I haven't done a whole deep dive into this text that I stumbled upon when reading my Bible this morning, but it seems to mirror this "two powers in heaven" idea that we see during the 2nd Temple period, or at least it seems to be something similar. Please let me know if anyone knows about this reference, or if anyone else has commented on it before: In 1 Kings 19:9-14, Elijah is in the wilderness, after running away from Queen Jezebel, after she ordered the death of Elijah. Elijah makes his way to a cave after the angel of Yahweh gives him food and water. The text then says: "Then the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He answered, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away.” (1 Ki 19:9–10, NRSVue) Notice here how, when Elijah is describing the situation, very explicitly to "the word of the Lord", Elijah says "...for the Israelites have forsaken YOUR covenant, thrown down YOUR altars, and killed YOUR prophets with the sword." So, we can see here that one "subject" asks Elijah a question, and Elijah responds to that subject, attributing the covenant, altars, and prophets to that same subject. The text, however, doesn't stop there: Then (very importantly) the word of the Lord tells Elijah to "...go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." We could derive a similar 2 Powers motif from this part alone, but I think there is even stronger support if we continue. Then Elijah hears and sees a great wind, an earthquake, and a great fire, but the text says that the Lord was not in any of them. The Lord was, however, in the "...sound of sheer silence." Now, interestingly, the exchange between Elijah and the LORD is the exact same exchange that we see between the word of the LORD and Elijah: What are you doing here, Elijah?” He answered, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword."

On May 30th, I'm doing a presentation on the Christian Apologetics network on ancient heretical Christian groups. Instead of showing merely that these heresies are not biblical, or that the Trinity is orthodox, I've decided to take the approach of showing why these heresies are NOT apostolic. I think one way to advance the case for the Trinity being implicitly taught by the Old Testament/intertestamental communities is to demonstrate the counterfactual connection, that the same "implicit teaching" cannot be likewise said of the ancient Christian heresies. Any reading/research recommendations that would aid the above "counterfactual argument?" My preliminary research shows that refuting Walter Bauer's influential thesis is essential. He basically theorized that heresy arose before orthodoxy in Christian communities, and is arguably the foundation for low Christological theories for modern higher critics (of the likes of Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, etc.). TA Robinson's "The Bauer Thesis Examined" is only available in hard-copy, but I have a pdf of Paul Hartog's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts." I haven't taken looked at "Heresy of Orthodoxy" by Köstenberger and Kruger, since I'm generally skeptical of the findings from (presuppositional) "reformed epistemologists" by the likes of Kruger. I would think the essays provided by Hartog should be enough, but I want to double-check my blind-spots if I'm missing anything essential. Thanks!

A common objection to Nicene orthodoxy (or to any doctrinal commitment within the Nicene trajectory) is that these commitments were *invented* at Nicaea with no pre-Nicene precedent. This is completely false. It’s a myth that is largely running rampant on the internet. We need to know how to respond decisively so we’re not blindsided when the accusation comes. Here are two books you have to get your hands on, and a quick look at how they help you dismantle this argument and show just how embarrassingly bad it is.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) is widely regarded as the definitive scholarly treatment of the fourth-century trinitarian controversy. A few reasons it matters: It dismantled the old narrative of a clean “orthodox vs. Arian” fight. Hanson showed there was no unified Arian party. Instead, it was a spectrum of theologians groping toward a vocabulary for how the Son relates to the Father. It argued that “orthodoxy” itself was being constructed during the controversy, not defended from a fixed deposit. The Nicene settlement of 381 was a hard-won outcome instead of a foregone conclusion. It rehabilitated figures long dismissed as heretics (Eusebius of Caesarea, the Homoiousians) by taking their arguments seriously on their own terms, and complicated the heroic portraits of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. It remains the standard reference. Nearly every subsequent book on Nicaea, Athanasius, or fourth-century theology engages Hanson, even when disagreeing with him (e.g., Lewis Ayres, Khaled Anatolios). John Behr’s The Nicene Faith (2004, two parts) is the second volume of his Formation of Christian Theology series and covers much the same ground as Hanson, but with a very different sensibility. Why it matters: Behr reads the controversy theologically rather than primarily as institutional history. He’s interested in what the Fathers were actually trying to say about God. For Behr, the fight was a struggle over how to read Scripture christologically, especially the apostolic preaching of the crucified Christ.

Interesting

Recently, Alex O’Connor had a debate with Trent Horn over the resurrection of Jesus. Alex is known for bringing up the Book of Mormon witnesses in objection to the resurrection witnesses. He also brought up the eight witness account, the apparent martyrs and persecution of Mormon witnesses, as well as the transfiguration story of Brigham Young. I might respond to those in later posts, haven’t researched those as much. I will give some short points addressing some of the three witness account claims by O’Connor below. If we as Christians, accept as supporting evidence the witnesses of the resurrection, why not similarly with the gold plates brought forth by the Angel Moroni? Besides immediate theological objections you may want to bring up, such as the need for a restoration or the claim of the Father having a corporeal body(foundational LDS claims), let’s examine the historical basis for the three witnesses and what Alex missed or maybe doesn’t know about. The claim is that three men, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, said they saw gold plates revealed by the Angel Moroni just as Paul and other early Christian’s claimed they saw Jesus. One of O’Connors first questions, not verbatim but implied, was how do you account between the corroboration of the witness statements between Harris and the others, given Harris’ vision was away from the other two? First, I’d want to clarify what exactly he meant. Joseph’s own History of the Church provides us with the details of Harris withdrawing from the group. The other account he had originally mentioned before was the testimony of the three witnesses that was written by Oliver Cowdery, likely by command of Joseph, and was apparently signed by the other two. We only have a printers manuscript of Cowdery’s writing of the account with him signing for the other two witnesses. A prepared affidavit that presents the original experience as a group experience contrary to Joseph’s account in the church history, does not constitute a relevant type of corroboration. Joseph was the one who knew the account before it happened and decided whether Cowdery and the other two were in or not as he “received revelation” there was going to be three witnesses, inquired of God if they were to be the witnesses, and “recieved revelation” that the three were to be the witnesses (History of the Church Vol. 1 Chapter 6).