12:00 noon Teaching English as a Second Language effort in Novgorod, Russia (2007, 2008) and in Astana, Kazakhstan (2009). Danny is presently a high school teacher of 12th English Literature at Fort Stockton, from which base he also directs a teen discipleship ministry DFOG, Disciples For One God–Clarifying Teen Discipleship, a ministry of HungerTruth Christian Educational Ministries. He has been moderator of the Yahoo Discussion Group Disciples For One God since 2003.
|
To access the most recent debate post click here. Please help us publicize this debate by posting this link on other blogs and message boards.
This is a much better format than the “Great Trinity Debate” between Rob Bowman and Dave Burke. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Setting up a format that promotes fairness and that also engages the readership is always a challenge. The 1500 word limit is really a challenge to the debaters to get to the point in laying out each respective case.
I am a schoolteacher right now with a full teaching schedule from roughly 8 a.m. To 4 p.m. I will also be assisting the tennis team at our high school (although I am not the head coach). In addition, I coach the debate team for the school. Adding to all of that my daily lesson plans and grading assignments makes participation in this debate all the more challenging.
I am not sure if we are allowed by Sean to respond to comments that readers make. If we as the formal debaters ARE allowed to do so, exercising the prerogative to do so would make this a truly unique event.
–D.A.D.
You and Marc are certainly free to engage with any comments that are made on this blog.
Shalom Danny, looking forward to your exchange!
Joseph, do I know you from C.A.R.M. As long ago as 2006?
Sean,
I find the picture interesting. It reminds me of a diagram I once drew on paper which came about by thinking about how some trinitarians seem to think about what they call the Trinity. It was drawn by considering what it is that many of them have said and also putting in it what we learn from scripture.
The views seem to be in conflict for when one read on the outside
it was contrary to what one reads while following the paths on the inside of the triangle.
I don’t read Latin or Greek, or whatever it is in the picture.
Would someone please interpret the words in the picture?
I think I know what the words are saying but don’t know which word corresponds to which word in English.
Isn’t it like saying a Ford is not a Chevy, a Chevy is not a Plymouth,
a Plymouth is not a Ford, when we read the paths on the outside, and then on the inside we read something like, a Ford is a car, a Chevy is a car, a Plymouth is a car.
Now we know that there is no such thing on this planet as one car.
I suppose we could say that Jesus is distinct from the Father, but there is a sense in which Jesus is God and that sense is because he is as God is, sharing the same character and nature of the one true God. Jesus may be called a God, because among the gods, (those who have received the word of God -Psalm 82, Jesus is the greatest and deserving of a capital “G”, which is not in contradiction to the fact that there is only one God.
But without the help of a good interpretation, the picture is confusing. It could be interpreted rightly and the interpretation be wrong because the picture is wrong, or I suppose we could interpret it in some kind of way that is slightly different than the actual picture and I suppose the result of the interpretation could be correct.
So I don’t know if the picture is a good represention of the truth or not. I trust I can say that without a good interpretation it is at least without value, and if it has no good interpretation it is useless.
If we could interpret it with just and right words we could put them in, though we might need a larger picture and have to write smaller. Yet, if we did, it might be useful for the work of the kingdom of heaven, to help poor pilgrims along their way.
The picture reminds me of a car I saw recently at a custom car show.
The car was called a “789″. It was a custom build on a Corvette chassis. The body parts were made of carbon fiber. The front was a replica of a ’57 Chev Bel Air, the middle of a ’58 Chev (like the white one on American Graffiti) and the rear part was of a ’59 Chev, the kind with the laid down fins.
The people that make them have made quite a few of them and may be making more. Lots of people at the show liked it. I liked it too. But that doesn’t mean everybody has to like it.
It wasn’t required at the show that everybody like it in order to attend the show. We didn’t stand together and recite any kind of
creed about it. It was just there. It was there because some artist
and car enthusiast built it. I suppose it’s what he imagined when he put it together.
But there was no book that I know of that required him to do it.
There was not book that told him how to do it before he imagined it. I wonder if anyone ordered him to do it. Maybe he did it to please somebody. Maybe somebody wanted a car like that so they came to him.
