Time to discuss the Christian Godhead again?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I still don’t understand the controversy of the Trinity or why it separates Christian sects.  I understand why Unitarianism is heresy because it denies Jesus’ deity.  But as long as Christians understand that Jesus is God in the flesh, in that the entire Godhead dealt within him, I don’t really see an issue.

I mean, if the entire Godhead dealt within Jesus, why is there any need to argue over how many persons are in the Godhead?  You can’t have the Holy Spirit without having the Father and Son, and you can’t have the Father without having the Son and Holy Spirit, and you can’t have the Son without having the Father and Holy Spirit…so since you can’t separate them individually, what exactly is the need of placing a number on something that isn’t numbered within Scripture?

[feeblepizza]

I got called a heretic!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I got called a heretic!

explain

[useful idiot]

I got called a heretic!

explain

I'm assuming that means he's a Unitarian.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I got called a heretic!

explain

I'm assuming that means he's a Unitarian.

that's how I interpreted it.  don't know how many books of the NT you'd have to remove to support that view, but it would be a lot of them

[John Dibble]

Well, historically the people who were very high up in the church had a vested interest in being the ones to interpret scripture. At that time having that authority granted a lot of benefits and political power, more so than even some of the most powerful churches have today. If someone were to come along and try to give a different interpretation, it would be seen as a challenge to their authority and thus a challenge to their power.

People who offered alternative opinions about the Trinity are one instance of this, and so not only were those people persecuted by the church but the result was that the Trinity doctrine was really driven home to become a major part of the theology instead of becoming a minor thing like it probably would have otherwise been. This continued for a while even in the Protestant movement. To some degree it still goes on today, but since churches don't have the same kind of authority they used to they aren't really able to enforce their own interpretations and minor schisms in the churches it happens in is the result.

[useful idiot]

I got called a heretic!

explain

I'm assuming that means he's a Unitarian.

that's how I interpreted it.  don't know how many books of the NT you'd have to remove to support that view, but it would be a lot of them

Well when you don't use the Bible to support your views you don't have to get rid of any of them. I've never met a Unitarian (or liberal Christian in general) that has a particularly high view of scripture. Sure, they'll keep a liberal translation in the pews more often than not, and proof-text the heck out of them to get a watery feel-good "sermon", but it isn't as if they're appealing to scriptural authority to decide matters of doctrine. If they were, you're absolutely right, they'd have to chop the Bible to pieces. But then if they did that, they again wouldn't be taking a high view of scripture

The trinity, or at the very least the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (combined with the assertion that there is one God), is there. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of the authority of scripture. If someone were to take issue with the trinity, while still affirming the above (Modalists, for instance), I don't think I'd call them a heretic, but I'd certainly like to know how they arrived at their conclusions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The trinity, or at the very least the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (combined with the assertion that there is one God), is there. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of the authority of scripture. If someone were to take issue with the trinity, while still affirming the above (Modalists, for instance), I don't think I'd call them a heretic, but I'd certainly like to know how they arrived at their conclusions.

My problem with the “three person” language is that it makes it sound like the singular being of God is actually a committee of three minds, and if so then it amounts to three beings no matter how intertwined they are. 

“Elohim” simply refers to our singular God being the god of all things, as opposed to polytheism which has separate gods for separate things.  It doesn’t mean that there is a god called  “God the Father” and another god called  “God the Son” and another god called “God the Holy Spirit”.

If Jesus Christ isn’t the one singular God who appeared in human flesh, then who exactly is he?


If the Trinity is actually monotheist, then how can competing ideas like Oneness and Modalism also be monotheist?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the way I understand the identity of Christ is that he was the one eternal god manifested in the flesh of a human, but this manifestation was limited in time and space.  The presence living within Christ was God himself, the creator of all things. 

The distinction between Father/Son/HolySpirit is in role only, but not in identity.  "My father and I are one...it is the Father who lives in me...how can you say 'Show us the Father?'  How have I been among you for so long and you don't know who I am?...I will send you another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, in that I will come to you."

That's why Jesus is the only way to God in the New Testament because he himself is the one and only God who appeared in the flesh and if you reject this manifestation of the one and only God, then you are literally rejecting God himself.  Likewise, if you accept Jesus, you are accepting all of God.

Jesus never parsed the identity of God, other than to point out the limitations of the different manifestation.

[feeblepizza]

Yes, I'm Unitarian.

I hope you know that the Bible, while inspired by God, was in fact written by men and is fallible. Just saying...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, I'm Unitarian.

