• 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

Joker said:
But isn't this what orthodox Judaism and Christianity has always said? We may have to tear up your Heretics club membership card.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature... (Hebrews 1:1-3a)

God can only be known through what He revealed through the prophets and through Jesus. This assumes that Jesus was one of those "emanations" (is an emanation like a hypostasis?) and that whatever it was the Prophets encountered was also an emanation. That's about as orthodox as you can get. (But the guardians of Orthodoxy need to protect their territory; hence the Cessationist doctrine. No more nocturnal emanations, thank you very much.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I'm in basic agreement with most of what you've said. Judaism in particular seems to have a deeper understanding of the Divine Mystery than many species of Christianity. This is why I "object" (as if anyone cares!) to the Trinity being presented as an ontological reality and litmus test. As "a way to get your head around the Divine Mystery," I have no quibble - except that this is then used to explain other doctrines that you MUST believe and treat as ontological certainties.

(I left my Heretics Club card in my golf pants and my wife ran through the washer, so at the moment they won't admit me to any of the meetings.)
 
O'Darby III said:
The goofiness is in insisting that to be a Christian one MUST think of God and Jesus in terms of this abstraction, precisely as though it were an ontological reality.
Click to expand...
I never really ran into this phenomenon in my (Methodist) churches, though I did when I used to listen to the likes of John MacArthur on the "Christian Radio" station during morning drive time. I've also used it myself to preach at a young Jehovah's Witness who came to my door. He came back with an elder, so I just told them I didn't feel up to discussing it. I have since repented of this foolishness.

I see two things going on here:

1. The Nicene fathers came up with this doctrine to resolve the question of "How much reverence should we give Jesus without violating the non-negotiable "One God" doctrine we inherited from our Jewish forefathers (whom we don't care much for, but Jesus Himself honored).

2. All human groups have ways of defining themselves over and against everybody else. Boundaries are necessary for survival in a hostile world. Groups that don't do this lose their identity and don't survive as such. Hence these "Litmus Tests". Trinity wouldn't be one of my non-negotiables, but nobody asked me.
 
Last edited:
Joker said:
1. The Nicene fathers came up with this doctrine to resolve the question of "How much reverence should we give Jesus without violating the non-negotiable "One God" doctrine we inherited from our Jewish forefathers (whom we don't care much for, but Jesus Himself honored).
Click to expand...
I actually think this is a significant, seldom-discussed problem: The Jesus described in the Gospels clearly believed and taught a number of "OT sort of things" many us would have preferred he didn't. Another ostensible Christian guy with something like 100,000 posts on another forum divides the NT into things his warm-and-fuzzy Jesus really said and the "primitive and barbaric nonsense" the NT authors put into his mouth because they couldn't accept his warmth and fuzziness. I used to make fun of the guy, but now I probably do something similar!
 
O'Darby III said:
The questions I pose about the Trinity aren't posed in the expectation I will receive "answers." They are posed to illustrate that the attempt to posit the Trinity as an ontological reality is hopeless. When you try to think about it as an ontological reality - to "picture" it in your mind - you just end up with a headache. It's an abstraction that attempts to tie together other doctrines, not to express a reality. My questions are merely intended to illustrate this. The goofiness is in insisting that to be a Christian one MUST think of God and Jesus in terms of this abstraction, precisely as though it were an ontological reality.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. (reminder)

My posts concerning the Trinity are a representation of what I have learned from Bible study/teachings on the subject.
I'm not necessarily "married" to trinitarianism. I'll jump ship when something better comes along. - LOL
That's what I did with the hell doctrine when I learned about UR.

This is not to say that the Trinity is understandable in human terms. I agree that is an issue.
But the biblical record won't let me sweep this away as nonsense. There is too much biblical evidence.

I'm still waiting for a good debate on this. My opponents have not made a good showing yet.
And I'm not looking for human reasoning as to why the Trinity doesn't make sense. I'm already painfully aware of that fact.
Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it false. It just means we are ignorant. (lack knowledge)

[
 
Joker said:
We may have to tear up your Heretics club membership card.
Click to expand...
Mine is more like a credit card. He'll need a scissors to destroy it. - LOL
cc: @O'Darby III

Joker said:
God can only be known through what He revealed through the prophets and through Jesus. This assumes that Jesus was one of those "emanations" (is an emanation like a hypostasis?) and that whatever it was the Prophets encountered was also an emanation. That's about as orthodox as you can get. (But the guardians of Orthodoxy need to protect their territory; hence the Cessationist doctrine. No more nocturnal emanations, thank you very much.)
Click to expand...
Yes!
This is the problem with institutional Christian religion and the Bible they gave us, which they originally withheld from us.
The idea that the church and the Bible are the ONLY source for a relationship with God. Ironically the Bible is chock full of testimony about God being found by regular folks WITHOUT a Bible or a church. Hebrews chapter 11 alone is enough evidence.

'
 
O'Darby III said:
I actually think this is a significant, seldom-discussed problem: The Jesus described in the Gospels clearly believed and taught a number of "OT sort of things" many of us would have preferred he didn't. Another ostensible Christian guy with something like 100,000 posts on another forum divides the NT into things his warm-and-fuzzy Jesus really said and the "primitive and barbaric nonsense" the NT authors put into his mouth because they couldn't accept his warmth and fuzziness. I used to make fun of the guy, but now I probably do something similar!
Click to expand...
Hey, that guy on the other forum didn't happen to be a member of the Jesus Seminar, did he?

