Well, Kristof, I have abandoned the trinity.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Soldier of Light
  3. Well, Kristof, I have abandoned the trinity.

User Info: piccolo87

8 years ago#11
67"If you are the Christ,[d]" they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Verse 69 is a reference to Daniel 7:13, it's a term that Jesus uses to describe himself all the time. It's a self mande reference to his deity. For you to say that Jesus is man and can approach the throne of the living God, the consuming fire that was on Mount Sinai, is quite a statement.
Not to mention that I AM is also another claim to divinity as referenced in Exodus 3:14, or a how about the John 8:58 reference of before Abraham was born, I AM?

You are right to say that Jesus was a man though. There are many small details of his that proves his humanity, which makes him as Hebrews calls him, a high priest that can sympathize with us. He eats breakfast, his ministry suffers when people in his hometown don't accept him, he feels separate from God, he bleeds and dies, to name a few.

Paul refers to him as the new Adam, which in itself is a beautiful picture. The book of John also slightly alludes to the garden, in my opinion, by retelling the creation story at the beginning and ending with Jesus breathing onto the disciples. But that's getting back into the deity again, of breathing life into man (God breathing the first breath of life into Adam and Jesus breathing the first breath of Spirit into men).

Besides, one of the requirements for the books of the Bible that were chosen (according to the church of the time, by men lead by the Spirit), was they they supported the deity of Christ as well as his humanity. So on that point alone, to deny that Jesus is God is to grossly misunderstand and misinterpret the entire New Testament. Sola Scriptura

I don't care if you believe that the Trinity is not Biblical, but to deny Jesus' deity is a seriously different fundamental belief. I believe, that it discredits everything that Jesus says and does, even if you still give him the title Son of God, whatever that means to you.

User Info: piccolo87

8 years ago#12
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

User Info: piccolo87

8 years ago#13
Sorry for the repost, I forgot to italicize your post, it just looks better that way...

You say, "In my view, you do not understand what it means for Jesus to sit at God's right hand." And yet any of these arguments presuppose the deity of Christ. Why is it not possible for Christ, as the Son of God, fully man, to be seated at the right hand of God?

1 Timothy 6:16 says this:
God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

John 1 says:
18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Jesus say:
John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

So to say that Jesus is man, and can approach the Ancient of Days means you're ignoring a lot of scripture.

User Info: TriggerC13

8 years ago#14
I don't have the time or energy to debate much here, nor do I really want to. I'll touch on some points here and there but I don't want this to be a big deal. I didn't mean to drag Kristof into any kind of debate either. If you don't want to say anything, Kristof, you don't have to. For us to be fighting each other is a gross misuse of the Bible anyways. Whether trinitarian or unitarian is right or wrong is besides the point. Yes, they are important, but heated debates between the two only distort the point of Jesus's teaching. We're all brothers and sisters here. We shouldn't be enemies. If unitarians have one thing over trinitarians, is that unitarians believe that people of both beliefs can be Christians, whereas trinitarians believe than only trinitarians can be Christians.

Two weeks of studying and a nightly epiphany hardly seems enough to change your beliefs like this.

Paul changed his beliefs instantly when Jesus called him. I identify with Paul a lot, personally. Wouldn't it be limiting of God to say that he couldn't change my beliefs quickly?

Let me ask you a question. Do you still worship Jesus? Do you still worship the Spirit?

First of all, define worship. I praise Jesus, I call him my lord and savior, and I am eternally grateful to him; however, I don't worship him like I do the one God. I don't praise Jesus for the creation of the world, I don't praise him for the life that I have, I don't even praise him for the resurrection because the Bible says God resurrected Jesus, not that Jesus resurrected himself. I don't think the Bible ever tells us to worship the spirit. It talks about what the spirit is and how we should deal with it, but I don't think it ever calls us to worship it.

For you to say that Jesus is man and can approach the throne of the living God, the consuming fire that was on Mount Sinai, is quite a statement.

You fail to realize that Jesus is now a resurrected man. He has been restored in the same way that all Christians hope to be one day. When Jesus was raised from the dead, he now had the restored body that we will all have in the Kingdom of God. When we are free from the bindings of death and sin, then we will be able to stand before God acceptable. We see at Jesus's death, God forsaking his son because of the sin of the world that Jesus had taken upon himself. How can God reject himself? We see that Jesus did not die until he had taken upon himself the sins of the world. Remember, the Roman soldiers were surprised to find Jesus had died so quickly on the cross. After three days in Sheol, Jesus arose and was now in the perfect resurrected state that all followers of God will be in one day. So of course Jesus can stand before God now.

