Nontrinitarian "Christians" are a paradox

[popsthebuilder]

Thanks for the response. You addressed several items and I will do my best to respond. If I miss any, forgive me, for the fault is my own.

Human Sacrifice: I sincerely appreciate this point. It is a very grounded and well formed argument. When I say "human" sacrifice, I do not mean it with the usual connotations associated with it. However, would one not say that the story of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac would be one of such label? Further, would Christ offering Himself up, not be akin to the same label? From this, we could logically conclude that in Abraham's case, God did ask for a "human sacrifice." Granted, it did not take place, but the point still holds. In the case of Christ, it wasn't a demand, but rather, an act and an event which God accepted as "sacrificial." If God accepted it, would that not make it necessary? The counter argument would be that it was not necessary, which the obvious theological rebuttal would be "why would God do something that is unnecessary? That would contradict His very nature." Thus, my conclusion that the human sacrificial element to the crucifixion was necessary.

"Each are responsible for their own sins": I am utilizing your quote here, but it is to demonstrate what I perceive (if inaccurate, please correct me) to be paradoxical. If each person is responsible for their own sins, then how can one rely on Christ at all? Especially when the blood of Christ is (forgive the negative connotations) reduced to symbolism. These conflicting ideas would not only eliminate each other, but also leave humanity without a true means of salvation, only a symbolic one, which would serve no one.

I Am statements: Honestly, I will let this one be. It becomes a kind of round about argument where each side presents their points, but neither one really advances, because we both understand the reasoning of the other. We reach a stalemate where we agree on many points but disagree on other extrapolations.

Fully 100% of human/God: Can something be logically and rationally two things fully? If I may demonstrate mathematically how this is so, utilized three different numbers (0-3) and different forms. 3/3 = 100% = 1.00. Three numbers (0,1,3) and three different forms (decimal, percent, fraction), yet the same (all equal 1 in essence). So while is may be difficult for the mind to grasp, it is mathematically and metaphysically possible. (emphasis placed on possible)

I think I addressed everything I was questioned on. As before, please feel free to be critical and analyze my points. Question whatever you feel needs addressing or clarifying. I mean not to offend (even with the original post, it honestly wasn't directed at addressing nontrinitarian persons) but to inspire theological discussion. Thanks again for another superb response.

I know this wasn't addresses to me but felt compelled to address it anyway. I hope you do not mind.

Human sacrifice was not needed and not pleasing to GOD. Review what is said about the offerings of the Jew.

So Jesus'(GOD) self sacrifice to himself was accepted by himself and therefore needed? That makes no sense if you didn't notice. The self sacrifice of the Christ of GOD was needed, but not as a blood payment to himself, or GOD in fullness.

Each being responsible for his or her own sin does not negate the necessity of the savior and the way to GOD at all. It merely shows us that the Christ is needed. What is paradox seemingly is that GOD would pay for the sins of all by killing itself and paying in blood.
If all sin is paid for by GOD to GOD then where does man even fit in to the equation? How does that stop man from sinning?

As far as the parlor tricks with fractions and decimals are concerned; it doesn't negate the fact that 100% man+ 100% GOD = 200% man god which is pretty silly, not to mention a mathematical impossibility.


I think I addressed your own points. I did so as abruptly as possible in an attempt to, again, move things forward.

If you take offence to my responding to a post you addressed to another, then I apologise, but the issues need to be addressed I believe. Not that others won't or can't too address them, or perhaps already have.




Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

The thing with nontrinitarians is that you are also certain to find a myriad of doctrinal inconsistencies the more you have general discourse with them.

For two reasons-
1) because the denial of the Trinity requires bargaining with other fundamental ideologies

What ideologies are we talking about here that must be bargained with, and how does one bargain with an idealogy seeing as how it is at its core, only a thought or compound of thoughts. I will assume you mean one must compromise scriptural truths, and as that you offer examples or explain in some other way please.


2) they are nontrinitarian largely because they simply do not want to conform to orthodoxy

Wait....Why would one just want to not be orthodox? Wouldn't you need a reason? Your claimed reason is "because" basically.

therefore the Trinity will not be the only thing they deny

So you are really just reiterating your first point then, right?

peace



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[freelight]

I was not suggesting reference to a Urantia element specifically, but you have revealed your background and I keep that in mind when reading your posts. As I said, I like your posts and I usually read them and sometimes I even reply.

