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

  • #91
    Originally posted by RGJesus View Post
    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.
    Have you checked out:

    Matthew 28:[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

    Confer 1 Cor 1:[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

    In other words, we are not baptised in the name of a man.

    Also, check out that it is "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

    Not * in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by RGJesus View Post
      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.
      1, ie trinitarianism, seems more likely to me than 2, ie Jesus being uniquely sinless and virfinally conceived.

      Why?
      Because the Egyptians and ancient Jews had trinitarian like concepts. For Egyptians, Ra was the father God and there was the eternal Amen, whose name is like Amenu, dove. And in Genesis 1, God's spirit is like a dove over the water. And Ptah formed the world through speech, Logos Creation. The same happened in Genesis 1.

      Father, Spirit, and Word. It's a Trinity.
      It's all there in ancient Egyptian religion and in Genesis 1.

      Unitarian ism posits no individualism within the one God. But how can anyone prove that philosophically and exclude Trinitarianism as a philosophy? Doesn't God have a Spirit that can be distinguished from his person as father?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by rakovsky View Post
        1, ie trinitarianism, seems more likely to me than 2, ie Jesus being uniquely sinless and virfinally conceived.

        Why?
        Because the Egyptians and ancient Jews had trinitarian like concepts. For Egyptians, Ra was the father God and there was the eternal Amen, whose name is like Amenu, dove. And in Genesis 1, God's spirit is like a dove over the water. And Ptah formed the world through speech, Logos Creation. The same happened in Genesis 1.

        Father, Spirit, and Word. It's a Trinity.
        It's all there in ancient Egyptian religion and in Genesis 1.

        Unitarian ism posits no individualism within the one God. But how can anyone prove that philosophically and exclude Trinitarianism as a philosophy? Doesn't God have a Spirit that can be distinguished from his person as father?
        But surely my Spirit is not another person - I am only one person. My Spirit is an attribute - not another person. I don't think this analogy is valid. And what do you mean by saying that
        "Unitarian ism posits no individualism within the one God."
        If you mean the Unitarianism doesn't posit multiple individuals within God you would be correct. But it posits a God who is individual.

        In Hope,
        Elpis.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          Have you checked out:

          Matthew 28:[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

          Confer 1 Cor 1:[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

          In other words, we are not baptised in the name of a man.

          Also, check out that it is "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

          Not * in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
          In Hebrew, Greek and English, the phrase “the name of” is an idiom which means “the authority of” or “the reputation of”. For example:

          Deut 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name (not “names”) of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'

          Gen 48:16
          the angel who hath redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name (not "names") of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

          IMHO, building an argument on the singular "name" is not persuasive.

          In Hope,

          Elpis.

          Comment


          • #95
            Critical points: Does the Biblical record show that Christ was God prior to his incarnation as a human? Does the Bible record the changes that were in effect during the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth? Does the Bible record the Word's existence prior to conception and that the Word was made flesh? The answers to these questions being yes - and they are - very definitely yes - anyone trying to deny the deity of Christ has a hard row to hoe ... especially when dealing with someone who has even the most basic understanding of Koine Greek.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Elpis View Post
              But surely my Spirit is not another person - I am only one person. My Spirit is an attribute - not another person. I don't think this analogy is valid. And what do you mean by saying that
              "Unitarian ism posits no individualism within the one God."
              If you mean the Unitarianism doesn't posit multiple individuals within God you would be correct. But it posits a God who is individual.

              In Hope,
              Elpis.

              ? You don't have soul or spirit? Just a body?
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                ? You don't have soul or spirit? Just a body?
                That is not what I said. I said:

                My spirit is an attribute - not another person.
                (I have corrected the capitalisation of "spirit").
                What I am saying that the fact that I have a spirit is not proof of the trinity. My spirit is not one of three persons which constitute my being. I am only one "person" (as I would argue God is too).

                In Hope,

                Elpis.
                Last edited by Elpis; 01-09-2017, 04:04 AM. Reason: Font change

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by jpholding View Post
                  "God" is not a proper name. As N. T. Wright has noted, theos in the New Testament is not a proper name. Too often, "God" is read as meaning the person of the Father. Instead, it needs to be understood that "God" here is more like an abstract noun -- like the word "deity".
                  Do you have the reference to N. T. Wright. The most comprehensive analysis of the use of the word theos in the NT is in Murray Harris "Jesus as God". He analyses every occurrence of the word, in all cases, and his conclusion is:
                  "First, in all strands of the NT, θεός (theos) generally signifies the Father (see chapter I §B.4). When we find the expression Θεὸς πατήρ (Elpis: God (the) Father) we may legitimately deduce that ὁ Θεὸς ἐστὶν ὁ πατήρ (Elpis: (the) God is the Father). And since πατήρ (father) refers to a particular person (not an attribute), the identity between ὁ Θεὸς (God) and ὁ πατήρ (the Father) as proper names referring to persons must be numerical: "God" is to be equated with "the Father." " (page 177)
                  and
                  “When (o) theos (God)is used, we are to assume that the NT writers have ho pater (the father) in mind unless the context makes this sense of (o) theos impossible.”(page 47).



                  These are only short extracts of a much longer analysis and conclusion and I can provide more information.

                  But as Harris' conclusions are very different to your statement of Wright's view (and your whole argument depends on it), I would suggest you need better evidence.

                  In Hope,

                  Elpis.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    (I have corrected the capitalisation of "spirit").
                    What I am saying that the fact that I have a spirit is not proof of the trinity. My spirit is not one of three persons which constitute my being. I am only one "person" (as I would argue God is too).
                    Hmm ... But the body, soul and spirit ARE divisible.
                    The mind of the flesh can be in conflict with the mind of the spirit.
                    and
                    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division (μερισμος: "partition, dividing, division")of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RGJesus View Post
                      I didn't look at the Church Fathers' works, but I did look at the works of Robert M. Bowman's works, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, and other, and not so, prominent theologians/apologists.
                      What does this say of your concept of the Church?
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RGJesus View Post
                        When Jesus died on the cross, (1) did the God-man Jesus die? (2) Did the God Jesus die? (3) Did the man Jesus die?
                        All three solutions are in a way correct.

                        The God-Man died. Note, this involves the Person of God dying, but it involves doing so through the assumed Human Nature. Not through His original eternal one.
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RGJesus View Post
                          Let's just say my spirit doesn't die when my flesh does. When Jesus died, was his flesh that died? If so, then it is the man Jesus that died, not the God-man Jesus. Or maybe it is the flesh of (the God-man) Jesus that died. Are you not seeing the logical problem?
                          Dying means separation of flesh and soul.

                          The flesh after the separation is a corpse, a dead body.

                          If the souls appear, it is the soul or spook of a dead person. Death affects both halves.

                          And both halves remained united in one person with God the Son.
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RGJesus View Post
                            Let's start with this: before Jesus resurrected, when his dead corpse was laying in the tomb, was it conscious or unconscious?
                            It was unconscious, as was Christ when asleep.

                            And it was united to the Omniscient God.
                            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
                              And please throw in some pseudo-Dionysius to introduce you to the concept of theological mystery.
                              What do you mean "pseudo"?
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                                What do you mean "pseudo"?
                                It's rather widely acknowledged that the writings of Dionysius the Araeopagite are pseudonymous, and weren't written until the sixth century (and likely by a Monophysite).
                                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

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