1 Timothy 6:16

If we are to take this passage in the way you are presenting it, it's a huge contradiction to a lot of scripture. We see in Isaiah, (Daniel I think), and Revelation the throne room of God, and God is surrounded by many different beings and angels. Moses was allowed to see the backside of God. In Job we see the sons of God, whoever they are, and even Satan himself speaking to God in heaven. Perhaps they have never looked upon him directly, but by no means has God closed himself off from the presence of other beings. This statement that Paul has made in passing seems to refer more to how we as mortal men cannot see God in his glory, and is being used in a sense of a glorifing title of God. The lord high honorable king, etc..

John 1:18

In all honesty, I can't make heads or tails of this sentence no matter how many times I read it. The grammar is not exactly understandable I think. It seems to be referring more to God revealing himself through Jesus. If you know the Son, you know the Father.
You've got the Magic Rod! Now you can burn things! Burn it! Burn, baby burn!
Platinum FC: 0302-5764-1264

User Info: TriggerC13

8 years ago#15
John 6:46

When read in context, this statement doesn't seem to mention anyone in particular. I think it's reading into the passage to say that "the one who is from God" is Jesus. Also, when you read the whole passage, Jesus is using the metaphor of the mana falling from heaven. Just as mana fell from heaven to feed the Israelites; the bread of life, Jesus, fell from heaven to give eternal life. It's similar to the metaphor that Jesus presented to the Samaritan woman at the well with the water that will forever quench thirst.

I don't care if you believe that the Trinity is not Biblical, but to deny Jesus' deity is a seriously different fundamental belief. I believe, that it discredits everything that Jesus says and does, even if you still give him the title Son of God, whatever that means to you.

While it is certainly a different belief, I don't think it has discredited anything Jesus said. Trust me, I had that fear. What I found though was the exact opposite! Everything that Jesus said now has even more credibility to me! I have not lost anything at all, I have gained. My faith in God has only grown through this encounter.

Let me propose two questions to everyone:

First, is it necessary to believe in the trinity when you are saved? I know that the trinity was the last thing on my mind when I was saved, and I have been raised trinitarian. I certainly haven't seen people who have accepted salvation needing to understand the trinity. It's a doctrine that is taught after the fact. However, I want to see others answers. Is it necessary to believe in the trinity to be saved?

Second, if somebody from a foreign country, say China, who had never, ever heard of Jesus or God, found a Bible, and by reading that Bible he became saved; would that person come up with the idea of the trinity? Would that person ever gain the impression that God was three in one by reading the Bible straight through?

The difference that I have seen between a trinitarian view and a unitarian view is this: Trinitarians approach the issue by saying the trinity is a true doctrine and search the scriptures to prove that their belief is correct. Unitarians begin with the scriptures, with no preconceived doctrine, and never find the idea that God is triune. You can prove almost anything by finding scripture to support it. However, it's a totally different scenario to not have anything to prove when reading the scriptures.

So, there. I've gone against my own word and debated stuff. I'm such a hypocrite. : P
You've got the Magic Rod! Now you can burn things! Burn it! Burn, baby burn!
Platinum FC: 0302-5764-1264

User Info: Polemos

8 years ago#16
It isn't "necessary" to have a full understanding of trinitarian doctrines to be saved, but in confessing "Jesus is Lord," if one does not believe that in him is the world held together and in him alone are we saved and in him is all the fulness of God and in him did God die and in him is there new life and in him so are we too raised to walk, then such a confession's power to save is only as powerful and meaningful as saying Nebuchadnezzar is "King of Kings."

I think Philippians 2 is a much stronger case for understanding that the early church believed in the pre-existence and divinity of the man Jesus, especially when we understand that Philippians was written long before any of the Gospels were.

It's understandable for people to want to read the NT as separating the three from one another, and to then compare this to all that we know about the world and the things in it, and say, "Well, there are no 'one-in-three' things around here!" and then conclude that God is not like that, that God is someone separate from Jesus or the Spirit. But, for those of us who have dealings with the Spirit, and seen what he can do and experienced what he wants and moved how he desired, denying his being God is simply not an option. That the NT evidence also reveals this was the same experience of the early church--and given the way the contemporary metaphysics of the time viewed the relationship of unity of the body within the spirit, how Paul at least articulates this reveals the identity he's making in terms of the efficacies of Jesus and Spirit--lends more support to the notion that the same Spirit who moves in the world now is the same Spirit who moved in the church then is the same Spirit who moved over the waters long ago. Perhaps this is just anecdotal, but I've never known any unitarians who were also intensely charismatic, unless we include the Oneness crowd, but they are "unity-arians" only in the sense they believe the persons are all one God, and do not distinguish these as separate persons, with Jesus being semi-divine through participation in the divinity rather than through substantial identity. Clearly not what's being argued for here.

The truly powerful point of the Gospel message, for me, is in accepting that it is God on the Cross who dies. While in certain respects this has the smatterings of its own heresy, given the long history of the traditional church, I am of the mind that it's a far less heresy than giving up everything that is amazing about what Jesus did in emptying himself of all his privilege and walking the same road we did, to then reveal the power in being used, and then the power in being killed, and then the power in being raised. It is this passivity even reflected in the language used to talk about the life of Jesus--you have to pay close attention to the letters Paul, Peter, and John wrote to see this--that marks out why the emptying of God stands as the site for what follows: our mutual and intersubjective membership in one another in the body of the risen Lord and the indwelling of his Spirit. For if it is God on the Cross who dies, what is raised afterwards is more than a god, more than a man. The body of believers is nothing new, and just another cult around a powerful man who is called and worshiped like another other thing, if we do not go through the Cross ourselves.
It took a long time to become the thing I am to you.
And you won't tear it apart without a fight, without a heart.

User Info: historicsalve

8 years ago#17
Nebuchadnezzar is called 'king of kings.' Giving someone a title that is given to God does not automatically make the recipient of the title a deity. You know this is faulty logic.

YHWH is the divine name of the only God, revealed by God himself, which is not appropriate to give to anyone but him. It is nothing like a title (which of course can be applied to many individuals), your squirming aside.

The concept of agency is crucial here. We do see angels and men worshiped (and rightly so) in the Bible.

Men and angels aren't worshiped anywhere in the Bible, since they are never given the highest honor and praise reserved for God alone. Bowing before a king isn't the same thing as bowing before God -- as always, context is king, because it is only through context that we realize the connotations certain behaviors have -- and the warnings in Rev 19:10 and 22:9 remain instructive.

The arguments that unitarians offer to explain the passages Trinitarians often assert as proofs of deity are not crazed, new-fangled grasps at twisting Scripture.

But that's certainly the case with your "arguments" above.

They are rooted in the Biblical tradition running through Old and New Testaments alike and can be demonstrated on a smaller scale with other men.

Only if you excise Christ and the Spirit from the Bible.

The issue is not that Trinitarians can lie to further the doctrine, but that Trinitarians must lie to further the doctrine.

A pretty little flourish, and convincing for everyone who doesn't know what a lie is. Here's also where I ask you why you're a hypocrite who destroys the meaning of words, etc.

You cannot dismiss his comment simply because "anyone could lie, that doesn't mean anything."

Good thing I didn't do that. Must you lie to further your doctrine?

Defending yourself because, "lots of people lie" does nothing but weakly attempt to shift the focus off the real issue at hand.

Don't lie, kristof. This has nothing to do with my defending me, or defending anyone for that matter. Trigger brought up the actions of unnamed Trinitarians and apparently assumed I would defend them. I declined.

If you would, kindly reference those passages which have been twisted and distorted by unitarians to deceive others on this matter.

So to be clear, you're denying that unitarians have ever lied to further their doctrine?

A number of instances in which this has been done by Trinitarians come to mind, but none for the unitarians

That could be because you're a unitarian. Ask a really tough gang if their crew has ever brought a knife to a fight, and they will have a selective memory too.
"...scientists had to basically violate every previous theory and law to cobble together the Big Bang theory." ca36gtp

User Info: historicsalve

8 years ago#18
Trigger, I do not want to give the impression that I've forgotten your post. I will reply fully tomorrow.
"...scientists had to basically violate every previous theory and law to cobble together the Big Bang theory." ca36gtp
  1. Boards
  2. Soldier of Light
  3. Well, Kristof, I have abandoned the trinity.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived