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

[L.B. (2.0)]

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.

Joker: this is so profound! Human groups do define themselves as a herd a lot of the time. They limit group belonging to a small set of signifiers: acts and words and so on, that belong to a limited identity.
We are called to look over the hostility of the world and the limits it confines us to. Over and beyond: not to bicker with one another.
I am now asking you: what are some of your ideas on reconciling the schism unfolding in this thread?
Love to hear your ideas.
L.B.

 

[O'Darby III]

I am now asking you: what are some of your ideas on reconciling the schism unfolding in this thread?

@Mr E modifies his policy and starts banning people who disagree witth me? That might work. Or possibly he bans me and anyone who disagrees with me, although that seems rather extreme.

Really, it's just good old human nature manifesting itself. At every possible level, tribalism manifests itself. It's surely a product of evolution.

When it comes to religion - Ultimate Things that define the meaning of our existence, the Truth of which we can't actually know - the defense mechanism of "I'm right, ergo you're wrong" is inevitable. This - whatever "this" is - defines my life and my understanding of reality - I HAVE TO BE RIGHT!!!

The elephant in the room, of course, is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to bind all believers together, but he seems to have been mostly asleep at the wheel. It's enough to make Enquiring Minds question the entire ontology.

In terms of Christianity, the only solution would be a level of honesty of which most people are incapable: My understanding of Christianity is just my understanding, as is yours and everyone else's. We might all be wrong - not just about Christian dogma and doctrine, but about the very existence of a deity. We are all living in a state of mystery, ambiguity and uncertainty. All we can do is muddle along as best we can, live and let live, do unto others, yada yada.

Not only is that a level of honesty of which most people are constitutionally incapable, but it's contrary to their very understanding of Christianity: NO, GOD WANTS "REAL" CHRISTIANITY LIKE MINE RAMMED DOWN THE THROATS OF UNBELIEVERS, FALSE PROPHETS AND FALSE TEACHERS!!! THE WORLD IS CRAWLING WITH DEMONS AND DECEPTION, MUCH OF IT MASQUERADING AS CHRISTIANITY IN THE HANDS OF FALSE PROPHETS AND FALSE TEACHERS!!! WE HAVE LITMUS TESTS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW GOD DEFINES "REAL" CHRISTIANITY.

 

[Joker]

I am now asking you: what are some of your ideas on reconciling the schism unfolding in this thread?

If I understand how the sociological and historical processes work (and we're watching it unfold in real time now), is that some groups will die, some will go hard line to strengthen their identity and absorb individuals from other groups; some will attempt to maintain their identity in a weakened state; some groups will form alliances with a different group identity; and some will adapt their identity to the new environment. Survival of the fittest. It's a jungle out there. What survives is going to look different.

And tigers will still eat you.
(A nod to a certain Louisiana bartender transplanted to SoCal. Dee, I miss your cynical sense of humor.)

I don't know where God is in all this; I can only trust that He is.

 

[O'Darby III]

I don't know where God is in all this; I can only trust that He is.

This triggered the thought I forgot to add to my post above but have made elsewhere: The only possible conclusion is that the fussin' and feudin' is, in fact, God's plan. Wrestling with the issues, like every other area of human conflict is, in fact, God's plan. It all serves a divine purpose - and I don't find that difficult at all to believe.

 

[SteVen]

I am now asking you: what are some of your ideas on reconciling the schism unfolding in this thread?
Love to hear your ideas.
L.B.

Welcome to the forum.
I agree that there is no need for a schism. Some choose to be identified by their doctrine.
If you disagree, they take it as a personal attack.

'

 

[SteVen]

And tigers will still eat you.
(A nod to a certain Louisiana bartender transplanted to SoCal. Dee, I miss your cynical sense of humor.)

I don't know where God is in all this; I can only trust that He is.

"And tigers will still eat you." - Dee (bartender)

Love it! - LOL

]

 

[SteVen]

This triggered the thought I forgot to add to my post above but have made elsewhere: The only possible conclusion is that the fussin' and feudin' is, in fact, God's plan. Wrestling with the issues, like every other area of human conflict is, in fact, God's plan. It all serves a divine purpose - and I don't find that difficult at all to believe.

I love this quote from Jesus.

Luke 10:26 NIV
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

]

 

[The_H_C]

Yes. Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. Only God can forgive sins.

(I’ve been busy with life….sorry I haven’t attended to this.)

Where explicitly does the Bible say, “only God can forgive sins”?

Couldn’t that authority be conferred? Because Jesus said: “All authority has been given me.” (Matthew 28:18) Which raises a related question: If Jesus were God, why would “all authority” need to be “given” Him? He would already have had it. And as God’s chosen One, He would have had much authority already, performing those miracles.

You just presented a contradiction from the Bible. ???

If looked at through a trinitarian lens, yes, it does contradict. “Only” means what? If it meant more than one, the Bible writers should have explained. I don’t see where they did.

Are there others?
Who was in attendance at the meeting in the book of Job when Satan presented himself before God?

Angels, which weren’t/aren’t parts of God. Rather, they had the same form (Gr., morphe) as God did: spirit.

Also...

1 Corinthians 8:5 NIV
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth
(as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),

Please, finish the Apostle Paul’s sentence (vs.6): “…there is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are and we for Him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through Him.”

What does “one” mean? I see a complete separateness here.

It's not intended to quantify God.

What do you mean by “quantify”?
To a certain degree, I think Paul did it above. Just as Deuteronomy 6:4 does.

….If they are the same God

Do not the Scriptures tell us about Jesus as God’s “Chief Agent”? An agent is a go-between. But “from” whom does the HS come? If Jesus was given “all authority”, it is not too hard to imagine that He has access to it, too.

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,

…and…

When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—

It seems both Jesus and God send it. See above.

I understand that if one's theology has "Jesus as fully God and fully human" as its foundation, one is pretty much forced to accept and perhaps try to make sense of the Trinity; I think it's the foundation itself that's flawed.

I agree.

What foundation should we consider? Maybe we should what Jesus’

Did Jesus’ followers believe He was God? Many use John 20:28 to claim that. Did Thomas mean more than just a surprised exclamation, “Oh my God!” as quite a few say do today?



Well, what did Jesus’ followers say about Him while walking on the road, in Luke 24:15-32? One named Cleopas said, “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.”

There is no ‘Jesus is God’ mentioned. Rather, a ‘powerful prophet before God’ is what he said.

Another account revealing how Jesus’ followers viewed Him, is recorded at Acts 4:23-31. Notice their prayer…. Who were they praying to? Who was “Sovereign Lord”? Not Jesus, was it?

They referred to Jesus as God’s “Holy Servant.”

They did not claim that Jesus was God. Did they?


Let’s look at the “I AM” claim…

Did the Jews understand that Jesus was claiming to be God?
Well, that would be the ultimate blasphemy! Why didn’t they attempt to kill him right after vs.24? Why did they wait until He said “ego eimi” again, @ vs.58?
The account (vs59) says, “But Jesus hid and went out of the Temple”, right?

Why didn’t the Jews kill Him the next time they saw Him? There was no statute of limitations… they would have just grabbed Jesus the next time they saw Him!

They didn’t.
If John 8:24 & 8:58 is how many describe it, they would have had sufficient grounds to kill Jesus later that day! Or the next. Whenever they got around him.

It’s actually not until John 11:54 that Jesus started to avoid public events.

Why wasn’t the fact that Jesus said “I Am / ego eimi” reaffirmed at His Sanhedrin trial?
All 4 Gospel accounts, like at Matthew 26:59-64, reveal, that at that trial, although they were looking for even false witnesses to convict Him, they could not find grounds on which to kill Jesus. Until he admitted he was God’s Son. (What happened to “ego eimi”? They forgot?)

In fact, in John 11:47-53, please read what the Sanhedrin members were saying: not once did they say that Jesus said he was God.

So, this ““ego eimi” as “I Am God”” claim has been used for centuries. But when context is scrutinized, the argument really carries no weight.
Context clarifies a lot.
IMO

Best wishes to you all, my cousins.

 

[SteVen]

Where explicitly does the Bible say, “only God can forgive sins”?

Couldn’t that authority be conferred? Because Jesus said: “All authority has been given me.” (Matthew 28:18) Which raises a related question: If Jesus were God, why would “all authority” need to be “given” Him? He would already have had it. And as God’s chosen One, He would have had much authority already, performing those miracles.

A good question, on some level. Yes, we have authority to forgive sin, on BEHALF of God.
To whom was the transgression against? Not against those given the authority to forgive.

]

 

[SteVen]

So three entities are mentioned together. That doesn’t make them the same, does it?

And “…in the name of” is a reference meaning “in behalf of” or “in the authority of”, such as “…in the name of the law.”

At John 17, when Jesus prayed to His Father and called Him, “the only true God”(vs.3), what does only mean to you?

Isn’t trying to include another as God, contradicting Jesus’ statement, that His Father is the “only true God”?

The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, IMO.

What do you make of this?

John 14:8-10 NIV
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority.
Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

]

 

[SteVen]

SteVen said:
You just presented a contradiction from the Bible. ???

If looked at through a trinitarian lens, yes, it does contradict. “Only” means what? If it meant more than one, the Bible writers should have explained. I don’t see where they did.

That saw cuts both ways. The unitarian lens gives you a POV as well.
All three views (unitarian, binatarian and trinitarian) have biblical support.
And all three views are in contradiction.

Frankly, unitarian, binatarian and trinitarian are are human attempts to explain the unexplainable.

]

 

[Mr E]

What do you make of this?

John 14:8-10 NIV
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority.
Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

]

Isn't that rather self-explanatory?

He explains it pretty clearly-- 'the Father is in me' so if you've seen me, you've seen the Father already.