Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostIt'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).
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postuh no we don't.
Jesus was fully human.
At least get what Trinitarians believe before you go arguing against it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostBut 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 ?
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.
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostTrinitarians 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.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 Chrawnus View PostIf the "Trinitarian" resource you provided really do say what you claim they say they're not Trinitarian at all, but heretics.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI 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
although I suspect that is on purpose, as burning straw is the only way he can "win"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostSo you think God can die, but his Spirit cannot. This is not scriptural IMHO.
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:
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 ?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 PostThis is not a reference to the Genesis creation but to God creating all things anew in the kingdom of the risen Son.
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostSparko 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:
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI 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
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) :
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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYes 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.
I never said God's Spirit died. Only the likeness of flesh He took upon Himself.
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.Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-13-2018, 07:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostTrinitarians 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).
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Larry Serflaten, 01-25-2024, 09:30 AM
|
432 responses
1,978 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-17-2024, 09:43 AM
|
Comment