I wonder if that picture is what God wanted. I wonder if he said, “This is a perfect picture of me.” I wonder if he told someone do do it and see what comes of it.
I don’t think it’s for everybody. Not everyone has to agree with the picture in my opinion. Some might like it and others may not.
That’s my opinion.
Danny,
No, we met when I confronted you a couple years ago about if I could add Hebrew subtitles to the ‘Human Jesus Documentary.’
Get a hold of me… josephvardit@yahoo.com
Ray,
I think you understand the picture correctly. It’s a graphical depiction of classical Trinitarianism. It also shows that classical Trinitarianism is NOT modalism.
So, according to the diagram and the dogma, the Father (Pater) is not (non est) the Son (Filius), is not the Holy Spirit (Spiritus Sanctus, abbreviated Spus Sat) and the Holy Spirit is not the Son. But all of them, according to the diagram is God (Deus).
This is obviously not Biblical Theism. The diagram does not, for instance differentiate between God as nature or God as the Being. Trinitarians also equivocate when they say that all three are “God.” This qualitativeness of full Godhood is never used in Scripture, hence its hybrid foreignness to Scripture.
Jaco
Just added bios and pictures for both Danny and Marc (see post above)
Also, let’s publicize this debate…please drop this link around on the internet.
It seems that I don’t necessarily agree with classical Trinitarianism represented by the picture that says “The Father is not The Son. and The Father is not The Holy Spirit, for isn’t the Father as the Son, and The Holy Spirit as The Father.
Ray
Do you believe that at some point in time God the Father created his Son (the Messiah) Yeshua/Jesus in his own image in order to completely and fully reflect his (the Creator’s) character and nature???
Created? Well, I wouldn’t word it that way (i.e. “the Father created his Son”). I’d say that at some point in time the Father gave the Son life, and the Son was in the Father’s image or form reflecting the Father’s character and nature.
John 5:26
John 6:57
Danny
I’m not really sure what you mean. You said, “I’d say that at some point in time the Father gave the Son life.”
If the Father gave Yeshua/Jesus life then it would seem that before this he wasn’t alive yet. In other words there was a point in time when Yeshua/Jesus (although foretold of) did not exist. When someone is brought into existence are they not at that point created???
I don’t mean to be argumentative, but that’s just the way I see it…
I think you understand me perfectly. I am saying that at some point in pre-human time the one we know as “The Word of God,” Yeshua/Jesus did not have life or existence. Then God “fathered him” in a way that made him mongenes “unique” or “one of a kind” among the sons of God.
Danny
Sorry but I don`t understand you perfectly. What your saying doesn`t seem to make much sense to me. Let me see if I got this right. You are claiming that Yeshua/Jesus pre-existed as the “Word of God”, but at this point didn’t have life or existence. How can someone pre-exist and yet at the same time not have existence???
The way I see it the “Word of God” or “Wisdom of God” pre-existed from the beginning and was made manifest in Yeshua/Jesus. 1st. Peter 1:20-21 Peter says, “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.“
The definition I found of manifest – verb (used with object) – to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly. From my point of view by saying Jesus `was made manifest in the last times` is the same thing as saying God created Jesus in the last times. I am not a scholar or an expert, but like I said this is just the way I see it…
Danny
I just read your 2nd. Unitarian Constructive (3a). I now have a much clearer understanding of what it is you are trying to say.
It would appear you are an Arian in your beliefs, in that you believe Yeshua/Jesus pre-existed before his birth in Bethlehem and lived for a time (unspecified) with the Father (Creator). You also seem to believe that at one time Yeshua/Jesus was a deity (a God) although somehow less of a deity (or God) than his Father, God Almighty (the Creator), and that he gave up his deity to become flesh (human).
I am a Socinian in regards to my beliefs and I believe that Yeshua/Jesus did not exist (other than being foretold/or planned) before his birth in Bethlehem. I mainly get this from the OT prophesies regarding the coming Messiah. Since the subject of this particular blog is about whether God the Father is a singular individual or a multi-personal being, it probably would not be appropriate to discuss this issue here on this string.
