• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

Defining the godhead - an open discussion on Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Trinitarianism

Not really advancing the conversation. It's almost surprising when you do answer my questions.
That saw cuts both ways.

Who is the "us" and "our" in this verse?

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over
all the creatures that move along the ground.”

]
 
This bit from Wiki... gives an understanding of some binatarian belief.

Contrast with Trinitarians​

Trinitarians sometimes describe the modern binitarian view as "ditheist" or "dualist" instead of binitarian because in their misunderstanding of binitarianism some claim it posits that God is multiple beings, analogous to a human family; as all humans are also called "Man", after their first father, so in the Father's family, all born into his family are called "God". This is considered a form of polytheism in the traditional trinitarian view as well as in the unitarian or monotheistic point of view.

Semi-Arian binitarians do not believe that Jesus "was truly human and truly God", which is the position held by trinitarians. They believe that Jesus was God (the Word) prior to His incarnation, that He became fully human (finite) yet he was not fully God during the pre-resurrection incarnation as He did not have the powers etc. of God then, and that all authority was restored to Him (as well as his infinite God-status) at or shortly after the resurrection. They make three major claims to support that position:


  1. Semi-Arian binitarians believe that Jesus emptied Himself of His Divinity while in the flesh, citing the same Scriptures which trinitarians cite to the opposite conclusion: that he denied himself the honor and glory he deserved, and hid the fact that he is equal to the Father, in order to serve those who were undeserving. 2 Corinthians 8:9 states that Jesus became poor, yet God is rich (Haggai 2:8), while Philippians 2:7 states, "... Christ Jesus, who subsisting in (the) form of God thought (it) not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking (the) form of a slave, becoming in (the) likeness of men".[7] The Semi-Arian view of these texts is called kenosis, referring to the idea that what Jesus "emptied" himself of was his divinity (rather, than, say, his exalted position in Heaven).
  2. They deny the trinitarian teaching that Jesus possessed two wills and two natures. For this reason, they view the assertions of Jesus that He "could do nothing" without the Father, prior to His resurrection (John 5:19,30; 8:28), as a denial by him that he had all divine rights until after the resurrection, when he claimed that he had "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18). They conclude that it is because he had overcome the temptations of Satan and upon living the perfect sinless life would be "all powerful".
  3. Similarly, they note that the Bible claims that Jesus was tempted in all points as humans are (Hebrews 4:15) and that in another place the Bible claims "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). Denying the trinitarian view of two natures, Semi-Arian binitarians see the assertions as contradictory if posited of the same person and therefore, since "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), Jesus could not have been fully God while in the flesh. But still that is contrary to Colossians 2:9 which says, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." and Luke 4:12 "And Jesus answered, and said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

In other words, Semi-Arian binitarians believe that in the flesh Jesus was not who He was prior to His incarnation (God the Word), not what He was (i.e. not fully God with all authority) since His resurrection. He was God, then he was not fully God, then he was God again.

Trinitarians teach that the Holy Spirit is another person like the Son, who comes from God without becoming a separate being from him (Matthew 28:1920; John 16:5–7; Acts 1:8, 2:4). Most binitarians teach that the Holy Spirit is essentially the power of God, with no distinct identity within God, and not a separate Being or Person as they conceive the Son to be. For example, in its Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, the binitarian Living Church of God states, "The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe (1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 139:7; Jeremiah 23:24). It was through the Spirit that God created all things (Genesis 1:12; Revelation 4:11). It is the power by which Christ maintains the universe (Hebrews 1:2–3). It is given to all who repent of their sins and are baptized (Acts 2:38–39) and is the power (Acts 1:8; 2 Timothy 1:6–7) by which all believers may be 'overcomers' (Romans 8:37 (KJV); Revelation 2:26–27) and will be led to eternal life."

Scripture mentions prayer to the Father, and to the Son, but the Holy Spirit is never prayed to nor worshiped in the Bible; in the Revelation of John, there is praise to the "One who sits upon the throne" (God), "and to the Lamb" (Jesus), but the Spirit is not mentioned; modern binitarians conclude that this is because the Holy Spirit is not a person of the God family, but the mind of God.

Binitarians believe that statements from early Christian leaders such as Melito of Sardis and Polycarp of Smyrna were binitarian, though most mainstream scholars do not accept this assertion. Binitarians point out, for example, while both call the Father and Son "God", not only do neither refer to the Holy Spirit as God, Melito's "Oration on Our Lord's Passion" suggests that the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God in action.[8] Binitarians have noted that Paul honors the Father and the Son towards the beginning of every book he wrote, but never does so for the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians see Romans 1:4 "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:", Ephesians 1:13 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise", 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6 "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost (cor. gk. pneuma, air, breath, breeze, Spirit), and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost (cor. Spirit):" and 1 Timothy 1:14 "And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." as exceptions.

By not considering that the Holy Spirit is a person of God, or God's mind, some binitarians were also called the Pneumatomachi, as a subset of Semi-Arians.

Source

]
 
Not really advancing the conversation. It's almost surprising when you do answer my questions.
What do you make of this?

The Word was God. The Word became flesh and lived among us.
Who was the Word, that was God and lived among us? (Jesus)

John 1:1-3 NRSVue
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through him,
and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being ...
And the Word became flesh and lived among us,
and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son,[d]
full of grace and truth.
 
