Another tally of anti-trinitarian threads

[Krsto]

Wow. I really am speechless, and in the saddest grieving way possible.

And God has no "partner" in any valid theology. The Son is anarthrous Theos. Eternal and uncreated ontological divinity.

Yeah I'm not sure just what kind of trinity doctrine they had in SW Arabian peninsula in the 7th century - as with all other Christian theology on the fringes of the Roman World it was a bit removed from the mainstream and morphed into it's own beast (as had mainstream Christian theology morphed in its own direction in the Roman Empire) but suffice it to say it's not hard to consider Jesus a "partner" of God in any trinitarian scenario. The Nicaean Creed can make Jesus co-eternal with God, "very God of very God," and then like the good lawyers they were turn around and deny the obvious implications of having 2 that are God and say there is only one God, but such a disclaimer doesn't really solve the problem does it?

BTW, why the sadness? My version of "Islam" is a lot different than the "popular" rendition, as you may have guessed. Nothing has really changed except my ignorance of what Mo was trying to accomplish. As with Christianity, outside influences caused the successors to go in directions that should have changed once those outside conditions were removed. For Christianity the church went from organic to institutional and hierarchical due to it being illegal and for Islam it went from a call for social justice to survival against enemies and the formation of a nation/tribe and then legalistic shariah covering every aspect of life - something Mohammad never instituted.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yeah I'm not sure just what kind of trinity doctrine they had in SW Arabian peninsula in the 7th century - as with all other Christian theology it was a bit removed from the mainstream and morphed into it's own beast (as had mainstream Christian theology in the Roman Empire) but suffice it to say it's not hard to consider Jesus a "partner" of God in any trinitarian scenario. The Nicaean Creed can make Jesus co-eternal with God, "very God of very God," and then like the good lawyers they were turn around and deny the obvious implications of having 2 that are God and say there is only one God, but such a disclaimer doesn't really solve the problem does it?

BTW, why the sadness? My version of "Islam" is a lot different than the "popular" rendition, as you may have guessed. Nothing has really changed except my ignorance of what Mo was trying to accomplish. As with Christianity, outside influences caused the successors to go in directions that should have changed once those outside conditions were removed. For Christianity the church went from organic to institutional and hierarchical due to it being illegal and for Islam it went from a call for social justice to survival against enemies and the formation of a nation/tribe and then legalistic shariah covering every aspect of life - something Mohammad never instituted.

I'm sad and grieved for your departure from any fringes of truth for the subtleties of a lie.

 

[Krsto]

I'm sad and grieved for your departure from any fringes of truth for the subtleties of a lie.

Not sure to which lie you are referring to. Probably the popular view of Islam which is no doubt skewed a bit by Political Islam. My view is Mo was about fairness and justice and did much to raise the bar for Bedouin society, even while being hunted down by pagans and Jewish tribes. He prescribed laws for his immediate followers but unfortunately his legalistic successors were quite a bit like the Pharisees who thought it necessary to take the life and sayings of the prophet and make laws for every aspect of life. The fact they even need a "science" to come up with it all is a clue to the more liberal Muslims that this isn't what Mo had in mind. Many have hit the reset button on Islamic Law and are just looking for the enduring principles to live by, such as love, justice, good manners, etc. Is that the "subtleties of a lie" you had in mind?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Not sure to which lie you are referring to.

The lie that whatever you are embracing is somehow the truth.

Probably the popular view of Islam which is no doubt skewed a bit by Political Islam. My view is Mo was about fairness and justice and did much to raise the bar for Bedouin society, even while being hunted down by pagans and Jewish tribes. He prescribed laws for his immediate followers but unfortunately his legalistic successors were quite a bit like the Pharisees who thought it necessary to take the life and sayings of the prophet and make laws for every aspect of life. The fact they even need a "science" to come up with it all is a clue to the more liberal Muslims that this isn't what Mo had in mind. Many have hit the reset button on Islamic Law and are just looking for the enduring principles to live by, such as love, justice, good manners, etc. Is that the "subtleties of a lie" you had in mind?

No. Islam isn't even on the scale for what I'm grieved about for you.

Truly one of my saddest moments of this calendar year so far.

 

[Krsto]

The lie that whatever you are embracing is somehow the truth.



No. Islam isn't even on the scale for what I'm grieved about for you.

Truly one of my saddest moments of this calendar year so far.

You're being rather evasive/cryptic so I'm not sure what you are saying. What is your concern? What do you believe that I'm embracing? It's probably a whole lot different than you think.

 

[Krsto]

The lie that whatever you are embracing is somehow the truth.



No. Islam isn't even on the scale for what I'm grieved about for you.

Truly one of my saddest moments of this calendar year so far.

BTW, I appreciate the concern

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You're being rather evasive/cryptic so I'm not sure what you are saying.

It's more me avoiding any hint or perceived hint of ad hominem or argument in condescension, to illustrate my true sorrow at you embracing non-truth and being deceived.

What is your concern? What do you believe that I'm embracing? It's probably a whole lot different than you think.

I've always had serious concerns for the salvific viability of the Unitarian belief, and you've gone further afield from anything resembling the Christian faith to embrace some form of Islam that you insist can be syncretized with Christianity.

With the heaviest of hearts and no malice whatsoever, I must tell you you're deceived in all of it.

BTW, I appreciate the concern

It is genuine.

 

[Krsto]

It's more me avoiding any hint or perceived hint of ad hominem or argument in condescension, to illustrate my true sorrow at you embracing non-truth and being deceived.



I've always had serious concerns for the salvific viability of the Unitarian belief, and you've gone further afield from anything resembling the Christian faith to embrace some form of Islam that you insist can be syncretized with Christianity.

With the heaviest of hearts and no malice whatsoever, I must tell you you're deceived in all of it.



It is genuine.

You are apparently of the opinion that our Christology saves us. I think THAT is moving far afield from the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints." What did Jesus say? "Love God and man." Orthopraxis over orthodoxy is the original Jewish and Christian faiths.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are apparently of the opinion that our Christology saves us. I think THAT is moving far afield from the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints." What did Jesus say? "Love God and man." Orthopraxis over orthodoxy is the original Jewish and Christian faiths.

Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxy is a false dichotomy.

And ALL theology is Christology. He is the Logos of God.

Original Biblical Judaism was about the heart, not just the acts. The Mosaic Law was a covenant, not legislative codification for behavioral management.

Knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent is foundational for salvation.

 

[Krsto]

Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxy is a false dichotomy.

In your opinion. I believe much of Evangelical/Catholic soteriology to have gone the way of Gnosticism (salvation by knowledge). To be clear, there IS "salvation" by knowledge, but it is not the kind of salvation which determines one's eternal state. The Hebraic view of salvation was deliverance from something, and that didn't change with the New Covenant - in fact, it was made all the more cogent. "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" was an invitation, not an ultimatum.

And ALL theology is Christology. He is the Logos of God.

That is non-sensical and a non-sequitur from Jesus being the Logos.

Original Biblical Judaism was about the heart, not just the acts. The Mosaic Law was a covenant, not legislative codification for behavioral management.

It was a bit of both, though right there you are actually venturing in to what I've been thinking about the non-binding nature of much of the Law and the Prophets, including the Muslim's favorite prophet - which, BTW, they are not supposed to have a favorite prophet, according to Mo. They are not to make distinctions between them. I like to challenge them with that and the words of Jesus. I'm having a lot of fun with it

Knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent is foundational for salvation.

And the next question is, HOW do people "know" Jesus? Does it have to be through some text with all of its theological implications or does Jesus actually go to men in the Spirit and draw them to himself, in some way? Didn't Jesus say the Spirit is like the wind - we don't know where it came from but can observe what it's doing? We can see the fruit of it, IOW. What about Muslims (or atheists) who are peacemakers? What about Ghandi? Does not the Beatitudes apply to them or have we in our religiosity made them exempt? Did not Jesus say that if he be lifted up he would draw all men to himself? What if he is doing that right now to all men and many are responding in a positive way and becoming children of peace? Isn't Jesus the Way to the Father for them as well or are we afraid to make God that generous that he would work outside of our tribal affiliation?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In your opinion.

No, the qualities of each must be present for either to be valid. Not in fullness or completeness or maturity initially, but certainly cumulatively and eventually. It isn't a montage of syncretic vagueries, all being truth when the splinters are ultimately assembled.

I believe much of Evangelical/Catholic soteriology to have gone the way of Gnosticism (salvation by knowledge).

And that perception is because of the ignorance of the Christian faith being ontological and epistemological as the foundation for all economy and methodology. It is NOT the inverse. Methodology will never produce ontology and epistemology, but is dead works.

