Originally posted by thewriteranon
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by RGJesus View PostHow would you answer the questions?
"If Jesus was God, then how could he have died on the cross? God isn't supposed to be able to die as a necessary being."
"If Jesus was God, how could he not be omnsicient?"
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man... -- Chalcedonian Creed, 451 AD
The objections noted above may come from an atheist, a cultist, or even a concerned Christian; the creedal statement cited is sometimes referred to in such contexts, and is frequently criticized as not solving the problem, but merely deepening it. Apologists like Craig offer detailed responses like the one here discussing the human vs divine nature of Christ.
I will not here be denying the usefulness of such explanations, nor critiquing them. However, I would like to suggest that there are even simpler solutions at hand.
Two important factors need to be considered, which I have yet to see incorporated into any answer given to this conundrum:
"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".
The reckoning of identity was not by the same standard then as it is now. As we have noted from sources like Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul, a person's identity in the Biblical world was reckoned by external factors -- such as what village one came from, or what family. (One application of this is Point 2 of "The Impossible Faith".)
With this in mind, any questions offered in relation to the deity of Christ must be judged in their contexts, and it becomes possible to answer these questions and objections without even needing to resort to questions of "human vs divine nature". Indeed, we will also find that it greatly simplifies our answers.
"Deity" does not automatically mean possession of "omni-attributes" -- being all-knowing, all-powerful, and so on. Understand this fully: We are not, of course, here denying that God as we know and worship Him possesses the "omni-attributes". What we are saying is that the confusion of "God" with a proper name above has led objectors to wrongly assume that Jesus cannot be "God" because he does not display those attributes, or seems to lack them. The word translated "God" in the New Testament (theos) is a more abstract noun that was applied more broadly to other beings who were not reckoned to possess omni-attributes -- figures like Zeus and Hermes were also theos. The Jews regarded their own theos as in possession of the omni-attributes, but that too was established by the context of His identity as YHWH, not by his designation as a theos. (The same point can be made of the Hebrew word elohim.)
So clearly, theos does not semantically imply by itself that the being to which it is applied is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Such a being may well have been regarded as such, but we are not told of that by the designation theos.
Jesus is properly designated both man and theos because of "externals" -- specifically, his origins. Being born human was enough for Jesus to be reckoned "man". His origins as the Eternal Wisdom of YHWH were sufficient for him to be designated theos.
And so it is that we can see that the questions themselves are entirely out of order. Being theos does not semantically equate with "being omniscient".
Indeed it does not even equate with "cannot die" in that respect. Even apart from any other solutions that call upon the difference between the human and divine nature, the question is shown to be misplaced: It is, again, assuming that "God" is here a proper name of a person, namely, the Father.
Of course, we aver that the Father cannot die. Nor can eternal Wisdom. But the Son -- incarnate Wisdom, in a human body -- certainly can, and did.
Nevertheless, because theos does not have in its semantic domain, "cannot die," the Son can indeed die and still retain the definition of theos.
Furthermore: The Father, and eternal Wisdom, cannot die, but the reason they cannot die is not because they are theos, but because of their nature as necessary, imperishable, eternal, invincible persons. Incarnate Wisdom -- Jesus -- could indeed die (meaning, his spirit separated from his body -- the body can die, but not the spirit) because of his nature as a thenathropic person, both deity and human.
Thus it is that we can maintain that a divine person died on the cross -- without any contradiction to the notion that, "God cannot die because He is a necessary being." Viewing the creed through the lens of ancient categories of identity -- as well as being clear about what theos actually implies -- cuts off the objections at their roots.
Comment
-
Originally posted by thewriteranon View PostThe "one question at a time" is most definitely a game. I've seen it in action before. It can lead to absurdities based on the bias of the asker. "Does a cat have four legs?" I might ask. If you are a fool, you answer, "Yes." If you are less of a fool you might answer, "Generally, yes." I might ask then, "Does a cat then walk upon four legs?" Again, "yes" or "generally yes." And I will take each of these simplistic questions in no context and use them to build an absurd case because each answer does not necessarily follow from the previous. They are only related in the asker's mind. "Aha! So you see now that a cat cannot both have three and four legs! By your own answers!" Or "Aha! You have just proven that cats and dogs are essentially the same!" Or any other number of absurdities.