By the way, I am a Biblical Unitarian, and I agree with you that God is a singular individual and that his son Yeshua/Jesus is a unique being separate from the father. The Trinity doctrine (which in my opinion is not really a doctrine at all, but is actually just a human opinion) never did make very very much sense to me.
If you want to continue our discussion on whether Yeshua/Jesus pre-existed or not, perhaps we can switch over to another string that is more appropriate for this kind of discussion. Like you said we Unitarians do have differences between ourselves in regards to various details regarding the Son, Yeshua/Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord and Savior.
I think the article entitled “Five Options in Christology” dated June 21st. 2010 would probably be a good string to continue this conversation (if you wanted to that is). May the peace of God be with you and with all of us…
DT:
While I believe what I belive, I can honestly say that I’ve never read anything by Arius. So I’m not an Arian. I get my views from a rather simple reading of Scriptures. I can see how you can get your views from a slightly more complicated or interpretative view of some of the same scriptures.
I’m a little busy now with various things. Let’s correspond by email and see how things go. BereanDAD2010@yahoo.com
Thanks!
Danny Dixon
Danny
You are not the only one that has never read anything written by Arius. All of Arius’ writings were destroyed near the end of the 4th. century. Just like all the writings of the Jewish Christians were destroyed around this same time frame. I can appreciate that you just believe what you believe. I am the same way. It just so happens my beliefs seem to fit perfectly with what the Socinians believe. Unfortunately I do have some beliefs in addition to that which most Socinians do not agree with.
I would prefer to discuss this openly on a blog where other people with more knowledge than myself can intervene and correct either of us or give advice to either of us. I have a lot of respect for the people on this blog. In my opinion they are very knowledgeable and are not judgmental. We actually have a few regular bloggers here who appear to have Arian beliefs like yourself.
Ray and Margaret are the only two I know of for sure, but there might be a few more out there that I am not aware of.
BTW – You are doing a great job on the debate…
So when did God give the Son to have life within himself?
It seems to me that it could have been long after he was alive.
When you say that the son is not “god” but “divine” based on one interpretation of John 1:1, are you saying he is a “DIVINE MAN”? Did the angels who presented themselves in human form to mankind from time to time–did they cease to be angels and become human because they took on the form of flesh when they visited earth? I mean this seems to be what I am understanding you to say of Jesus/Yeshua that when he was in heaven he was the word, but when he came to earth in the form of human flesh he was just a man–a divine one–but just a man. When he returned to heaven and took the throne at the right hand of god, he is a man is what I think I am understanding. So, once those angels who visited Hannah, etc in the form of flesh returned to the heavens, are they now men? The scriptures say that we entertain angels unaware, and I don’t think they were talking simply about a person delivering a message because we would KNOW when it was a PERSON delivering a message, do those angels who come in the form of flesh re-enter the heavenly with the status of “just a man” (with the possibility of divine status). I am trying to wrap my brain around the understand of man but divine. I mean Adam was created “in the image of god”; is he divine?
Lorna:
Your question from above is answered in speech 2b at comments 13 (your restatement) and 14 (my reply).
If it takes me a little bit to respond, I am moving, so I will probably be enroute. Next week I will have to return for a bit in preparation for a court case. I’m am obviously no scholar, but I like this way of doing things. Every one is respected and you don’t have 25 post from one person and then that person telling someone to just shutup when the another person responds once or twice to their 25:) I appreciate this type of setup even if we don’t all agree. I like the idea that everything is posted so that if I am misunderstood or misunderstand somenoe I can interact instead of making accusations. That’s just my way of introduction even though we don’t all agree. So, if I don’t get back quickly, I may be getting my ducks in a row–not ignoring you, or maybe I don’t know the answer and time to look around:)
Lorna
I like to think that God is most interested in the way that we treat the people we disagree with rather than the way we treat the people we agree with. After all everyone can be nice to the people that agree with them. I also like this format. Good luck moving.
BTW if you put a space before your happy face:) it comes out better …..
Anthony Buzzard’s trinity debate vs. White/Brown is now online at:
http://www.jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_thisWeek
Part 1 will be televised all week on the TBN channel and affiliates. Check your local guide.
Xavier,
I have just listened to the introduction of the debate. I hope to also listen to the later episodes thereof.
Hopefully the following instalments of the debate will not have interruptions from the other panel. I see here already a trend of special pleading and equivocation:
Special pleading: Dr White draws the distinction between dying and ceasing to exist. Typical of trinitarians wishing to redefine language as we know it. However they want to describe and differentiate between ways of dying (how utterly preposterous), the Bible speaks of dying, period. Regardless of the mechanics, God cannot undergo the event the Bible describes as dying. Dying implies ceasing to exist. When Yeshua declares that into God’s hands he surrenders his spirit, he uses the euphemism for daying, as can also be seen in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. Dying involves the surrendering of one’s spirit. It happens to all humans. That is also what happened to Yeshua – something that the Bible says CANNOT happen to God, regardless of one’s linguistic acrobatics.
Equivocation: When repeating White’s invention that God is three Who’s in one What (he’ll regret ever saying it…), Brown interrupts with the observation that there is no neuter gender in Hebrew. In other words, something we view as having gender is in fact impersonal. Take note, is impersonal. Syllogistically it goes like this:
First premise: Some personal references are not truly personal
Second premise: All references to God are personal references
Conclusion: All references to God are not truly personal.
Fallacy: Undistributed Middle Term. (If a phenomenon occurs in some instances we cannot conclude that it occurs in all instances in a specific case)
The major problem with this bold statement is that all referrences to God in the OT and NT are to be ignored. All the depictions of God being a Someone, are to be rejected as a mere personification of a divine something (blood-curdling blasphemy in my opinion). All revelation to be ignored so the post-biblical non-Christian invention of the trinity can triumph…how God-exalting…Then Brown takes on Anthony on the “personality” of the Word. In effect, Brown is asking, how Anthony can insist on the personality of Elohim/Theos, while rejecting the personality of the logos. The equivocation exists in that Elohim/Theos per se implies personality. By revelation and the cognitive world of the ancient Jews, Elohim/Theos was a Someone. Logos by definition implies non-personality, even though grammatical gender is given it. Brown doesn’t compare apples to apples. He uses the truth of one matter (impersonality of the logos) and applies it to a totally different matter (personality of God).
The trinis used John 1:14 in stating that God tabernacles among us. So, who dwelled in the tabernacle? If Jesus is God, who dwelled in him? Wrong questions…it was the divine word of God who dwelled in the tabernacle, Jesus. The transcended God, Yahweh, interacted and made himself present by means of his logos, wisdom or divine agents. This utterly disproves the incarnation theology, in that the word, not the God, underwent ensarkosis or enfleshment.
Divine agents were sometimes worshipped, other times not. Jesus was given proskyneo on earth, as was various other agents of God. In Jesus’ post-exalted state he is included in doxologies, in requests for help and in hymns about him. In comparison to the only true God, the various aspects of worship mentioned above in which Jesus was included dwindle greatly. Honoring Jesus meant honoring Someone else, namely his Father. As this dynamics did not make Jesus identical to his Father, neither should they make him identical to God.
The typical problem I have with debates like these is that the trinis are masters of disguise. They obviously play by a different rule book than we do. Maybe it is just the training in formal logic I received, but trinis commit one astonishing fallacy after the other. Should we be shaken by their schemes? No way! The more we listen to them, the more we see how ragged their doctrinal fabric truly is. We should all be all the more studious, reading as much as we can on the topic from distinguished non-dogmatic sources in the field.
Any thoughts?
Jaco
Xavier,
I just watched the video link in your message. I have never heard of the ‘Jewish Voice’ before. It’s great to see that there are so many Messianic Jews around. I noticed Dr. White said that at Yeshua’s/Jesus’ death that the full wrath of God came down on him, so that he could die (pay the price) for our sins.
If Yeshua/Jesus was actually God (in the 2nd. person), then I don’t understand how anyone could believe that the full wrath of God could possibly have come down on God. Is God sadistic??? This just seems nonsensical to me. I know this video was just a highlight of the debate, but from what I saw the Trinitarian side appeared to be the more convincing of the two.
Of course the Jewish Voice people got to pick which part of the debatge to highlight, and since they readily admitted (right after the clip from the debate) that they believe in a triune God, it’s not to hard to see why they picked this particular clip to highlight in their television broadcast. For one thing, during this clip, about 75% of the talking was done by the two Trinitarians.
Of course I’m just a humble layman, but that’s how I see it anywaze…
Jaco,
You asked, “Any thoughts?”
I’m just wondering what the word ‘proskyneo’ means above???
I’m also wondering where I can listen to the entire introduction to the debate???
Guys,
Thomas,
Proskyneo literally means to “kiss before” someone or something, used to describe the gesture of paying homage or obeisance to a superior. Proskyneo was given to God, to kings, angels, superiors, Daniel, Jesus, even to the saints in Revelation 3:9. It was also given to God with another human in the same glorious environment (1 Chron. 29:20). The status of the superior predetermined what kind of honor was given in the act of proskyneo – not the other way around, as the trinis fallaciously claim.
I think one will only be able to listen to the entire debate on the DVD(I’m not sure). You might want to find out for certain from Xavier.
I was not impressed by the format thusfar, although I have my reservations as to whether the Jonathan gentleman was a full-fledged trini.
Jaco
Jaco
Sometime ago I wrote an article with this point of fact. Let me know what you think… http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/09/immortal-longing-by-carlos-xavier.html
And notice that when Anthony reiterates that God is not an “it” but a “He” Brown agrees! So why bring out that point regarding the Hebrew/Greek in the first place?
Something they ignore time and time again. The biblical fact that God’s qualities [Logos, Wisdom etc.] are not literal, preexistent “persons” alongside the one God in some “time before time”. Clear Gnostic connotations of this interpretation have been lost. As J.A.T. Robinson notes in his excellent work The Human Face of God, mythological/ontological categories that were made up:
Robinson later states that “the sole question is how to express this identity of the divine with the human. Is it effected by God’s joining a (second) human nature to his own, or is it by his using, acting through, a man?” I think the biblical evidence points to the latter.
DT
I just came back from attending a One God Conference in Germany where we met [for the first time] a group of unitarian Messianics. And to tell you the truth they were some of the rudest, aggressive bunch of “Christians” I have yet to encounter. I think Messianic Jews, especially of the trinitarian kind, are traitors to their own cause. If JPaul called the Judaizers of his day “dogs, evildoers, mutilators of the flesh” [cf. Phil 3] I shudder to think what he would make of these people.
As of yet we have not been able to get the full 2hrs+ show. Hopefully soon. Just watched part 2 and it is as obnoxiously bad as the first! :/
Xavier,
Why were the Unitarian Messianists so rude? What was the occasion where you saw their rudeness? Did you see Wolfgang who also post here from time to time?
Jaco
Xavier,
Where did you find the second part?
Hey guys/gals
Just uploaded an exclusive clip from the recent Jewish Voice debate…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJqxg2prGtE
What say ‘yous’?
Just to clear up, Jewish Voice Ministries International is a Jewish Messianic group who holds to the doctrine of the Trinity. As expressed in their website:
http://www.jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=find_WhatWeBelieve
Also, check out this exposition by spokesperson, Jonathan Bernis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNuiIt1QNY&feature=player_embedded
Jaco, and all
yes, Xavier and I did meet at the conference. As far as I know, J Dan Gill will post some video/audio at his website “21st Century Reformation” (http://www.21stcr.org/)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier (msg. #30),
You said, “I just came back from attending a One God conference in Germany where we met (for the first time) a group of unitarian Messianics. And to tell you the truth they were some of the rudest, aggressive bunch of ‘Christians’ I have yet to encounter.”
I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn them. It could be a cultural thing. I watched this show once about young (non-Messianic) Jews in a religious school. The students were paired off into groups of two in order to study the Torah. They would take each scripture and aggressively argue with one another about the meaning. They were so aggressive they were almost yelling at one another.