I hope you know that the Bible, while inspired by God, was in fact written by men and is fallible. Just saying...

and I am sure you know more about Christianity than those first generation Christians, right?

[feeblepizza]

Yes, I'm Unitarian.

I hope you know that the Bible, while inspired by God, was in fact written by men and is fallible. Just saying...

and I am sure you know more about Christianity than those first generation Christians, right?

And you think that you do?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, I'm Unitarian.

I hope you know that the Bible, while inspired by God, was in fact written by men and is fallible. Just saying...

and I am sure you know more about Christianity than those first generation Christians, right?

And you think that you do?

no, rather I attempt to change my beliefs so that they are alligned with theirs

[feeblepizza]

Yes, I'm Unitarian.

I hope you know that the Bible, while inspired by God, was in fact written by men and is fallible. Just saying...

and I am sure you know more about Christianity than those first generation Christians, right?

And you think that you do?

no, rather I attempt to change my beliefs so that they are alligned with theirs

So you blindly follow words written in an incomplete, ancient text even if they contradict beliefs that you might hold if such a text didn't exist?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, rather I attempt to change my beliefs so that they are aligned with theirs

So you blindly follow words written in an incomplete, ancient text even if they contradict beliefs that you might hold if such a text didn't exist?

they're incomplete?  in what regard?  seems to me they are quite comprehensive and repetitive.  And I don't blindly follow them, rather I make sure they're in agreement with the foundation of the NT, which is the OT - I don't hold to any "NT teaching" which doesn't have at least two or three witnesses in scripture and a first reference within the OT.  And, yes, I conform my mind and change my beliefs, in order to get in sync with the scriptures.  Duh!  Isn't that what the scriptures are for?

[feeblepizza]

You're not aware that the church has omitted books from the Bible, both the OT and NT?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're not aware that the church has omitted books from the Bible, both the OT and NT?

yes, Derek, I am aware of that, but if you'd like to present a historical case (based on Christian writings and whatnot) to back your claim that true original Chrsistianity did not include belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then please be my guest.

[feeblepizza]

You're not aware that the church has omitted books from the Bible, both the OT and NT?

yes, Derek, I am aware of that, but if you'd like to present a historical case (based on Christian writings and whatnot) to back your claim that true original Chrsistianity did not include belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then please be my guest.

Oh, so I'm a heretic and a sock?

And true original Christianity did include a belief in the resurrection of Christ. I just haven't found any proof that the resurrection did indeed occur.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

*sigh*  i'm not talking about physical proof (like there would be any left from a resurrection and ascension?)

you just wasted my time once again, Derek

[feeblepizza]

*sigh*  i'm not talking about physical proof (like there would be any left from a resurrection and ascension?)

you just wasted my time once again, Derek

So I'm a heretic and a sock?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, you are a heretic who thinks like a Derek...the question is what came first, your heresy or your derekness

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

this is how this conversation has gone:

you:  i dont believe in Jesus' resurrection

me: you think you know more about the correct doctrines of Christianity than the writers of the NT?

you:  do you?

me: no, that's why I attempt to conform to the NT.  isn't that what I am supposed to do?

you: there are other books left out of the bible, you know?

me: yes, I know that, now explain your position

you:  I admit first century Christianity believed in the resurrection of Christ, just allow me to switch horses mid-stream on you and also please forget almost everything I stated before this point…but I dont believe in his resurrection because I have no proof of his resurrection.  dont they have a video tape of it or something I could examine?...But, hey, don't get me wrong, even though I reject the central claim of his resurrection that is repeated over a hundred times in the NT, I still believe the NT was inspired by God.

In other words, this is a total ludicrous conversation – as if anyone would believe the NT is inspired by God while at the same time rejecting its central claim?! You’ve got to be kidding me!

Now, I am ready for you to deliver to me Derek’s famous punch line response:  “You seem uneducated!”

In any case, here is my final response: “Who do you think we are, baggage handlers? The going rate on a boat is $1000 a night. You know that.”

[feeblepizza]

1. I have been consistent in my statements during the entirety of this discussion.

2. Some modern Christians have indeed claimed that to have proof that Jesus was resurrected. A couple of televangelists whose names don't occur to me at the moment published a book about it. I saw them advertising over the Easter weekend, in fact.

3. I have no doubt that you are educated. Hell, you're probably smarter than me in a lot of areas, me being only a teenager and you (as far as I know) being an adult.