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

[Bill the Cat]

The part that you didn’t provide argument for—any of it.

That's lazy. Start with what you don't understand. If you don't understand any of it, then you are a liar and were never a Trinitarian at all. If you do, but just want to play stupid, I have no time for you.

[RGJesus]

It's a joke, son. Now seriously...you said you knew my work. What's one of my leading media products these days?

I'm currently not following your works. But over the years I've read your articles arguing for the reliability of the NT, defending the resurrection of Jesus, and rebutting the works of mythicists like Carrier, Doherty, Price. There were times (some years ago?) that you and a fellow from ThinkTank (Mr. Miller?) collaborated with you. I may go back and reread your articles on the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ.

[thewriteranon]

All you’ve done thus far is make assertions, appeal to authority, and complain. I have yet to hear how you defend the Trinity, specifically, answer my internal critique of the dual-nature of Jesus.

And whoop there it is.

First of all, you need a foundation. That is why we have asked you to read the early church.

Second of all, I haven't made a defense because I suspected from the beginning you didn't actually have honest intentions here. You came in and have refused the original advice and you've tried to play the question and answer game. Now you snipe at me because I don't want to play.

[RGJesus]

That's lazy. Start with what you don't understand. If you don't understand any of it, then you are a liar and were never a Trinitarian at all. If you do, but just want to play stupid, I have no time for you.

Oh wow! I'm sorry if you feel that way, sir. But I'm really sincere, and God is my witness. I won't bother you again. Thank you for your time. God bless.

[RGJesus]

And whoop there it is.

First of all, you need a foundation. That is why we have asked you to read the early church.

Second of all, I haven't made a defense because I suspected from the beginning you didn't actually have honest intentions here. You came in and have refused the original advice and you've tried to play the question and answer game. Now you snipe at me because I don't want to play.

Wow! God knows my heart, ma'am. I'm sorry if you feel that way. But what you're accusing me aren't true. I won't bother you anymore. Thank you for your time. God bless.

[jpholding]

Then I fail to understand your article.

Manifestly obvious.

[thewriteranon]

I'm sorry if you feel that way.

This isn't necessary. (This part is more of a language and conduct lesson, but "I'm sorry that you xyz" is a not an apology and is therefore is generally unnecessary in response. Not saying that you were or were not trying to apologize, just noting.)

In any case, I still strongly urge you to start with earlier material if you're genuine. Much of it can be found on ccel.org for free. I don't generally debate here as I'm a busy grad school student and I'm currently applying to law school. It probably didn't come over in my first posts, but yeah, I don't have time to do much of the typical back and forth on tweb. I only drop in for comments.

[RGJesus]

Manifestly obvious.

One final request, for ease would you mind giving me the link to your articles aside from the following?

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaimshub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/unitresp.php

Thank you and God bless!

[RGJesus]

This isn't necessary. (This part is more of a language and conduct lesson, but "I'm sorry that you xyz" is a not an apology and is therefore is generally unnecessary in response. Not saying that you were or were not trying to apologize, just noting.)

In any case, I still strongly urge you to start with earlier material if you're genuine. Much of it can be found on ccel.org for free. I don't generally debate here as I'm a busy grad school student and I'm currently applying to law school. It probably didn't come over in my first posts, but yeah, I don't have time to do much of the typical back and forth on tweb. I only drop in for comments.

No problem. Thank you for your time.

[rogue06]

Now, I noticed that JP Holding’s “Faith” is “Toonist.” Is Toonist allowed? And why is that allowed? If I don’t change my “Faith” to what you want, are you going to remove my access?

No. It will simply be changed for you.

Further, please read the part of the notice that states

**If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***

Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Please don't argue moderation in this thread.

[jpholding]

One final request, for ease would you mind giving me the link to your articles aside from the following?

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaimshub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/unitresp.php

Thank you and God bless!

The first article has all the series links at the bottom.

[mikewhitney]

Since you don’t have answers to my questions pertaining to how the God-man Jesus died, it sounds like you are merely resorting to “mystery.” Would you accept a Modalist saying the same thing about the Father and the Son being one person: “Our understanding is so limited to grasp the nature of God. It’s a mystery. We just have to accept it by faith”?

Resolved? By the theologians? They’re still arguing amongst each other; some can technically be branded heretics. Did you know that the popular apologist and theologian William Lane Craig subscribes to a Christological, yet heretical, teaching called monothelitism? It is the view (condemned in 7th century) that Jesus has two natures but only one will, contrary to the orthodox view that Jesus has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures (dyothelitism). Did you also know that the Evangelical turned Roman Catholic philosopher Frank Beckwith said that the primitive Roman Catholic church fathers could have decided that the biblical data did not support the Trinity and could gone to a different direction? Google the information on the debate amongst Christian theologians.

