Dan O’Connell

Researcher: @BereanBlueprint | Bible exegete | Entrepreneur | Scuba diver | #OnePride

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

Sketching 𝔓52 via Procreate on the iPad. Testing out the blueprint drawing/design tools. Featured as a facsimile on @joerogan by @WesleyLHuff, and became one of the most interesting papyri fragments of the New Testament. #ManuscriptMonday

“What is truth?”
—Pontius Pilate

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

The claim that “No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian…” only holds if you demand the precise 4th-century philosophical formula (“one essence, three co-equal persons”). But as New Testament scholar Matthew Bates demonstrates in his book 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦, the earliest Christians including Paul and the author of Hebrews—already believed in the relational reality of one God existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternal, intimate fellowship. Through prosopological exegesis, they heard real inner-divine conversations in the Old Testament: the Father speaking to the preexistent Son (e.g., Psalm 110:1). This wasn’t a later invention. It was how first- and second-century believers understood the apostolic proclamation. The later creeds simply clarified and defended what was already present in Scripture and early Christian worship.

[Daniel @Oluwadaniel_0]

"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “Persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

If this is true, then I’d have to ask: What was Paul talking about in Romans 1:1-4?

Paul being a Jew, and a Pharisee, was most likely familiar with the Old Testament. He was educated “at the feet of Gamaliel” (who was also an expert of the OT). And yet, Paul makes this opening statement concerning Christ in his epistle to the Romans.

Romans 1:1-4—𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭, 𝘢 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘥-𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴, 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦, 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥,
2 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙃𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙃𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙩𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙮 𝙎𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙥𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨,
3 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙃𝙞𝙨 𝙎𝙤𝙣, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩,
4 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥…

[The Ex-Believer @TheExBeliever]

Let me remind everyone on here, Jesus failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy. Period. That’s another reason I had to reject Jesus and Christianity.

[Chris Hohnholz @Chris_Hohnholz]

#PrideMonth is nothing more than the world openly celebrating its defiance of God and his design for sex and sexuality. It is the world declaring their intent to thrust God from his throne and seat themselves upon it. Only Scripture is sufficient to define sexuality (see below).

[Berean Blueprint @BereanBlueprint]

In his 2001 NAPS paper 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝐵𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑚: 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡, Michel Rene Barnes challenges the standard scholarly view that early Christian “binitarianism” refers primarily to a theology of the Father and the Son (with the Spirit often collapsed into the Son via spirit Christology). Instead, he argues for a significant early strand of binitarian thought focused on the Father and the Holy Spirit, rooted in shared Jewish-Christian pneumatology evident in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Drawing on Jewish traditions of “angel pneumatology” (e.g., Isaiah 63, Ascension of Isaiah, Origen’s Hebrew sources) and the “sent Spirit” in prophecy and inspiration (Josephus, Montanism, Shepherd of Hermas), Barnes shows strong continuities between Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. He concludes that robust doctrines of the Holy Spirit characteristically appear in Jewish-Christian circles (such as Syriac Christianity with its feminine Spirit and “family” model), while anti-Jewish-Christian theologies tend toward weaker pneumatologies—thus reframing binitarianism as sometimes Father + Holy Spirit rather than exclusively Father + Son.

[Josh Hawley @HawleyMO]

The idea that a 2-year-old girl who doesn’t play with dolls must be trans is ridiculous

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

Bottom.

[The Gun Enthusiast @gunenthusiast01]

Top or bottom for CQB?

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 (from Greek prosōpon = “person/face”) is an ancient Christian reading strategy. It identifies the true speaker and the addressee in OT texts (esp. Psalms) by assigning divine “persons” (prosopa), seeing the human author (e.g. David) speaking prophetically in the person of Christ or the Father under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:3 is one example.

