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

[Unitarian101]

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.

It's bad "context" to say "a person" (i.e. the Word, John 1:1) became a person (i.e. the Word became flesh, John 1:14).

[Sparko]

It's bad "context" to say "a person" (i.e. the Word, John 1:1) became a person (i.e. the Word became flesh, John 1:14).

The person of the Son/logos took on human flesh.

I am just about done even bothering to answer you Unitarian. You seem to just make up nonsense and claim that is what Trinitarians believe and then rage against it. That is known as burning straw. You are fighting a non-existent position that you invented yourself so you can feel like you won some battle. Burn on, my friend.

[Unitarian101]

uh no we don't.

But they do. Did you not read the Trinitarian resource I furnished ?

Jesus was fully human.

By that Trinitarians mean that he had a human nature, not that he was a human person. Trinitarians deny that Jesus has a human person (a human hypostasis) in common with us.

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

Shouldn't you be asking yourself this very question ?

[Unitarian101]

The person of the Son/logos took on human flesh.

I am just about done even bothering to answer you Unitarian. You seem to just make up nonsense and claim that is what Trinitarians believe and then rage against it. That is known as burning straw. You are fighting a non-existent position that you invented yourself so you can feel like you won some battle. Burn on, my friend.

But you understand above to mean that the a person (i.e. the Son) became a person (a human person) ? And that's nonsensical. Why not accept Trinitarian orthodoxy and deny that Jesus became a human person ?

[Sparko]

But you understand above to mean that the a person (i.e. the Son) became a person (a human person) ? And that's nonsensical. Why not accept Trinitarian orthodoxy and deny that Jesus became a human person ?

I can't help it if you refuse to even try to understand what we are saying rather than just ignoring it and substituting what you want us to be saying so you can knock it down.

This is going nowhere.

The person of the Son is the same person as Jesus. Jesus is the same person, but with a fully human and a fully divine nature. He is not two persons in one. He doesn't have a split personality.

One Bad Pig just tried to explain that to you above and you just ignored it.

I will just assume you are just another raving nutcase heretic who likes to hear himself speak and doesn't listen to anyone else until you prove otherwise.

[JonathanL]

But they do. Did you not read the Trinitarian resource I furnished ?

If the "Trinitarian" resource you provided really do say what you claim they say they're not Trinitarian at all, but heretics.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

Trinitarians also say that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) - which docetism explicitly denies. Trinitarians deny that Jesus is merely a human being, but affirm that He is both God AND man.

[JonathanL]

If the "Trinitarian" resource you provided really do say what you claim they say they're not Trinitarian at all, but heretics.

I went and read the source for myself. As far as I can tell the article is simply saying that Christ took on human nature, but not a human being in the incarnation. The Son as a Divine Person took on a human nature, He did not add another human person to His Being. I.e Christ is not comprised of two persons, One Divine, and one created, but one Divine Person who assumed human nature.

Nothing too controversial imo, just standard Trinitarian doctrine, and certainly not comparable with the avatar concept. I only glanced through the article though, so I might have misunderstood something

[Sparko]

I went and read the source for myself. As far as I can tell the article is simply saying that Christ took on human nature, but not a human being in the incarnation. The Son as a Divine Person took on a human nature, He did not add another human person to His Being. I.e Christ is not comprised of two persons, One Divine, and one created, but one Divine Person who assumed human nature.

Nothing too controversial imo, just standard Trinitarian doctrine, and certainly not comparable with the avatar concept. I only glanced through the article though, so I might have misunderstood something

well judging by the way Unitarian has been reading our posts, I wouldn't trust his interpretation of anything related to the topic. He can't seem to understand English much less Greek or anything else.

although I suspect that is on purpose, as burning straw is the only way he can "win"

[Bill the Cat]

So you think God can die, but his Spirit cannot. This is not scriptural IMHO.

Yes it is perfectly scriptural.

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.

Good. you get that so far.

Let's look at LXX Genesis chapter 2:

Let's not. Genesis was written in Hebrew.

Here's my reading of the chapter portion for more context: https://archive.org/details/NewRecording169

Please stop pimping your work. That is an admin talking, BTW.

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

The flesh dies. What makes a person is their spirit. Their flesh is just a house for it.

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

I never said God's Spirit died. Only the likeness of flesh He took upon Himself.

[Darfius]

This is not a reference to the Genesis creation but to God creating all things anew in the kingdom of the risen Son.

Sparko referenced the Scripture I was going to get to in Colossians, and the quoted was your response. Your response is inaccurate, as shown by the following Scripture:

Scripture Verse: Psalm 33:4

For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.
5
The Lord loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of his unfailing love.
6
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

© Copyright Original Source

1. The "word of the Lord" is here called Faithful and True, as He is in Revelation 19:11.
2. The "word of the Lord" made the heavens, as it is claimed He did in both John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16.

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 1:1

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

© Copyright Original Source

1. Makes it clear that the Son/Word/Jesus helped the Father make the universe, not "remake it" as you claim without any supporting evidence (or sense) whatsoever.
2. Again, the connection between the Son and the "word" is made explicit.


You're wrong. Face that fact like a man and ask God to forgive you for your rebellion, presumption, and insistence on committing the antichrist sin of denying that the Son of God came in the flesh.

[Unitarian101]

Sparko referenced the Scripture I was going to get to in Colossians, and the quoted was your response. Your response is inaccurate, as shown by the following Scripture:

Scripture Verse: Psalm 33:4

For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.
5
The Lord loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of his unfailing love.
6
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

© Copyright Original Source

1. The "word of the Lord" is here called Faithful and True, as He is in Revelation 19:11.
2. The "word of the Lord" made the heavens, as it is claimed He did in both John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16.

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 1:1

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

© Copyright Original Source

1. Makes it clear that the Son/Word/Jesus helped the Father make the universe, not "remake it" as you claim without any supporting evidence (or sense) whatsoever.
2. Again, the connection between the Son and the "word" is made explicit.


You're wrong. Face that fact like a man and ask God to forgive you for your rebellion, presumption, and insistence on committing the antichrist sin of denying that the Son of God came in the flesh.

That's the Word made flesh, not the Word before it became flesh. It's calling a human person, Jesus Christ, faithful and true.

[Unitarian101]

I went and read the source for myself. As far as I can tell the article is simply saying that Christ took on human nature, but not a human being in the incarnation. The Son as a Divine Person took on a human nature, He did not add another human person to His Being. I.e Christ is not comprised of two persons, One Divine, and one created, but one Divine Person who assumed human nature.

Nothing too controversial imo, just standard Trinitarian doctrine, and certainly not comparable with the avatar concept. I only glanced through the article though, so I might have misunderstood something

I'm glad you now understand that your Jesus is not a human being / a human person, and that he is a Divine person who just assumed human nature. How can someone like this (who is not even a human being) be a genuine human ?

As for this notion being similar to the Avatar concept (Avatar is in fact another name for Incarnation), you don't have to take it from me of course. Here's Trinitarian apologist William Lane Craig (start at around 7:15,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBEAQC8qyI4) :

Can you have a man who is both a fat man and a thin man?” Well, if that man has two natures, yes you can. Let me give an illustration. How many of you have seen the movie Avatar? OK, a few at least. An avatar is another name for incarnation. This movie tells the story of Jake Sully who is a disabled Marine who becomes an avatar among a race of extraterrestrials called the Navi. Jake Sully is physically disabled, yet he becomes physically incarnated among them as a Navi. At the same time, however, he doesn't cease to be human. So Jake has both a human nature and a Navi nature. These two natures have strikingly different properties. If you were to say, “Can Jake Sully run?” the answer would be yes and no. He cannot run as a human being in his human nature but certainly in his Navi nature he can run. If you can make sense of Avatar then you can make sense of Christ's incarnation because in exactly the same way Christ has both a divine nature and a human nature. These two natures have different powers. In his human nature, Christ experienced all of the limitations intrinsic to humanity, but in his divine nature he has supernatural powers. Just as Jake Sully in his Navi nature became the savior of the Navi people so Christ in his human nature becomes the savior of humankind. So I think this model makes perfect sense of the incarnation and there is nothing logical or incoherent about it.

[Unitarian101]

Yes it is perfectly scriptural.




Good. you get that so far.




Let's not. Genesis was written in Hebrew.




Please stop pimping your work. That is an admin talking, BTW.




The flesh dies. What makes a person is their spirit. Their flesh is just a house for it.

Trinitarians do not believe that "person" (hypostasis) = "spirit" (pneuma), if that's what you are saying. Otherwise you have to explain what you mean by red above.

I never said God's Spirit died. Only the likeness of flesh He took upon Himself.

Correct, but you did admit that God died (when you said my premise 1 [i.e. God does not die] was wrong). Now however you're saying only the likeness of the flesh which God took died, whatever that means.

If Jesus is God

and

Jesus died,

then

God died.

---

The bible says Jesus died, not that the likness of the flesh which he took died. The former is a biblical statement, the latter is an unbiblical statement.

[Unitarian101]

Trinitarians also say that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) - which docetism explicitly denies. Trinitarians deny that Jesus is merely a human being, but affirm that He is both God AND man.

That's unorthodox because it implies that Jesus is not merely a human being, that is, that he is a human being and a Divine being. Trinitarians explicitly deny that Jesus is a human being, or a human person. They say that he is a Divine being with two different natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. In other words Trinitarians say that Jesus does not have a human person in common with us -- we are each of us a human person with human nature, but Jesus is NOT a human person with human nature, rather he is a Divine person with human nature. His human nature was assumed from conception not by a human person but rather by a Divine person (hence an-hypostasis).