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

[RGJesus]

Mormons make the same argument. The query would be though whether you've jumped over the fence yet from tri to uni.

[Bill the Cat]

You said "When you die, your flesh dies, but your spirit lives on." So, you're saying the God-man Jesus' flesh died?

Yes, just like all of ours does.

[RGJesus]

But I am a Christian who follows Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. Why should I be denied that the title "Christian" as my faith?

[RGJesus]

Moderated By: Sparko

Not if you are nontrinitarian. At least on this site. You need to change it

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[RGJesus]

If this death is what you focus on, you are focusing on the most speculative aspect of deity. First, we have very little understanding of the composition of man -- such as consisting of physical body and possibly a distinct soul and maybe also a spirit (which is dead apart from Christ); scripture doesn't give us much detail about our mode of existence after death, so it is hard to understand Jesus Christ's death from that standpoint. Second, we know less about God and how God the Son was incarnate. What exactly was the human aspect of Jesus and what exactly was the divine? Upon death, what is the nature of death and what survives? And how does that survive? Third, we don't how an infinite God interacts with finite creation, in general; everything we might theorize is pretty much unverifiable.

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?

[RGJesus]

Yes, just like all of ours does.

The flesh (of the God-man Jesus) died but not the God-man Jesus himself; rather, he merely separated from his flesh when he died?

[jpholding]

It's a joke, son. Now seriously...you said you knew my work. What's one of my leading media products these days?

[RGJesus]

This looks too much like you're trying to cram my commentary into familiar categories rather than taking it as is for what is says. Don't do that. I'm going to answer in such a way as to correct any such error, if that is what is being done.

"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.

Reposting your article:
"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.

[Bill the Cat]

The flesh (of the God-man Jesus) died but not the God-man Jesus himself; rather, he merely separated from his flesh when he died?

That's how physical death works. What's your point?

[jpholding]

Why are you quoting yourself and then answering yourself?

[jpholding]

Reposting your article:
"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.

No. You're not reading it very well and you're cramming it into familiar categories again.

[RGJesus]

The "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.

[RGJesus]

No. You're not reading it very well and you're cramming it into familiar categories again.

Then I fail to understand your article.

[RGJesus]

So? Which part are you having a problem with?

[RGJesus]

Seriously? You've read my works, and Nick's, and you don't know the answer to this?

Sniff sniff...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19505[/ATTACH]