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

  • The bible says that a person ("I", "you", "he") dies, not that the flesh of the "I", or "you" or "he" dies:

    I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins."
    John 8:24

    Look at the pronouns, "I" (i.e. the person Jesus , not his flesh) said to them, "you" (i.e. the persons, not their flesh) shall die.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
      The bible says that a person ("I", "you", "he") dies, not that the flesh of the "I", or "you" or "he" dies:



      John 8:24

      Look at the pronouns, "I" (i.e. the person Jesus , not his flesh) said to them, "you" (i.e. the persons, not their flesh) shall die.
      Do you have a diagnosed mental illness we should know about Unitarian?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
        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.
        Yes we do. Adam did not become "man" until God breathed His Spirit into him. Without a spirit, we are just dumb lumps of clay.


        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.
        It means He took on human flesh, but His flesh was not sinful flesh. Flesh dies. Spirit does not. Until you can wrap your head around that, you will continue to spin straw.

        If Jesus is God

        and

        Jesus died,

        then

        God died.

        ---
        And since only flesh dies, not spirit, the above is accurate.


        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.
        No it isn't. THAT is what dies. Flesh.
        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 Bill the Cat View Post
          Yes we do. Adam did not become "man" until God breathed His Spirit into him. Without a spirit, we are just dumb lumps of clay.




          It means He took on human flesh, but His flesh was not sinful flesh. Flesh dies. Spirit does not. Until you can wrap your head around that, you will continue to spin straw.



          And since only flesh dies, not spirit, the above is accurate.




          No it isn't. THAT is what dies. Flesh.
          But you’re not addressing the fact that the bible says a person ( an “I”) dies, not the flesh of the “I” . You really not see this ? Look at the following:

          “I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

          Rev. 1:18

          “I was dead,” NOT “My flesh was dead.”

          Does this clarify things somewhat more for you ?

          Comment


          • Also the bible does not define "to die" or "death" as "the separation of the soul from the flesh (the body)," but as "the laying down of one's self." Let's inspect a couple of scriptures on this score:


            just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my person/self/soul for the sheep.

            καθὼς γινώσκει με ὁ Πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων.
            John 10:15

            That is why the bible says that the dead know nothing, because their very self has been sunk , laid aside, rendered inoperable, destroyed or broken (not to be confused with annihilated).


            "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten."
            Ecclesiastes 9:5
            Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-14-2018, 10:48 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
              But you’re not addressing the fact that the bible says a person ( an “I”) dies, not the flesh of the “I” . You really not see this ?
              No. The Bible is clear that only our flesh dies. Scripture explains in many places that death is the separation of our bodies and our spirits. Adam's natural life began with the union of the body and the spirit. His death was the separation of the two. Whenever physical death is spoken of in Scripture, it has the same idea - the separation of the spirit from the physical body. Scripture says that death is the giving up, or the departure of, the spirit from the body (Luke 23:46) and that when one who was dead came back to life, their "spirit returned to their bodies" (Luke 8:54,55).

              Look at the following: “I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

              Rev. 1:18

              “I was dead,” NOT “My flesh was dead.”
              And scripture explicitly says that Jesus' spirit left His body, and without a spirit, the body can not live (James 2:26).

              Does this clarify things somewhat more for you ?
              Yes. It clarifies that you do not know even the basics of scripture.
              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 Bill the Cat View Post
                No. The Bible is clear that only our flesh dies. Scripture explains in many places that death is the separation of our bodies and our spirits. Adam's natural life began with the union of the body and the spirit. His death was the separation of the two. Whenever physical death is spoken of in Scripture, it has the same idea - the separation of the spirit from the physical body. Scripture says that death is the giving up, or the departure of, the spirit from the body (Luke 23:46) and that when one who was dead came back to life, their "spirit returned to their bodies" (Luke 8:54,55).



                And scripture explicitly says that Jesus' spirit left His body, and without a spirit, the body can not live (James 2:26).



                Yes. It clarifies that you do not know even the basics of scripture.
                James 2:26 is not defining death, but saying that the body without the "spirit" is inoperative.

                ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν, οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν.
                It is an allusion to Genesis 2:7. The "spirit" (πνεῦμα) here is the breath of life which God blew into Adam, it is not the soul(ψυχή) of a man. Ecc. 12:7 reiterates this:

                καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ ὁ χοῦς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, ὡς ἦν, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, ὃς ἔδωκεν αὐτό.


                Notice the different Greek word when Jesus refers to his soul:

                καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου· μείνατε ὧδε καὶ γρηγορεῖτε.
                Mark 14:34

                Now this is the soul of a man. In James 2:26 however we're dealing with the breath which God blew into Adam's nostrils, which went back to God after he died. That's not the "soul" of any man, let alone the souls of billions of individual men.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                  James 2:26 is not defining death, but saying that the body without the "spirit" is inoperative.
                  No. It says it is DEAD. νεκρόν. DEAD.

                  ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν



                  It is an allusion to Genesis 2:7. The "spirit" (πνεῦμα) here is the breath of life which God blew into Adam, it is not the soul(ψυχή) of a man.
                  You keep using Greek when these verses are in HEBREW.

                  https://judaism.stackexchange.com/qu...words-for-soul

                  In Genesis 7:21-22, where the narrative is speaking about all those who died on the face of the earth in the flood (viz. "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man..."), regarding them it says, "...all in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." (A.V.). Here, the phrase "breath of life" is translated from the Hebrew phrase נִשְׁמַת־רוּחַ חַיִּים (nishmat ruach chayyim), which is like saying "the nishmah of the ruach chayyim."


                  Ecc. 12:7 reiterates this:
                  Ecc 12:7 is also in Hebrew and uses ruach.


                  Notice the different Greek word when Jesus refers to his soul:
                  We are dealing with spirit, and specifically Jesus' words on the cross. Stay focused.



                  Now this is the soul of a man. In James 2:26 however we're dealing with the breath which God blew into Adam's nostrils, which went back to God after he died. That's not the "soul" of any man, let alone the souls of billions of individual men.
                  Yes it is. That which God breathes in us is our spirit.
                  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 Bill the Cat View Post
                    No. It says it is DEAD. νεκρόν. DEAD.

                    ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν
                    I think your eisegesis of James 2:26 is due in no small measure to your ignorance of Biblical Koine grammar. The word νεκρός is here being used as an adjective, it is modifying the noun σῶμα (a something, not a someone). The verse is saying that something (specifically the body) is unresponsive/inoperative/not efficacious without the spirit. It is not speaking of literal death which people undergo, which God warned Adam about in Genesis. In the same verse the same word is used again, this time to modify πίστις (faith, a feminine noun), and here the adjective is feminine ( νεκρά). Here again, the verse is not speaking of the death of a person but the word is used to say that faith without works is "dead" (i.e. it is without efficacy). But when the bible speaks of the death of people, the masculine form of the word is used:

                    ὅτι οὗτος ὁ υἱός μου νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἀνέζησεν, ἦν ἀπολωλὼς καὶ εὑρέθη. καὶ ἤρξαντο εὐφραίνεσθαι.
                    Luke 15:24

                    --

                    You keep using Greek when these verses are in HEBREW
                    .

                    James 2:26 is in Greek. Also, the LXX clues us into which Greek words correspond to their Hebrew counterparts in translation. And furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that at least some authors of the bible read and even quoted from the LXX. So the LXX can be a very important exegetical tool.

                    https://judaism.stackexchange.com/qu...words-for-soul

                    In Genesis 7:21-22, where the narrative is speaking about all those who died on the face of the earth in the flood (viz. "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man..."), regarding them it says, "...all in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." (A.V.). Here, the phrase "breath of life" is translated from the Hebrew phrase נִשְׁמַת־רוּחַ חַיִּים (nishmat ruach chayyim), which is like saying "the nishmah of the ruach chayyim."




                    Ecc 12:7 is also in Hebrew and uses ruach.
                    But this does not help you, it renders your position dead, as it were . Look at Genesis at Genesis 1:2

                    וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
                    Here's my reading of the chapter in Hebrew for more context.

                    The word רוּחַ is a reference to the Spirit of God. What now ?


                    We are dealing with spirit, and specifically Jesus' words on the cross. Stay focused.





                    Yes it is. That which God breathes in us is our spirit.
                    God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life ( נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים), the word רוּחַ is not even used here. What precisely are you trying to prove ?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                      I think your eisegesis of James 2:26 is due in no small measure to your ignorance of Biblical Koine grammar.
                      While I am in fact not a Greek scholar, I am in no way eisegeting James 2:26. Koine has similar rules to French, which I DO speak marginally well and have training in its gender-based grammar rules.

                      The word νεκρός is here being used as an adjective,
                      Correct. And it takes on the gender of the noun it is modifying.

                      it is modifying the noun σῶμα (a something, not a someone).
                      Which is a neuter noun. That "body" is a thing and not a person is inconsequential.

                      The verse is saying that something (specifically the body) is unresponsive/inoperative/not efficacious without the spirit.
                      No. νεκρόν occurs in 3 verses. This one twice, Acts 28:6, and Romans 8:10. All 3 instances refer to physical human death.

                      It is not speaking of literal death which people undergo, which God warned Adam about in Genesis.
                      Yes it is.

                      In the same verse the same word is used again, this time to modify πίστις (faith, a feminine noun), and here the adjective is feminine ( νεκρά).
                      No kidding. That's how adjectives work in a gender-based language. It does not in any way change the meaning of the word. And the usage in the second instance here is a simile modifying the feminine noun for faith while the first is the actual usage, meaning physical death of a body, as it is in Acts 28:6

                      Here again, the verse is not speaking of the death of a person but the word is used to say that faith without works is "dead" (i.e. it is without efficacy).
                      It's a known simile.

                      But when the bible speaks of the death of people, the masculine form of the word is used: Luke 15:24
                      Wrong. Luke 15:24 is talking about the death of a male, hence the adjective is masculine because it modifies a male noun. And I am the one who doesn't know Koine Greek...


                      James 2:26 is in Greek. Also, the LXX clues us into which Greek words correspond to their Hebrew counterparts in translation.
                      As approximations.

                      And furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that at least some authors of the bible read and even quoted from the LXX. So the LXX can be a very important exegetical tool.
                      Agreed, but you should primarily rely on the Hebrew first.


                      But this does not help you, it renders your position dead, as it were .
                      It makes the point I have been saying all along!! Ruach is synonymous with spirit.

                      Look at Genesis at Genesis 1:2
                      ruach is spirit. Ruach Elohim is the Spirit of God.

                      Edited by a Moderator my reading of the chapter in Hebrew for more context.
                      You apparently can't read English either. I said stop pimping your articles. Any further link to them just to drum up hits will earn you infraction points.

                      The word רוּחַ is a reference to the Spirit of God. What now ?
                      Only because the phrase used in Gen 1:2 is ruach Elohim. Q.E.D.


                      God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life ( נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים), the word רוּחַ is not even used here. What precisely are you trying to prove ?
                      That ruach, nismat, and nephesh are intimately tied. Where nismat is used here in 1:2, ruach is used to describe the same thing elsewhere in Gen. Nismat (The breath of life) is that which God used to create man's ruach (spirit), which animated the body into a nephesh (living being). Without the ruach, man is not a nephesh. He is dead.
                      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 Bill the Cat View Post
                        While I am in fact not a Greek scholar, I am in no way eisegeting James 2:26. Koine has similar rules to French, which I DO speak marginally well and have training in its gender-based grammar rules.



                        Correct. And it takes on the gender of the noun it is modifying.



                        Which is a neuter noun. That "body" is a thing and not a person is inconsequential.



                        No. νεκρόν occurs in 3 verses. This one twice, Acts 28:6, and Romans 8:10. All 3 instances refer to physical human death.



                        Yes it is.



                        No kidding. That's how adjectives work in a gender-based language. It does not in any way change the meaning of the word. And the usage in the second instance here is a simile modifying the feminine noun for faith while the first is the actual usage, meaning physical death of a body, as it is in Acts 28:6



                        It's a known simile.



                        Wrong. Luke 15:24 is talking about the death of a male, hence the adjective is masculine because it modifies a male noun. And I am the one who doesn't know Koine Greek...




                        As approximations.



                        Agreed, but you should primarily rely on the Hebrew first.