Semi-Arian binitarians do not believe that Jesus "was truly human and truly God", which is the position held by trinitarians. They believe that Jesus was God (the Word) prior to His incarnation, that He became fully human (finite) yet he was not fully God during the pre-resurrection incarnation as He did not have the powers etc. of God then, and that all authority was restored to Him (as well as his infinite God-status) at or shortly after the resurrection. They make three major claims to support that position:
I am in partial agreement with this. I said PARTIAL. (got it)

I posted this topic on another forum.

Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless? - Depends on your view of Logos.​

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us)
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1)

This tells three things about the Logos.
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.

Our knee-jerk thought is to jump to the meaning that Christ was the Logos.
Which is true by extension. But what was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

Strong's Greek 3056 3056. logos Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea)

I want to focus on this "as embodying an idea" definition.
The Logos as embodying an idea, the logic, the reason, the meaning.

So, returning to the topic title question: Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless?
Especially as it relates to all of humankind.

Was God's plan (Logos) from the beginning to be meaningful, or meaningless?
Or, more to the point, would the plan be meaningful to all of humankind, or only to a select minority?

Was the plan inclusive, or exclusive? (to the majority)
Can we rate an exclusive plan as good, or evil?

Meaningful = has value
Meaningless = has no value


/
 
Who is the "us" and "our" in this verse?

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
Text is ambiguous.

I know this is your thread. However, such questions are IMO, getting in the weeds of the bigger picture.

I believe I attempted to move on to binitarianism. Got anything to say about this aspect of your thread title?
 
What do you make of this?

The Word was God. The Word became flesh and lived among us.
Who was the Word, that was God and lived among us?
Really? We’ve gone over this many times. Words are WHAT’s not WHO’s.

WHAT is a word from God? Divine, by definition. John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus.

A later verse explains this divine WHAT was made flesh. NOTE: The text does not state God, himself, became flesh. That is because God never became flesh, only his word.
 
Nope. You don’t have a rejection criteria as shown by what you claim compared to the actual text. Said differently, claiming you have a rejection criteria and actually having one are not the same thing.
Once again I'm cast as a liar! (Does that make you feel superior in some way?)

I've given you my criteria -- an exegesis of the Hebrew in the entire chapter Exodus 3. Clearly you and I have different notions of what "exegesis" entails. (If we had the same notion, I would be reading your reply from right to left.)
 
-- an exegesis of the Hebrew in the entire chapter Exodus 3. Clearly you and I have different notions of what "exegesis" entails.
Yes, we certainly have different notions of what exegesis entails.
Yet, cannot accept the exegesis of 3:15 'YHWH ... is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered throughout all generations.'

Ex 3:15 is proof text of the name of God.
 
I believe I attempted to move on to binitarianism. Got anything to say about this aspect of your thread title?
Posts #194 and 195.

You didn't answer my question, other than saying "Text is ambiguous."
Seriously? What do the words "us" and "our" mean to you?

SteVen said:
Who is the "us" and "our" in this verse?

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,

]
 
Yes, we certainly have different notions of what exegesis entails.
Well, let's get down in the weeds with MY definition of exegesis, shall we? Pardon my using the Masoretic text (it's hard enough for me to comprehend Hebrew even with the pointers!).

In Ex. 3:13-15 Moses gets two answers to his question (in v. 13) about what he should tell the Israelites God's name is -- and we need to figure out whether they are the same answer. The expression אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה ('ehyeh 'ašer 'ehyeh) in v. 14 is “I am (the One who) is” -- the first answer -- but the critical issue here is the relationship of this expression to the name יְהוָ֞ה (YHWH) itself in v. 15 -- the second answer.

YHWH is derived from the same root of the verb “to [come to] be”), but as an imperfect form—יְהוָ֞ה being third person singular while אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה is first person singular. To derive the meaning of YHWH, then, we relate back to v. 14. Whether we read אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה as the simple G/Qal stem, essentially meaning “He (who) is” or “He (who) will be” -- or as a third person active (imperfect of the causative stem, essentially meaning “He (who) causes to be”, i.e. “He (who) creates” the result is the same: YHWH has the same connotation as in v. 14? (I favor the causative stem suggesting God as Creator, but it is unnecessary to the exegesis.) So, I AM THE ONE WHO IS becomes a perfectly acceptable rendering for YHWH. And for the name of the Deity.

If Moses was indeed given what amounts to the same answer twice, with YHWH as a more formalized version of I AM WHO AM or I AM THE ONE WHO IS, then we avoid the awkwardness of reading v. 14 as an interjected commentary rather than a true answer -- for it would dangle as a commentary, whereas this dangling is dispelled by the common root of the Hebrew אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה and יְהוָ֞ה

Of course, if ancient traditions from Mosaic times are being recounted in a later Hebrew that sought to recapture an older Semitic wording, this won't work. But we can't know.
 
Once again I'm cast as a liar!
Again, "I'm offended" is not an argument. Most people who lie primarily lie to themselves, including IDOLATORS. You rely on eisegesis for Ex 3:14 while completely disregarding Ex 3:15 explicit proof text that God's name is YHWH.

God said to Moses, “Tell the children of Israel this: ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

Note: God did not say in 1800 years I'll change my name to Jesus. He said his name is YHWH forever, to be remembered throughout all generations. And he never said my name is I am.
God explicitly said, 'YHWH is my
name.'
That's good enough for me. Why is that not good enough for you? (Being offended is not an answer)
 
Back
Top