To be clear, there IS "salvation" by knowledge, but it is not the kind of salvation which determines one's eternal state. The Hebraic view of salvation was deliverance from something, and that didn't change with the New Covenant - in fact, it was made all the more cogent. "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" was an invitation, not an ultimatum.

Salvation is by faith, which includes repentance; and epignosis knowledge is a synonym for faith as faith energizes love to abound in that epignosis.

That is non-sensical and a non-sequitur from Jesus being the Logos.

No. All the great men of God concur. But one must know what Logos is, and Unitarians have substituted something in place of what it is.

It was a bit of both, though right there you are actually venturing in to what I've been thinking about the non-binding nature of much of the Law and the Prophets, including the Muslim's favorite prophet - which, BTW, they are not supposed to have a favorite prophet, according to Mo. They are not to make distinctions between them. I like to challenge them with that and the words of Jesus. I'm having a lot of fun with it

That's beating the air, Bro.

And the next question is, HOW do people "know" Jesus? Does it have to be through some text with all of its theological implications or does Jesus actually go to men in the Spirit and draw them to himself, in some way? Didn't Jesus say the Spirit is like the wind - we don't know where it came from but can observe what it's doing? We can see the fruit of it, IOW. What about Muslims (or atheists) who are peacemakers? What about Ghandi? Does not the Beatitudes apply to them or have we in our religiosity made them exempt? Did not Jesus say that if he be lifted up he would draw all men to himself? What if he is doing that right now to all men and many are responding in a positive way and becoming children of peace? Isn't Jesus the Way to the Father for them as well or are we afraid to make God that generous that he would work outside of our tribal affiliation?

That would be a lengthy convo.

 

[Lon]

I still don't know what he was talking about. Disrespect? Is Lon not getting enough respect in this life?

Water under the bridge. You'd have to go to the thread "Spammers Wasteland." Your post against a mod was moved there Again, water under the bridge but for your interest.

No, I haven't "converted" to Islam ... I've been one for as long as I've been a Christian. Not that all Muslims would accept me as a brother but that's their problem...I'm a Unitarian....and...draw inspiration from Mohammad.

Wow. I really am speechless, and in the saddest grieving way possible.

Had not envisioned it but it is within the same framework. I can't remember who started a thread on Unitarians/Arians and other cults being compatible with Islam, but the connection seems clear.

 

[Lon]

Jesus said blasphemy against the father and the son will be forgiven but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be. The trilogy is contentious but bears no consequence for those living in the spirit of God

:nono: Very important: Not "Trilogy."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Jesus said he was the light that lights all men, you point them to God in them for we all know and bear witness to "something" do not the weeds produce beautiful flowers if allowed to bloom?

Man has no divinity, and cannot acquire and become divinity. Your musings are an autonomous nothingness.

 

[fzappa13]

Jesus said he was the light that lights all men, you point them to God in them for we all know and bear witness to "something" do not the weeds produce beautiful flowers if allowed to bloom?

Most flowering plants are weeds ... I'm not sure how that affects your analogy.

 

[fzappa13]

Man has no divinity, and cannot acquire and become divinity. Your musings are an autonomous nothingness.

You couldn't be more wrong. This is exactly what Christ died for.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You couldn't be more wrong. This is exactly what Christ died for.

Wow. Seriously? There's no greater schismatic heresy than to represent the Son as merely created and/or man as divinity in any manner.

One cannot be authetically Christian and contend for either of the above.

 

[fzappa13]

Wow. Seriously? There's no greater schismatic heresy than to represent the Son as merely created and/or man as divinity in any manner.

One cannot be authetically Christian and contend for either of the above.

I didn't suggest either thing. We were offered an opportunity to become sons of god ... better said, Elohiym.

This is why the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when he rubbed their noses in psalm 82. This is what John was saying in John 1:12 and 1John:3. This is what Paul was saying in Rom 8:19.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I didn't suggest either thing. We were offered an opportunity to become sons of god ... better said, Elohiym.

This is why the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when he rubbed their noses in psalm 82. This is what John was saying in John 1:12 and 1John:3. This is what Paul was saying in Rom 8:19.

Man cannot acquire and become divinity. Being (hypostatically) translated into Christ by faith is Believers partaking OF God's divine nature; but man never intrinsically acquires divinity as his own ousia. Only the Son and Holy Spirit are homoouisos with the Father. The Redeemed are in everlasting hypostatic union with the Son, just like the Son's hypostatic union of divinity and humanity.

 

[fzappa13]

Man cannot acquire and become divinity.

No. It's a gift for those that would receive it.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.