                        It makes the point I have been saying all along!! Ruach is synonymous with spirit.



                        ruach is spirit. Ruach Elohim is the Spirit of God.



                        You apparently can't read English either. I said stop pimping your articles. Any further link to them just to drum up hits will earn you infraction points.



                        Only because the phrase used in Gen 1:2 is ruach Elohim. Q.E.D.




                        That ruach, nismat, and nephesh are intimately tied. Where nismat is used here in 1:2, ruach is used to describe the same thing elsewhere in Gen. Nismat (The breath of life) is that which God used to create man's ruach (spirit), which animated the body into a nephesh (living being). Without the ruach, man is not a nephesh. He is dead.
                        Red above..And James 2:26 is talking about the death of a ____ ? Fill in the blank.

                        No use addressing anything else until you get this.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                          Red above..And James 2:26 is talking about the death of a ____ ? Fill in the blank.
                          Well, there are 2 different "death"s being talked about. The first, a neuter gendered noun - "a body", neither male nor female is specified, so the adjective follows the neuter gender. The second, a female gendered noun - "faith", so the adjective follows the gender of the noun.


                          No addressing anything else until you get this.
                          You DO know what a simile is, right?

                          Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
                          (26) As the body without the spirit . . .—A closing simile of much force


                          Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
                          For as the body without the spirit is dead,.... This simile is made use of to illustrate what the apostle had asserted in James 2:17 that as a body, when the spirit or soul is departed from it, or the breath is gone out of it, is dead, and without motion, and useless; which the Jews (d) express in like manner, , "the body without the spirit", or "breath, is a carcass".
                          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 Bill the Cat View Post
                            Well, there are 2 different "death"s being talked about. The first, a neuter gendered noun - "a body", neither male nor female is specified, so the adjective follows the neuter gender. The second, a female gendered noun - "faith", so the adjective follows the gender of the noun.




                            You DO know what a simile is, right?

                            Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
                            (26) As the body without the spirit . . .—A closing simile of much force


                            Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
                            For as the body without the spirit is dead,.... This simile is made use of to illustrate what the apostle had asserted in James 2:17 that as a body, when the spirit or soul is departed from it, or the breath is gone out of it, is dead, and without motion, and useless; which the Jews (d) express in like manner, , "the body without the spirit", or "breath, is a carcass".
                            That's nonsense. ....When neither male or female is specified, Greek uses the default masculine. Here's an example:

                            ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε· δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε.
                            Matthew 10:8

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                              That's nonsense. ....When neither male or female is specified, Greek uses the default masculine.
                              But neuter IS specified in James 2:26, so your sidetrack below is pointless.

                              Here's an example:

                              ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε· δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε.

                              Matthew 10:8
                              This verse is oddly constructed. In the first clause, there are 2 verbs, then a verb and adjective, then another verb and adjective, then a noun and verb. You've tried to distract from the obvious fail of you not knowing that an adjective follows the gender of a verb when there is a verb. I'm not biting. Try again.
                              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 Bill the Cat View Post
                                :duh: But neuter IS specified in James 2:26, so your sidetrack below is pointless.



                                This verse is oddly constructed. In the first clause, there are 2 verbs, then a verb and adjective, then another verb and adjective, then a noun and verb. You've tried to distract from the obvious fail of you not knowing that an adjective follows the gender of a verb when there is a verb. I'm not biting. Try again.
                                Don't know what that's supposed to mean. The reason why the neuter is used is because the verse is speaking of the "death" of the body, and not of a person . The modifying adjective follows the gender of σῶμα . In the exact same way and in the exact same verse the author also speaks of the "death" of faith. This time the modifying adjective is feminine because the thing which is said to be "dead" ( or made useless) is faith, πίστις (a feminine noun). In neither case is the death of people in view. The word "dead" here simply means "rendered useless." Are you going to say faith without works actually dies ?

                                Do you get this much at least ?


                                This verse is oddly constructed. In the first clause, there are 2 verbs, then a verb and adjective, then another verb and adjective, then a noun and verb. You've tried to distract from the obvious fail of you not knowing that an adjective follows the gender of a verb when there is a verb. I'm not biting. Try again.
                                It isn't.
                                Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-15-2018, 07:24 PM.

                                Comment

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