I was astonished to learn on CB that there are still Marcionite churches in existence today.

For those not familiar with church history, Marcion of Sinope was a follower of Paul who believed the YHWH God of the Old Testament was some "barbaric" (that's the word their website uses; don't blame me) lesser god and NOT the God who sent Jesus Christ. Of interest to @SteVen, he also is credited with establishing the first New Testament canon in around 140 AD which consisted of something the theologians call "The Gospel of Marcion" and ten of letters of Paul. All that embarrassing OT stuff didn't make the cut.

I guess that's one way to handle the problem.
 
Joker said:
Of interest to @SteVen, he also is credited with establishing the first New Testament canon in around 140 AD which consisted of something the theologians call "The Gospel of Marcion" and ten of letters of Paul. All that embarrassing OT stuff didn't make the cut.
Click to expand...
Yup. The first in a long line of circus canon acts. - LOL

Seriously though, even though I question whether we should have a Bible at all, the RCC did a great job considering all the available material.

Don't forget to thank the next Catholic you encounter. Just keep a safe distance... they are known to bite!

] cc: @O'Darby III
 
Joker said:
Hey, that guy on the other forum didn't happen to be a member of the Jesus Seminar, did he?

I was astonished to learn on CB that there are still Marcionite churches in existence today.

For those not familiar with church history, Marcion of Sinope was a follower of Paul who believed the YHWH God of the Old Testament was some "barbaric" (that's the word their website uses; don't blame me) lesser god and NOT the God who sent Jesus Christ. Of interest to @SteVen, he also is credited with establishing the first New Testament canon in around 140 AD which consisted of something the theologians call "The Gospel of Marcion" and ten of letters of Paul. All that embarrassing OT stuff didn't make the cut.

I guess that's one way to handle the problem.
Click to expand...

/gasp/ A gnostic, summarily dismissed by decree.
 
Joker said:
Hey, that guy on the other forum didn't happen to be a member of the Jesus Seminar, did he?
Click to expand...
No, he was a hoot. A Ph.D. and self-styled intellectual. During meditation, he'd had a mystical encounter with a being he believed to be Jesus. That encounter was his entire Christianity. Anything at odds with his encounter was ipso facto bogus. Odd as it may seem, he was extremely influential and popular, probably for the reason that his New Age Christianity was so warm and fuzzy even the atheists loved it. On the other hand, if he had a genuine experience of Cosmic Consciousness, virtually everyone who does ends up with the same Oneness theology. Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind, https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Consciousness-Study-Evolution-Human/dp/1578989620.
Joker said:
I was astonished to learn on CB that there are still Marcionite churches in existence today.

For those not familiar with church history, Marcion of Sinope was a follower of Paul who believed the YHWH God of the Old Testament was some "barbaric" (that's the word their website uses; don't blame me) lesser god and NOT the God who sent Jesus Christ. Of interest to @SteVen, he also is credited with establishing the first New Testament canon in around 140 AD which consisted of something the theologians call "The Gospel of Marcion" and ten of letters of Paul. All that embarrassing OT stuff didn't make the cut.

I guess that's one way to handle the problem.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware they still existed either. They certainly don't pull their punches:

Do the Marcionites reject the Hebrew bible (Old Testament) and its deity?​

Yes. The Hebrew bible (Old Testament) and the carnal deity portrayed within it, is antithetical to the words and teachings of Jesus Christ - the proof is self-evident. It represents an alien culture and religion diametrically opposed to the God revealed to us through Jesus Christ and The Gospel of the Lord.​

The obvious problem is why Jesus accepted the OT and referenced it extensively. Gnostics and Valentinians went the same direction. It is a plausible answer to the Problem of Evil. This world simply isn't the product of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God but a deity or sub-deity who is either malevolent or incompetent. It does make the war between Good and Evil a real one and not an illusion. I suppose, like orthodox Christianity itself, it's an attempt to come to grips with divine mysteries.
 
O'Darby III said:
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a convincing explanation as to how the fish-eating, resurrection-body, shaking-hands-in-heaven Jesus squares with "God is Spirit" or any sort of Trinitarian notion. If the Logos is now this Jesus, hasn't there been a fundamental change in the godhead?
Click to expand...
Sorry this is so late, but having big problems. Drowned my MacBook and sent it to APPLE for 'hopefully less' than the $600 estimated repair bill.

But here is a shot at answering your question from my POV.

The FATHER, WORD, HOLY SPIRIT were all three "spirit". The 'WORD/spirit' gave up 'invisible spirit form' and became visible flesh. The "flesh body" of Jesus at birth. God place the "spirit of Christ" IMO, into that body and that's what made 'that spirit' the son of God. Not the body which WAS spirit as The WORD. Upon resurrection Jesus had a 'spiritual body' capable of shaking hands, eating fish and walk through walls.

Same thing happened with Adam, the first "son of God" Luke 3:38. It wasn't Adam's, fresh from the dirt 'dead flesh body' that made Adam a 'son of God'. It was the spirit (of Christ??) in Him which was breathed into that body by the Holy Spirit IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top