I hope you don't change a thing.

:thumb:

Yes,....I ask readers to attend the direct subject and context being engaged, what is at hand. Our various pre-textual or expanded theological studies or perspectives need not be involved in any particular way, unless we bring those up as they relate

 

[freelight]

I know what you mean. Sometimes I hesitate to articulate perchance it would culminate in an inadvertent deviation from the true course of rectitude.

I eschew obfuscation, I like to keep it simple.

Ah, I see you can be a 'wordsmith' too

I like to simplify too, but sometimes a larger discourse affords an extended view.

 

[freelight]

The thing with nontrinitarians is that you are also certain to find a myriad of doctrinal inconsistencies the more you have general discourse with them.

Maybe to one who has some pre-figured, presupposed assumptions therein

For two reasons-

1) because the denial of the Trinity requires bargaining with other fundamental ideologies
and

Fundamental to whom?

2) they are nontrinitarian largely because they simply do not want to conform to orthodoxy- therefore the Trinity will not be the only thing they deny

Oh dear. Do note who claimed their own theology to be "orthodox", and that only their vote on it, makes it so. Also, the definition of 'orthodox' by anyone does not necessarily guarantee whatever that label is applied to is 'correct'.

Jesus and his original 12 apostles, if they were traditional Jews, where essentially monotheist Unitarians. Traditional Orthodox Jews remain thus so.

 

[popsthebuilder]

What happened?

Is the debate over?

What was the conclusion?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[freelight]

What happened?

Is the debate over?

What was the conclusion?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Hey pops,

You kidding? this has been going on for almost 2 millennia

 

[jsanford108]

Freelight,
In my opinion, we agree on many points. The ideas of God's love, one's responsibility for one's sins, etc. (the reason I did not provide a quote from you is it would be long, and consist of agreement, post #55) If there is a disagreement in your post, I fail to see it. Agreements are always welcome of course, but if there was an intention at bringing forward a topic for discussion or dissection, would you mind to clarify it for me.

And if we have come to the end of our discussion, I wish to extend my sincerest gratitude for such an enjoyable discussion. At no point did I feel that your points were without merit or lacking in academic research. It is by far one of the most enjoyable I have participated in, in some time.

Thank you, friend.

 

[jsanford108]

I'm sorry friend, but I'm still not seeing how GOD killing himself is a must for the salvation of the creation that GOD made.

Is GOD not omnipotent? Oh....It is? Well then being all powerful and the creator of all existence as we know it, then surely it knew full well of the issues it's creation would have with greed, pride, and misdirection. But you are basically saying that the omniscient omnipotent creator GOD of all existence made some grand mistake of a nature of which could only be fixed by the omniscient omnipotent GOD which is spirit, manifesting itself in human form yet still omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, and killing itself for a payment to itself for the sin of man.

Yeah....Sorry, but no.

What makes you think the love of God, longsuffering and ever-giving nature can't be shown to all people through the Spirit of GOD that filled the anointed of GOD? Why can't the way to GOD be shown to man by the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the blessed Lord of men, the Christ of GOD?

Wait....I forgot; I really don't want to move forward until we can at least make sense of the first issue... why?

Why did GOD have to be a blood sacrifice for itself and how does that make us to know of the will of GOD and how to abide by it? It wasn't the only way....I would humbly advise you not to limit the capacities of GOD.

I would expect an attack of some sort as my view is not orthodox and my points have yet to have been adequately addressed. I do sincerely hope that we all can learn what is good and right in the sight of GOD by the will and time of GOD and by the Way shown by GOD and made available to all.


By the way; I don't think the Unitarian or trinitarian perspective is needed for salvation, but I do believe and understand one view to have the potential to lead very many astray.

My position may have become slightly more pointed. This is because I donot wish to simply tread over the same ground repeatedly as it will lead to needless contention eventually.

I do really respect and appreciate your leveled approach so far.

peace friend.