Furthermore you appear to be abandoning the Trinitarian view based largely on a modernist mindset. You have the cry of "Ad fontes! To the sources!" but you do not try to understand the nuances of the sources themselves. Your ad fontes appeal is largely hollow if you do not then proceed to understand what then led to the Creeds of faith in which Nestorianism, Arianism, Eutychianism, Apollinarianism, etc. were all condemned by the church catholic.
Comment
-
-
Here is my defense as an amateur. In the jewish tradition one needs two or witnesses for a claim to be seen as legitimate.
Every claim jesus ever said was truth. In fact I believe in the gospel of John the pharisees come up to him asking how he can claim to have truth as one man and Jesus says that he is not as the father is with him.
We also know from his words that the Father and the advocate are one with him.
Thus jesus exist as a unique person ib the Godhead alongsise the father and the advocate the holy spirit.sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by RGJesus View PostThen, thewriteranon, you've just branded Bill the Cat as guilty of apollinarianism, I think.
How would you answer? When Jesus died, was it the man Jesus, was it the God Jesus, or was it the God-man Jesus that died?
If you question the conclusions about the Trinity, shouldn't you focus on those aspects previously proposed and resolved as best as theologians were able to do. They take the scriptural record of the New Testament and just sort the verses (and concepts) out as best as possible while recognizing that God can be known on some analogical levels, but only in part. The fullness of God's essence is a mystery to us. After we sort out what we can, we have to realize that we will only certain details which were revealed.
We have scripture indicating Jesus was fully man and fully God. Is there a question on that with sufficient uncertainty as to propose a non-Trinitarian view?
We have the Holy Spirit and Jesus being described with the same attributes as the invisible Father. Is there some problem with such summations?
Comment
-
Originally posted by jpholding View PostWith my article. Turns out I've posted it publicly because it's more than three years old. So here you go. Try to engage it; that doesn't seem to be your interest so far when people reply to you.
Thus it is that we can maintain that a divine person died on the cross -- without any contradiction to the notion that, "God cannot die because He is a necessary being." Viewing the creed through the lens of ancient categories of identity -- as well as being clear about what theos actually implies -- cuts off the objections at their roots.
I honestly am trying to understand what you wrote here. So, bear with me. You're saying we can maintain that the divine person Jesus died on the cross in the sense that his body separated from his spirit. (The spirit is God-man, theantropos.) The body died, but the (theantropic) spirit perse didn't. Am I correct so far?
Comment
-
Originally posted by RGJesus View PostYou're saying we can maintain that the divine person Jesus died on the cross in the sense that his body separated from his spirit. (The spirit is God-man, theantropos.) The body died, but the (theantropic) spirit perse didn't. Am I correct so far?
"The divine person Jesus died on the cross in the sense that his body separated from his spirit" -- this is fundamentally correct, but make sure you properly define "divine" in the same light as I define "theos" in the article. Just being "divine" does not make a being immune to death, nor does dying disqualify them from being divine.
"The body died, but the (theantropic) spirit perse didn't." -- "theanthropic" is the word I'd use to describe the soul that was incarnate Jesus, the combined unity of body and spirit. Not just the spirit. Leave that word out and the sentence will be correct albeit far from complete in representing much of anything.
The article is a whole. Make sure you're not picking and choosing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by thewriteranon View PostI'm not going to play question and answer games...Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101
Comment
-
Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View PostHow do you feel about playing Hunger Games?
*we played a non lethal version that was actually pretty fun in undergrad
"Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
"I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
Katniss Everdeen
Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostI asked you a leading question. When you die, your flesh dies, but your spirit lives on. The man RGJesus died, but the man RGJesus lives as spirit.
The God/Man Jesus died, but the God/Man Jesus lived on.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment