Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Help me! I'm beginning to abandon the Trinity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
    The Bible clearly states that Jesus made everything that exists, including angels. Don't pretend to be logical when you can't understand that by process of elimination, that makes Him God. You can't see the truth because you don't want to see the truth. Or, worse, you're like the devil and see the truth, but hate it. Either way, it isn't gunna end well for you unless you repent and act like what you are--God's creation.
    Where does the biblle say that Jesus made everything that exists?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
      Where does the biblle say that Jesus made everything that exists?
      John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
        As you can see, John 1:1 does not even mention "Jesus." Also the text of John 1:3 does not say all things were made by the Word, let alone that they were made by Jesus.. Here's the Koine:

        πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν .
        Here's my reading of the chapter for more context:

        https://archive.org/details/NewRecording4_20160528

        Comment


        • So fellers... can we work this from the other end? Did a man die on the cross? Was this man Yeshua / Jesus? Did "the Word" die with Him seeing that the Word was God... and God cannot die? Mystery... has anyone EVER considered that "the Word" is synonymous with the Holy Spirit? ...which is the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father. After all, it is the Holy Spirit that fell upon Mary and she became with child. :)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jeff View Post
            So fellers... can we work this from the other end? Did a man die on the cross? Was this man Yeshua / Jesus? Did "the Word" die with Him seeing that the Word was God... and God cannot die? Mystery... has anyone EVER considered that "the Word" is synonymous with the Holy Spirit? ...which is the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father. After all, it is the Holy Spirit that fell upon Mary and she became with child. :)
            θεός in John 1:1c is better translated as “a divine thing.” For apostle John, θεός with a big θ ( Θεὸς) always only refers to the Father.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
              You say that “at no time did the Father die nor the son cease to exist.” So you do understand that at no time did God ( albeit the Father ) die, but at some point in time the son ( who apparently also is God) died , though he did not cease to exist. But according to your philosophy this is true of all other humans as well. You would also say that all men die but no man ceases to exist at any time.

              It’s simple logic:

              X = to die ( no matter how you wish to define it)

              God does NOT X
              Jesus did X
              Jesus is not God
              You are determined to not understand what the other side is saying in order to burn your straw man. I can't help you with that. Burn away. We have been very clear what we mean. but that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions and narrative so you take what we say and beat it into the shape you want it to be so you can rail against it.

              You are a sad little guy Uni.

              I have this story about people like you...

              There was a guy who was locked into the psych ward. He thought he was dead and nobody could convince him differently.
              The doctor asked him, "Can dead men feel pain?"
              "Of course not," said the guy.
              So the doctor sticks him with a pin.
              "OW!," exclaimed the man.
              "see," said the doctor, "you felt that so you can't be dead!"
              The man thought a moment and then said, "What do you know! Dead men CAN feel pain!"

              That's you, Uni, determined to twist everything into your own version of things so you can prevail against them.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                As you can see, John 1:1 does not even mention "Jesus." Also the text of John 1:3 does not say all things were made by the Word, let alone that they were made by Jesus.. Here's the Koine:



                Here's my reading of the chapter for more context:

                https://archive.org/details/NewRecording4_20160528
                Who was John 1:1 talking about then?

                And how do you explain Col 1:16, talking about the Son:

                Col 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

                It says the same thing as John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Who was John 1:1 talking about then?
                  John 1;1 is talking about a what, not a who. Biblical words need to be given biblical definitions, and in the bible the Word ( ὁ λόγος) [not to be confused with the Word made flesh) is never a preexisting Divine person, but always something, such as the very Words of God, or the Torah etc. Here's a good example:

                  Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας·

                  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

                  Hebrews 4:12

                  Not some pre-existing Divine person!

                  Here's my reading of the chapter for more context:https://archive.org/details/NewRecording109_201709



                  And how do you explain Col 1:16, talking about the Son:

                  Col 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

                  It says the same thing as John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
                  This is not a reference to the Genesis creation but to God creating all things anew in the kingdom of the risen Son.
                  Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-12-2018, 08:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                    So fellers... can we work this from the other end? Did a man die on the cross? Was this man Yeshua / Jesus? Did "the Word" die with Him seeing that the Word was God... and God cannot die? Mystery... has anyone EVER considered that "the Word" is synonymous with the Holy Spirit? ...which is the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father. After all, it is the Holy Spirit that fell upon Mary and she became with child. :)
                    Trinitarians do not believe Jesus was "a man" (i.e. a human being / a human person ), but just that he had human nature, i.e. that he was "man." This in a nutshell is the essential Trinitarian doctrine of unhypostasis. So they do not believe a human being died on the cross for their sins. Here's a quick lesson the anhypostasis:http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/featu...uch2_oct05.asp

                    Can We Call Christ a Human Being?

                    Jesus does not have a human "hypostasis" or human "person" in common with us. This is why St. Thomas says "That Christ must not be called a creature." [37] While Christ has a full human nature or essence, this essence does not include created being or a created hypostasis (person).

                    While the Son of God assumes the essence or nature of created man (i.e., humanity), He does not assume the being of created man. The Son of God, therefore, does not assume human or created being. So, Jesus Christ is not a human being except in a qualified sense. Rather, He is a divine Being.

                    If one were to try to say that Jesus Christ is both a human and divine being, one would imply that Jesus Christ is both two beings (one divine and one human) or that He was a blend of a human being and a divine being. But, to say that Jesus Christ is two beings is to clearly fall into the Nestorian trap. For it does not matter whether you call the supposit of the man a person or a being and the supposit of the God a person or being, the result is still the same - two separate individuals. Salvation and the Catholic Faith would entirely collapse. For, as St. Thomas says, "Hence, if the human nature is not united to God the Word in person, it is nowise united to Him; and thus belief in the Incarnation is altogether done away with, and Christian faith wholly overturned." [40]

                    And an attempt to mix divine being and human being into one blended created and uncreated being would also be disastrous for the Faith. The early Fathers of the Church found it necessary to explicitly reject any intrusion into the Deity by created being. In his First Letter to Serapion, probably written between the years 359-360 A.D. from the Libyan Desert, St. Athanasius taught: "We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being." [41]

                    Finally, it is clear that Jesus Christ cannot be a human being or created being because we are called upon by the Church to adore Jesus Christ with "the worship known as 'latria' (act of adoration) which may be given to God alone." [42] But, it is idolatry to adore anything created. Jesus Christ, therefore, can only be a divine Being. St. Thomas says: "the adoration of latria is not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself, but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father." [43] Similarly, Pius VI taught in "Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794 that the "humanity and the very living flesh of Christ is adored, not indeed on account of itself as mere flesh, but because it is united to the divinity." [44]
                    Thus, while it is correct to say that Jesus is fully human because He has an essence or full human nature in common with us, we should not say that Jesus is a human being. The "a" in the "a human being" particularly indicates an individually existing created human substantial form or nature. It will be most likely be understood as human substance or human nature in the sense of a "hypostasis," "suppositum," or "subject," i.e., "person." And then it would be incorrect.


                    The hypostatic union in Jesus Christ is a mystery beyond all telling. We will never completely understand how a fully human nature or substantial form can be joined to a divine Person without destroying itself or substantially altering the being of the divine Person. We cannot even understand how a substantial form can have the divine Person as its suppositum or being. We only know that this is not contradictory. While Jesus Christ has a full human nature and a full divine nature, these natures subsist in His divine Person (hypostasis or suppositum). So, we should not call Christ a human being, for He is a Divine Being. Jesus Christ is truly Emmanuel. He is a divine Person and Being in human form. When we touch the hands and fingers of Jesus Christ we are touching his divine Person. Thus, St. John refers to the "Word of Life" as that which "our hands have handled" (I Jn 1:1). Let us now turn our attention to the Blessed Sacrament.
                    It's quite similar to the Avatar concept in Hinduism, where Krishna (a Divine Being) for instance came to earth in human form (in "human nature" if you will) without becoming a human being. Hence the God-man.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                      John 1;1 is talking about a what, not a who. Biblical words need to be given biblical definitions, and in the bible the Word ( ὁ λόγος) [not to be confused with the Word made flesh) is never a preexisting Divine person, but always something, such as the very Words of God, or the Torah etc. Here's a good example:




                      Hebrews 4:12

                      Not some pre-existing Divine person!