[Bill Swerski @billswerski1985]

Trinitarians have been fighting today over whether the Trinity Doctrine is mentioned in scripture. 👇It’s another good day to be a Unitarian unbound by extrabiblical creeds 🍿🍿🍿

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

@BrysonGray Romans 4 = Faith Alone

[Philosophy Of Physics @PhilosophyOfPhy]

According to the laws of physics, the universe tends toward disorder. Yet, within these microscopic boundaries, particles organize into cells, defying chaos to create structure, purpose, and life. Every cell is a tiny, beautiful rebellion against entropy.

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

The core reality of what we call the Trinity (one God existing as three distinct, co-eternal, divine persons in intimate relationship — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was recognized and worshiped long before the philosophical formula “one essence/substance (ousia), three persons (hypostases)” was fully refined at Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381).

The earliest Christians (especially Paul and the author of Hebrews) arrived at this understanding so quickly and deeply: through prosopological exegesis of the Old Testament.

[Thoughtful-Faith @ThoughtfulSaint]

No one in the first century believed in the Trinity.

Saying it’s a required belief for a Christian is crazy.

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

I’ll recant my previous statement on the ambiguity. I’ll admit there’s still some ambiguity in the verse when it comes to the English punctuation. That’s why I referenced Murray J. Harris. He devoted an entire chapter to it in his book and carefully examines every punctuation option, every grammatical nuance, and every contextual argument from both sides. In his analysis, the evidence strongly favors applying ‘God’ to Christ by weighing the Greek data. If the grammar pointed the other way, I believe he would say so. Dismissing the exegetical case as mere ideology ignores the actual linguistic reasoning.

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

@BrysonGray Bryson, who’s the “blessed man” in Romans 4:8?

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

@PracticalTheolo @Carlcarlhanson Speaking of context, George W. Carraway’s dissertation provides an in-depth study on Romans 9:5 in the context of chapters 9-11.

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

Lol. I’m absolutely aware that ChatGpT and other chatbots alike are going to recognize the debate between the interpretations of this verse. However, Paul had one intended meaning, and so the question is: What interpretation is highly probable? Scholarship leans towards the Christological interpretation. Recommend checking out Murray J. Harris’ book 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝐺𝑜𝑑. Harris goes into great depth exegetically and discusses each side of the debate along with the Greek word by word.

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

@BrysonGray Who’s the “blessed man” in Romans 4:8?

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

@PracticalTheolo Right, I understand the argument for v.5b serving as a doxology for God the Father. However, the Greek substantival participle [ὁ ὢν] “ the one who is” makes Christ the true referent.

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

@PracticalTheolo It’s not ambiguous when you get to the Greek. Do you want to discuss the Greek grammar involved?

[Dan O’Connell @Danuscript]

Marie-Josèphe Rondeau (French patristics scholar) and Bernhard Neuschäfer (German classical philologist) are the two most important modern authorities on Origen’s prosopological exegesis.

[Berean Blueprint @BereanBlueprint]

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐿𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟: 𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑛’𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐻𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑠, by Andrea Villani (published August 2025), re-examines Origen’s use of prosopological exegesis—the technique of identifying speaking characters (prosōpa) in Scripture—in light of the recently discovered Greek Homilies on the Psalms. Villani demonstrates that Origen adapted classical Alexandrian Homeric scholarship methods, especially lysis ek tou prosōpou (resolving textual difficulties by reference to the speaker) and rhetorical prosopopoeia, to solve apparent inconsistencies in biblical texts by determining who is speaking, to whom, and when speakers change. After reviewing prior scholarship (notably Rondeau and Neuschäfer) and outlining Origen’s theoretical foundations from the Philocalia, the article focuses on examples from the new homilies, particularly Homily 77Ps 1, where Origen uses speaker shifts to reconcile Matthew 13:35’s attribution of Psalm 77 to Jesus with verses seemingly unworthy of the Savior’s dignity. Villani concludes that Origen creatively fused Greek grammatical-rhetorical tools with Christian beliefs in scriptural inspiration and multiple senses, enabling a coherent, Christological reading of the Psalms that upholds the Bible’s unity while uncovering its deeper spiritual meaning, essentially interpreting Scripture like Homer.