Let’s start with your claim that scripture indicating Jesus was fully man and fully God. What do you mean by “fully God”? And where do you find Jesus is fully God in the Bible?

Do you know the passages that speak of Jesus' divinity? Do you have problems with those passages? or do you have interpretations of those such that they speak not of His divinity? Of course Phil 2:6-7 is one of the important passages.

You have only said you are favoring unitarianism. Have you laid out an argument for this or do you just wish that people guess why you are interested in that view? Also, as mentioned in another post, are you willing to look at the discussion in the early church leading to the emphasis on the Trinitarian view? It probably would be better if you could identify where that debate went wrong. One of the issues is: Could Christ Jesus offer the true redemption without being deity?

If there is a serious change to be made in Christian doctrine, then put forth the effort to propose that change.

[37818]

Help me! Maybe you can. I'm changing from being a Trinitarian to Unitarian.

After some 30 years of searching through study and prayer, I'm coming to the conclusion that (1) the God of the Bible is not three persons in one being, but rather one person one being and (2) Jesus is not Almighty God, but a sinless human being miraculously, virginally conceived of Mary. I'm still unsure about the Spirit.

RGJusus,

Reading through the thread you have alot of issues on the topic thrown back and forth.
If I may, I would like to ask you three questions for starters.

1) When you held the Trinity view, what would you have briefly explained to someone what the Trinity meant?

2) What was the first issue that caused you to begin doubting the Trinity?

3) If someone wanted to know how to become a Chistian and know they would go to Heaven, what would you explain as to what was required?

Feel free to repeat or ask me any questions.

[mikewhitney]

Since you don’t have answers to my questions pertaining to how the God-man Jesus died, it sounds like you are merely resorting to “mystery.”

If you didn't understand my response, are you ready to say that you understand exactly what happens to every person upon death and what remains after the body has died?

If so, how does this limit or relate to the death and resurrection of Jesus, especially if Jesus is, as commonly held, a person of the Godhead?

Do you have a Systematic Theology figured out so that the possibility of redemption is consistent with the nature of who Jesus is? Maybe if you identify which theologians you are in best agreement with -- and why you might be considering some variations from their ideas ... that might help.

Also, as a general recommendation... you will have best support if you can show that you are working through ideas in a genuine way. If it seems you are simply pushing Unitarian doctrine by indirect questions about the death of Christ, you probably will have a hard time getting a decent discussion.

Oh yes. If you feel there is a direction for the discussion that needs to be focused to a few tweb members, then ask for that here or start a new thread limited to that discussion. But you should check if those members are agreeable.

[elam]

Help me! Maybe you can. I'm changing from being a Trinitarian to Unitarian.

After some 30 years of searching through study and prayer, I'm coming to the conclusion that (1) the God of the Bible is not three persons in one being, but rather one person one being and (2) Jesus is not Almighty God, but a sinless human being miraculously, virginally conceived of Mary. I'm still unsure about the Spirit.

It appears you are not conversant with what the Orthodox Churches (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC) who adhere to the Nicene Creed of 325CE & Constantinople-Nicene Creed of 381CE. Both creeds begin "II believe in one God the Father almighty...". So that's our starting point. God the Father is the sole source and cause of all things, including the Son & the Spirit. Thus the creed then requires a second confession = "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven". After some elaboration on Christ the creed then requires a third confession "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father...who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets".
http://www.todayscatholicnews.org/20...e-holy-mass-8/

These three propositions are readily defendable from the NT!

Your first conclusion that "the God of the Bible is not three persons in one being" is spot on and any such ideal is totally contrary to Trinitarianism! It is possibly closer to Sabellianism (oneness teaching) - an ideal that the Church has rejected since the 3rd century when it first appeared.
.
To elaborate I'll have to refer to the original Greek upon which the creeds are based. There are three core words prosopon, hypostasis & ousia. Both prosopon & hypostasis are often translated as "person" in English, simply because English hasn't the vocabulary to make the differentiation = "prosopon/prosopa", literally "the actors mask/masks" is the variable external form = how one is perceived (cp. John 14:7-11). "hypostasis/hypostases", literally "what lies beneath" is the constant internial form. In the early days of the Church "hypostasis" and "ousia" were often interchanged but as Basil the Great emphasised in the 4th century they need to be differentiated. In simple terms "hypostasis" refers to the individual whilst "ousia" refers to the group.

At Hebrews 1:3, in the Greek, the Son is said to have the exact imprint (charaktēr) of his Father's person (hypostasis). That is construed as only possible if the Son is homooúsios (consubstantial) with the Father as the creed emphasises (eg: if you are human then you must be homooúsios with your parents).

I'll leave at this point and will expand as appropriate to any questions you might have...