                      Here's my reading of the chapter for more context:https://archive.org/details/NewRecording109_201709





                      This is not a reference to the Genesis creation but to God creating all things anew in the kingdom of the risen Son.
                      The Word, or Logos is obviously the Son by context. I notice how you try to separate out "The word was made flesh" in order to keep your little heresy. But it is clear that the Word is not a what but a who.

                      1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

                      14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

                      The word is God.
                      The word is a "he"
                      The word made everything.
                      The word became flesh
                      The word is the Son who incarnated as Jesus.

                      Your attempt to twist the plain words of scripture doesn't even make sense.

                      As far as your inept attempt to rewrite scripture, remember the curse in Revelation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                        There are so many dubious statements here that if I addressed them all it would take me hopelessly off course.
                        Translation: I'll just ignore the explanation and restate the same nonsense.

                        So I will just deal with the bare basics for now:

                        X = to die ( no matter how you wish to define it)
                        And I'll ask a counter... Can a spirit die?


                        God does NOT X
                        Jesus did X
                        Jesus is not God
                        Premise 1 is wrong. God's SPIRIT does not die. Should God take on flesh, He can die. And interestingly enough... He did BOTH.

                        I don’t see how you can logically ( and biblically) negate above.
                        Let's run through my counter argument first.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                          Trinitarians do not believe Jesus was "a man" (i.e. a human being / a human person ), but just that he had human nature, i.e. that he was "man." This in a nutshell is the essential Trinitarian doctrine of unhypostasis. So they do not believe a human being died on the cross for their sins. Here's a quick lesson the anhypostasis:http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/featu...uch2_oct05.asp



                          It's quite similar to the Avatar concept in Hinduism, where Krishna (a Divine Being) for instance came to earth in human form (in "human nature" if you will) without becoming a human being. Hence the God-man.
                          You're being (deliberately, I'm sure) sloppy with your words here. If you weren't, you wouldn't confuse the hypostatic union with the avatar concept. Anhypostasis must be balanced with enhypostasis:
                          Source: David Mathis

                          Yesterday we looked at the doctrine of anhypostasis and said that the kind of humanity Jesus took in the incarnation was impersonal. He did not add a human person to himself when he took a fully human nature.

                          Now we turn to the flip side of the coin and ask, Where did the singular person of Jesus come from? Who is the one person of his two (divine and human) natures?

                          The doctrine of enhypostasis gives the answer. His humanity is not only impersonal (anhypostasis), but it’s also in-personal (that’s what enhypostasis means), in that its personhood is in the personhood of the eternal second person of the Trinity. The fully divine Son is the person who took full humanity and remains the “one person” of the God-man.

                          Donald Macleod writes in The Person of Christ, “The import of enhypostasis is that the human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual, is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God. It does not, for a single instant, exist as anhypostasis or non-personal” (202).

                          There is a kind of asymmetry in Christology. While (symmetrically) Jesus is both fully God and fully man—and has fully divine and fully human minds, emotions, and wills—Jesus has been divine much longer than he’s been human (asymmetrically). As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus has been fully divine from all eternity, while he added full humanity to that divinity at a certain point in time, the incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas.

                          Fred Sanders summarizes together the doctrines of enhypostasis and anhypostasis:

                          On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and therefore enhypostatic, or personalized. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above.

                          Considered in itself, on the other hand, and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is both anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son) (31).

                          So the “one person” of the two-natured Jesus is the divine person, the eternal Son. It was the eternal Son who covenanted before creation with his Father for the redemption of sinners, gladly took on our full humanity at the first Christmas, and for the joy set before him (Hebrews 12:2) died at the cross on Good Friday for the sins of those who treasure him and rose again triumphant over death on Easter Sunday.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          God the Son did not merely look like a human for a while; that's docetism. He took on human nature and became man, and remains both God and man to this day.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Translation: I'll just ignore the explanation and restate the same nonsense.


                            Premise 1 is wrong. God's SPIRIT does not die. Should God take on flesh, He can die. And interestingly enough... He did BOTH.



                            Let's run through my counter argument first.
                            So you think God can die, but his Spirit cannot. This is not scriptural IMHO.


                            And I'll ask a counter... Can a spirit die?
                            A spirit by definition cannot die because it is not a person (it's like asking whether a spoon dies): only people die, not their spirits. Let's look at LXX Genesis chapter 2:

                            17 ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· ᾗ δ᾿ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε.

                            but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
                            Here's my reading of the chapter portion for more context: https://archive.org/details/NewRecording169


                            NOT "your spirit will certainly die." but "you will surely die." The "I" or "person" dies, not their spirit.


                            Food for thought: When you say God's Spirit died, are you saying the "person of the Holy Spirit" died ?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              You're being (deliberately, I'm sure) sloppy with your words here. If you weren't, you wouldn't confuse the hypostatic union with the avatar concept. Anhypostasis must be balanced with enhypostasis:
                              Source: David Mathis

                              Yesterday we looked at the doctrine of anhypostasis and said that the kind of humanity Jesus took in the incarnation was impersonal. He did not add a human person to himself when he took a fully human nature.

                              Now we turn to the flip side of the coin and ask, Where did the singular person of Jesus come from? Who is the one person of his two (divine and human) natures?

                              The doctrine of enhypostasis gives the answer. His humanity is not only impersonal (anhypostasis), but it’s also in-personal (that’s what enhypostasis means), in that its personhood is in the personhood of the eternal second person of the Trinity. The fully divine Son is the person who took full humanity and remains the “one person” of the God-man.

                              Donald Macleod writes in The Person of Christ, “The import of enhypostasis is that the human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual, is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God. It does not, for a single instant, exist as anhypostasis or non-personal” (202).

                              There is a kind of asymmetry in Christology. While (symmetrically) Jesus is both fully God and fully man—and has fully divine and fully human minds, emotions, and wills—Jesus has been divine much longer than he’s been human (asymmetrically). As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus has been fully divine from all eternity, while he added full humanity to that divinity at a certain point in time, the incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas.

                              Fred Sanders summarizes together the doctrines of enhypostasis and anhypostasis:

                              On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and therefore enhypostatic, or personalized. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above.

                              Considered in itself, on the other hand, and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is both anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son) (31).

                              So the “one person” of the two-natured Jesus is the divine person, the eternal Son. It was the eternal Son who covenanted before creation with his Father for the redemption of sinners, gladly took on our full humanity at the first Christmas, and for the joy set before him (Hebrews 12:2) died at the cross on Good Friday for the sins of those who treasure him and rose again triumphant over death on Easter Sunday.

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              God the Son did not merely look like a human for a while; that's docetism. He took on human nature and became man, and remains both God and man to this day.
                              Trinitarians do not say that he did (bold above). When Trinitarians say "Jesus took human nature" they mean that Jesus took "the form (or likeness) of a man" . They apparently get this from Phil. 2:7 --

                              but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, made in the likeness of men,
                              Trinitarians however deny that Jesus is a human being. This is the real "docetism" which is carefully hidden in plain sight within Trinitarian orthodoxy in their doctrine of anhypostasis.
                              Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-13-2018, 10:44 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                                Trinitarians do not say that he did (bold above). When Trinitarians say "Jesus took human nature" they mean that Jesus took "the form (or likeness) of a man" . They apparently get this from Phil. 2:7 --



                                Trinitarians however deny that Jesus is a human being. This is the real "docetism" which is carefully hidden in plain sight within Trinitarian orthodoxy in their doctrine of anhypostasis.
                                uh no we don't. Jesus was fully human.

                                At least get what Trinitarians believe before you go arguing against it.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X