Every so often the teacher (who appeared to be a Rabbi) would come walking around and say few words to settle the dispute and then move on to another pair of arguing students. As soon as the Rabbi left they would move on to another scripture and begin aggressively arguing (almost yelling) all over again. The Rabbi actually seemed to encourage this extremely aggressive behavior among his students.
Of course, since they weren’t Messianic Jews, they probably didn’t know anything about what both Yeshua/Jesus and Peter had said about being humble and reverent when defending your beliefs. It appeared to me that this Rabbi believed that this aggressive behavior was the preferred method of defending one’s beliefs to other people. I’m not sure if this is typical of all Jewish religious schools, but it would certainly seem to explain the behavior that you had said you observed at the conference.
If these Messianic Jews had this aggressive behavior ingrained in them at a young age (as the proper way to defend one’s beliefs), then it would probably be very difficult to teach them that there is actually a better (more Christian) way to defend one’s beliefs. Of course I wasn’t there and can only go by my limited knowledge and experience on the subject.
I find David (who is a Messianic Jew who posts here regularly) to be very humble, polite and reverent. However, I’m not really sure if he is a fair representation of the majority of Jews or not. Like I said my experience with people of the Jewish faith is very limited…
DT
So all Jews [Messianic or not] are like that?! :/
I think there is OT, as well as NT, precedence for a person of God being humble, patient and loving towards others DT [i.e. "the meek shall inherit the earth", Abigails' behaviour towards David, Joseph towards his brothers, etc.].
Xavier,
You are probably right. Like I said, “My experience with people of the Jewish faith is very limited.” It’s just when I heard you describe these unitarian Messianics that you had met at the One God conference, it reminded me of the behavior of these young students of the Torah, that I had seen in this show that I watched. From my point of view these students seemed very rude and aggressive as well.
I still don’t understand why the Rabbi seemed to encourage such rude behavior…
hi
a short comment about “the rudeness of messianic Jews”.
From what I could gather, it seems that Xavier made reference to an incident at the conference in Germany (which happened while I was not present and about which I later informed myself by asking various participants), where a small group of 3 individuals “misused” a time of testimonial and sharing to propagate their apparently rather strict and unusual doctrine and practice of their messianic Jewish group. One of three was a rabbi who did not even get to speak because his 2 collegues used up the time they had, and thus he got upset and made some rude remarks, etc …
There were other messianic Jews at the conference, who were more in number than those mentioned 3, who behaved quite orderly and decently, who were very considerate and cooperative with me as the responsible person for organizational matters … for example in regards points involving their beliefs about sabbath keeping and dietary considerations (the conference was from Fri – Sun and thus did involve a sabbath day).
To put perhaps a little perspective on things, I would like to mention that in the past I have regularly experienced members of “Christian groups” who at times behaved just as rude if not worse … interrupting a teacher in the middle of a teaching or sermon, yelling and screaming and throwing a fit because of something they did not agree with and about which they felt they needed to “take a stand” in pointing out the preacher’s error publically.
I also have experienced teachers who were quite forceful and outright in making fun of other groups in their sermon, ridiculing other groups’ beliefs, etc …. Now, I would consider such to be rude, and since it is coming from a teacher, I would think that such should be considered worse than what comes from people in an audience.
From what I have been able to gather regarding the incident at the conference (being not personally present, see above), my conclusions are that the situation could have perhaps been handled better, but that the rudeness of these people to me was not like “worse than I ever saw”, but was like “have seen this and worse before” … I view such as a challenge to exercise fruit of the spirit, such as longsuffering, patience, kindness.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
I was giving people my personal experience and opinion. Goes without saying, I am sure you will find such behavior [and worst] from other so-called Christians.
PS: Personal thanks to you [and Werner] for putting this thing together. Your work and dedication I am sure will not go unrewarded. I hope people on here do not get the idea that the whole conference was bad due to this topic.
When, oh, when are we going to have another debate??? It’s been quite a while, hasn’t it???
Jaco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jut7FNEJZKM