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I know this wasn't addresses to me but felt compelled to address it anyway. I hope you do not mind.

Human sacrifice was not needed and not pleasing to GOD. Review what is said about the offerings of the Jew.

So Jesus'(GOD) self sacrifice to himself was accepted by himself and therefore needed? That makes no sense if you didn't notice. The self sacrifice of the Christ of GOD was needed, but not as a blood payment to himself, or GOD in fullness.

Each being responsible for his or her own sin does not negate the necessity of the savior and the way to GOD at all. It merely shows us that the Christ is needed. What is paradox seemingly is that GOD would pay for the sins of all by killing itself and paying in blood.
If all sin is paid for by GOD to GOD then where does man even fit in to the equation? How does that stop man from sinning?

As far as the parlor tricks with fractions and decimals are concerned; it doesn't negate the fact that 100% man+ 100% GOD = 200% man god which is pretty silly, not to mention a mathematical impossibility.


I think I addressed your own points. I did so as abruptly as possible in an attempt to, again, move things forward.

If you take offence to my responding to a post you addressed to another, then I apologise, but the issues need to be addressed I believe. Not that others won't or can't too address them, or perhaps already have.




Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

First, forgive the long quote, but I will address both posts, if that is okay.

God sacrificing Himself was not a must, until He ordained it and chose to do it. Yet, if God did not do it, how would humanity have any means of salvation?

Is God omnipotent: I would answer yes. However, let us examine your argument. Rather than a direct address, I could counter with "Why did God create Satan? Especially knowing he would rebel and cause the fall of man?"

Love of God/God sacrifice: I am in agreement with your points on God's love. But saying why can't we know God's love through the Spirit of God rather than Christ's death begins to create a circular argument. One need only to retort "why can't God have just wiped out all sin from the beginning, since He is all-powerful?" My response to your charge is that God ordained it, thus it must be so.

Now, on to your second post, #61.

Human sacrifice and responsibility for one's sin: I think you have missed my point. The label of "human" sacrifice was explained. You will note that I specifically said that I mean it without the usual connotations attached to it. As stated, it is the only label that can be attached, but it is left lacking in true denotation. And as for one having responsibility for one's own sin, obviously this is true. We are all responsible for our own actions. I was simply highlighting the error in argument, not stating that we are not responsible.

The mathematical trick: this was by no means an attempt at a parlor trick. Rather, examine my explanation. Three forms (decimal, fraction, percentage) is akin to describing the Trinity as existing in "three forms." Yet, these three forms are actually the same number (they equal 1); likewise the Trinity is still One (the Godhead). This illustration was meant to show a possibility logically, utilizing the same vocabulary found within various doctrines and math/logic.

I take no offense at your response. No need to ever apologize for addressing a post addressed to another. This is accessible to all, thus one should expect such occurrences. And I always greet constructive criticism of any and all points that I have made. Feel free to scrutinize any post of mine, friend.

 

[jamie]

Rather than a direct address, I could counter with "Why did God create Satan? Especially knowing he would rebel and cause the fall of man?"

The Adversary is for our benefit.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The Adversary is for our benefit.

Yup.

 

[jsanford108]

The Adversary is for our benefit.

It was meant as an argumentative point; not an actual pondering or question.

 

[Lon]

Every single passage which is constantly yanked from its context so as to supposedly "prove" the Trinitarian viewpoint is one of those same passages which are all under contention. Ever notice that fact? Every single one of them is hotly debated as to what it truly says and in some cases we even have multiple manuscripts and or codices which do not even agree. And in two of the more prominent cases, (Matthew 28:19 and the Johannine Comma, or Comma Johanneum, which is 1John 5:7-8), we know that Trinitrian "scholars" inserted words and statements into the text so as to support their dogma because their dogma is clearly not openly taught anywhere in the N/T writings. It is all smoke and mirrors and supposedly hidden in "a mystery" which cannot be explained but "better be believed" just because the mother church said so long ago, (and the mother church has clearly labeled the Trinity "a mystery" because it cannot be explained or even properly expounded from the scripture when the scripture is taken in its entirety). The Trinitarian view is extracted and extrapolated from a small host of controversial passages which do not actually say what Trinitarians and their so-called scholars proclaim that they say. The only thing mainstream Christianity actually does have in its favor, as far as the Trinitarian dogma, is safety in numbers under the umbrella of a mother church; which Messiah himself has already said is error, (the broad road which leads to destruction is the way of the herd and those of the herd mentality).

:nono: Nobody contests John 1:1 without rewriting. A straight forward translation is incredibly straightforward. A Greek Unitarian was asked to read John 1:1 She simply said, "You are right."

John 20:28 Straight forward.

It doesn't matter 'if' there is contention if it is unviable contention.

 

[jamie]

It was meant as an argumentative point; not an actual pondering or question.

Questions are usually indicated by the use of a question mark such as you used.

 

[jsanford108]

Questions are usually indicated by the use of a question mark such as you used.

Read in context, you will see the nature of the question. It is not intended as an actual question to be answered.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jamie]

Read in context, you will see the nature of the question. It is not intended as an actual question to be answered.

:kookoo:

 

[daqq]

:nono: Nobody contests John 1:1 without rewriting. A straight forward translation is incredibly straightforward. A Greek Unitarian was asked to read John 1:1 She simply said, "You are right."

John 20:28 Straight forward.

It doesn't matter 'if' there is contention if it is unviable contention.

:nono: Not true because everyone OMITS the definite article from John 1:1. The common Trinitarian English reading is not even straightforward like you imaginatively claim. This is not "rewriting" but rather truly straightforward:

John 1:1 W/H
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the Elohim, and the word was Elohim.

And according to the Septuagint that is the correct reading but you would need to have done a fair amount of prayerful Septuagint searching and study to understand why I say what I do. And John 20:28 is indeed straightforward, and yet, it does not mention the name of the Father. If you understand what I said about John 1:1, and the Septuagint, and what I posted to you earlier from somewhere else, then you will understand why John 20:28 does not mention the name of the Father. The Master also explains these things in several separate but related statements concerning himself and Messiah in the Gospel accounts. However I do not expect you or anyone else here to understand any of this because you do not actually believe the full Testimony of Messiah like you imaginatively claim.

 

[freelight]

One Universal Father,......many sons........

One Universal Father,......many sons........

Freelight,
In my opinion, we agree on many points. The ideas of God's love, one's responsibility for one's sins, etc. (the reason I did not provide a quote from you is it would be long, and consist of agreement, post #55) If there is a disagreement in your post, I fail to see it. Agreements are always welcome of course, but if there was an intention at bringing forward a topic for discussion or dissection, would you mind to clarify it for me.

And if we have come to the end of our discussion, I wish to extend my sincerest gratitude for such an enjoyable discussion. At no point did I feel that your points were without merit or lacking in academic research. It is by far one of the most enjoyable I have participated in, in some time.

Thank you, friend.

Thank you jsanford,

That my views are liberal, eclectic, synergistic and progressive (even heretical to some) is nothing new here on the board, since my reputation precedes me I even identify here as 'Other' as my 'religious affiliation' for my own reasons, and while I've used 'Christian(Other)' when I first joined the board, and have even switched to 'Pagan' or 'Hindu' for a few brief periods for fun, 'Other' is somewhat generic, but adds to the mystery as well. I let my commentary speak for it (take it or leave it), and keep 'creative dialogue' and 'expansion of consciousness' as my primary directives

As a student of comparative religion and metaphysics, I'm also by no means limited to Christianity or the Bible (you cant put 'God' in a box). I of course reference and engage in traditional and biblical terms while we are discussing the historical/doctrinal aspects of Unitarian/Trinitarian debates (or any religious topic), because its a fascinating subject I've invested some study in. - I had a thread on 'Historical Arian Christianity' and 'Unitarian Christianity', so know a little bit about the subject, and am still ever learning, since that is what life is all about

I still criticize aspects of 'Christology' as being 'cosmetics', while what is essential is that one receives the full import, value and significance of the reality(love) of 'God' REVEALED in and thru Jesus the Messiah-Son. This is what matter, if you are to accept Jesus at all, if you want the full maximum benefit of his revelation.


Namaste!