![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I notice in the argument against the Trinity, the anti-trinitarian (Oneness, Sabelleaus) position makes "person" identical to "being". In addition, I cannot fathom the Oneness notion of Jesus talking to...(?) when he is addressing the Father. Nor can I understand who (else) the Comforter is, if not the Holy Spirit, when Jesus says he will send another.
Anyone here have some good insight into the Oneness position on "who" else is Jesus referring to if not another "person"? -- Zaphnathpaaneah 10:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Midnite Critic's reply to Exile: OKay, so I could have been more NPOV in the above; however, this IS a talk page, not the article itself. Just to let you know, I don't hold what I- and Orthodox Christianity as a whole- consider to be theological errors to, in and of themselves, make anyone a candidate for "the firey furnace." And, unlike many Western Christians, I don't find the doctrine of the Trinity to be particularly "mysterious." That's also the case for the mysticism found in the Gospel of John and throughout the Christian tradition. Okay, well, groovy. As Jesus said, "To whom much is given, from them much is expected." Therefore, that makes ME much more of a candidate for hell if I don't avail myself of the grace of God in order to live up to what I know I am called to: "peace with all people, and especially those who are of the household of faith," as St. Paul puts it. -- Midnite Critic 13:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Jacob's reply to Zaphnathpaaneah. I realize that this conversation is long since over, but I just read it and wanted to reply from the Sabellian or Oneness position in regard to who Jesus prayed to. Short answer: the Son of God prayed to his Father, who was God. Trinitarians might say, "That's what we believe". The breakdown comes in understanding what is meant by "the Son of God". Trinitarians say that "Son of God" and "God the Son" mean the same thing. They do not. When the Bible uses the term "Son of God", it is referring to the incarnate human being, Jesus Christ. "God the Son" is non-Biblical terminology, much like the number "Three" when used in relation to God. Regarding "the Son of God", was Jesus not a human person? Did Jesus not get tired? Wasn't Jesus tempted to sin? And if Jesus was a human person just like you and me, doesn't it make sense that Jesus would pray just like you and me? The humanity of Jesus was not God and thus needed to pray. Jehovah God integrated His Spirit with the flesh of Jesus, or as the Bible states it, God manifest himself in flesh. This is what the scripture means when it says "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself". It does not say, "God the Son was in Christ" or "God the Father was in Christ". It says simply and wonderfully, "God (in all His fulness) was in Christ".
Most of us probably have some comprehension of the dual nature of Christ -- that he was fully man and fully God. Thus, when interpreting the life of Christ, you must determine if He is acting as a man or as God. When Jesus calmed the storm, He acted as God. But when He said "I thirst", He was acting as a man. In light of this, when Jesus prayed, it was "the man Christ Jesus" praying to God. St. Paul masterfully gave the Oneness view in a nutshell in Ephesians 4 when he said that there is "One body and one Spirit". A few verses later he said that there is "One God and Father of all". Awesome! Jacob 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
@ Jacob
Amazing how totally I agree with you about the fact that Athanasius and Marcellus were close allies to begin with, and then went fell apart, not because of Marcellus, but because of Athanasius. It is possible to reconstruct Athanasius’ change of mind (after 341 CE, when A. & M. were still defending themselves at the Synod of Rome against the then temporarily prevailing Arians): up to Nicea 325 CE, Athanasius’ main concern was not the homousios doctrine (which P.F. Beatrice from the University of Padua, in his The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity [1] shows convincingly to depend entirely on Constantine’s pressures on the Council), but rather to insist that Jesus Christ really shared God’s nature (homogenes, homophyes). Afterwards, when Athanasius started insisting that the “personality” of the Holy Spirit was “obviously” implied in the Creed of Nicea, he showed to have lost sincerity and integrity.
There is no doubt that Marcellus of Ancyra was a much more important figure than what we perceive him to be nowadays: unfortunately for him, he was regarded with suspicion (inevitably) by both sides, Athanasians and Arians alike. The fact that he (an Easterner!), presented to Pope Julius in 341 the very first recorded text (in Greek) of the Apostles’ Creed; the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea also started quarrelling with him, after Eusebius himself had turned “Nicean” (and Eusebius was the ambiguous character that “sold” Constantine’s problematic homousios formula to the other bishops at Nicea); the fact that he never shared the “orthodox” Trinitarian doctrine, make him a most interesting, albeit elusive figure. I am really looking forward to when Sara Purvis from Edinburgh University [2] publishes her The Extant Works of Marcellus of Ancyra: the Canons of Ancyra 314, the Contra Asterium, De Sancta Ecclesia, the Letter to Julius and the Western Creed of Serdica.
Although Marcellus was persecuted and repeatedly removed from his Episcopal site, he was never formally condemned for heresy (unlike his deacon Photinus). I don’t think he can be tagged as a Sabellian: I believe he cannot be fitted properly in any heretic category, he was simply a defender of the Creed of the Apostles.
As for Arius being murdered, I also believe (as Isaac Newton already did) that he was poisoned, but maybe it was just food poisoning, an ominous historical coincidence.-- Miguel de Servet 00:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, you are right that we only kow about Sabellianism indirectly, by what opponents say about it, but we know enough about it to say that not only with it the Trinitarian distinction of persons within God was denied, but also that all distinction between God as Creator, on the one side, and Jesus on the other, was wiped out as simple "modes" of presentation to us humans, with our imperfect understanding. I do not think, from Marcellus' extant works (I have only read his On the Holy Church, though), that he shared this Modalistic view, I think, rather, that he boldly managed to affirm Strict Monotheism, and at the same time a strong belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. This was, by all appearence, also the original belief of Athanasius, until he corrupted his thought with the Trinitarian doctrine (which, as P.F. Beatrice argues convincingly in this essay that I have quoted in my previous post, is directly derived from pagan Egyptian Hermetism). Another authoritative, recent work on Marcellus of Ancyra is Contra Marcellum, by Joseph T. Lienhard [3]. I am glad to see that, by our mutual usernames, we both pay homage to Michael Servetus, the staunch defender, hero and martyr of Strict Monotheism. -- Miguel de Servet 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, you “wonder at my true understanding of Modalism”. Let me first reassert where I believe the “original” Athanasius stood, together with Marcellus: they (and I with them) «boldly managed to affirm Strict Monotheism, and at the same time a strong belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ». The difficulty is to reconcile the above position with the refusal of “Ontological” (or “Immanent” – though the term is somewhat confusing, because it is usually opposed to “Transcendent” ) Trinitarianism (or, for that matter, Binitarianism) and with the affirmation of a real Divine-human Jesus. You quote Paul (Col 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”). I accept it, but I think it is necessary to combine it with John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) and John 1:14 (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us …”). What do I mean by this? I mean that it is not generically Godhead (“God-stuff”) that “inhabited” in Jesus Christ, but, more specifically, God’s Word (or Logos, Wisdom, Sophia, Hochmah). But, unlike in the Trinitarian dogma, this Logos is not for me (and I “feel” also, perhaps, for Athanasius, and certainly for Marcellus) a personal and pre-existent entity, but an eternal attribute of the One and Only God, the Father, YHWH, who bestowed his Logos, by generation, on His Son Jesus Christ:
As for the Holy Spirit (Pneuma, Ruah) I also consider it (similar to the Logos) an “attribute” of God. Using a beautiful image, derived from Deuteronomy, Michael Servetus says that God’s Word and God’s Spirit are His two “arms”:
Having said all the above, I claim to be (I claim the above defines) a Strict (Christian) Monotheist. And I make as bold as saying that, for what I know of him, also Marcellus (unlike Sabellius, probably) was one. -- Miguel de Servet 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
there is something paradoxical in our exchange, a risk that I am sure you also perceive, but that nevertheless I want to point out. We both refuse the existing dogma (Trinitarian etc.), but we run the risk of falling, by our debate, in the trap of creating yet another dogma. So, with this caveat in mind, I will say that I strongly believe that all (all!) the Church dogma should be reduced to the Apostles Creed, and anything beyond it should be either forbidden (but this requires an accepted authority), or considered strictly personal, and therefore not binding.
Bearing in mind the above disclaimer, and that it is very hard to go beyond the conceptual and verbal level we have already reached, I will try to reply your questions with some further clarifications on my (strictly personal!) positions.
There is also a deeper reason for my rejection of the Trinity, and it really has more to do with Incarnation: I will expand on this in a next instalment. -- Miguel de Servet 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
God, according to Genesis, made man “in His image and likeness”
Now, if by “man” we do not mean human society, but the real and concrete human being of flesh and blood, the concrete human being that each of us is, then God can only be One Person, and Trinity is nothing but the symbolic expression of the inner Life of this Person, of His Creative Power, His Loving Wisdom and His Vivifying Spirit.
If, on the other hand, we do not mean “man” as concrete human being, but rather as human society, we may likewise argue that God is a Society of Persons, and in this case the dogma of Trinity is not a symbolic expression, but a literal truth.
This latter position, which can be perfectly upheld from a rational point of view, has the main disadvantage that it is not supported anywhere in the Scriptures. Neither in the Old Testament, in which God’s Oneness only is proclaimed, and when God’s Wisdom or Spirit are spoken of, there is no reason to assume that what is referred to is anything other than attributes of the One God and Father. Nor in the New Testament, in which, rather, it is insisted that God is Abba, Father.
Things become even more complicated with the dogma of Incarnation. Assuming, in fact, that in God there subsist a Trinity of Persons, and that in Jesus human nature has been united to the divine nature of the Eternal Son so as to constitute one Person, how is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, posited with respect to this Trinity? Two only are the possibilities: either the divinity of the Son has been changed and somehow “enriched” by the humanity of Jesus, or the humanity of Jesus has been entirely “absorbed” into the divinity of the Son.
In the former case it is God’s immutability which is questioned, in the latter case it is the very reality, value and meaning of Resurrection which dissolve into a haze.
-- Miguel de Servet 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am rather surprized that, while
Trinity and Incarnation (II) caused ample and immediate response, nobody touches this T & I (I). Does it mean to say that what I say here is not controversial? I doubt it! But it is here that I laid out the fundamental logical and rational criticism of the traditional dogma of Trinity and, most of all, of Incarnation.
--
Miguel de Servet
08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In my tormented relationship with Christianity I have developed a total repulsion for the Doctrine of Trinity, as it is proposed by the Catholic Church and more in general by all the Christian churches, Orthodox, Protestant etc., with the single exception of the Unitarian Church.
For a long time I believed that the motivation of my attitude was due to several facts, amongst which I mention the main ones:
Without modifying anything of the above exposed convictions, I gradually came to realize that the true problem for me is above all that of Incarnation. It appears difficult to me to accept and to believe that Jesus Christ can be the Incarnation of God (or more exactly, according to the Dogma, of the second person of the Trinity) and that therefore, inasmuch as God, he cannot not enjoy divine attributes, in particular Omnipotence and Omniscience, that we consider necessarily associated to the notion of God.
How can in fact such Man-God actually suffer the limitations imposed by human nature? What kind of redemptive value has for humans the death of Someone who ultimately only has "up to a certain point" shared the human condition? Which is the meaning and the value of the Resurrection of a Man-God who, in inasmuch as God, cannot really suffer death and, inasmuch as man, whose nature is intimately connected to his divine nature, from this same divine nature would have received, so to speak "by dragging", victory over death, making therefore superfluous to think of the intervention of the One God Father, which however is expressed without possible misunderstanding in the NT, and in particular in Peter’s speech in the "Acts of the Apostles"?
Therefore, thinking to overcome my repulsion for the doctrine of Trinity, but in fact (as I came to realize) above all in order to overcome the difficulties with the Doctrine the Incarnation (difficulties that, it is worth noticing, do not depend on the formulation according to the Trinitarian Dogma, but indeed would be aggravated by a “Unitarian", "Patripassian" formulation of the Incarnation), I have thought to find a satisfactory solution to both problems in the enunciations that follow, which constitute some kind of "personal creed":
This "creed", with its heterodoxy, has somehow satisfied the primary requirement to refer to God as a Personal Entity, present in the world created by Him and acting on it with Wisdom and Love.
Besides this requirement, but of no less importance , this "creed" allows me to feel that the call to sharing with Jews and Muslims the same One God of Abraham is neither strained nor fictitious.
But if on one side this creed helps overcome my repulsion for the doctrine of Trinity, and my perplexities regarding the doctrine of Incarnation, I cannot deny that a different problem arises. A God Father, who loves His Creation so much as to give it His One-begotten Son, in the end is also the one who sent Him in this world without any warning of danger, who literally gave Him the illusion of the imminent foundation of God’s Kingdom, and of the possibility to establish this Kingdom in a non traumatic way. This can be clearly perceived from the Gospels in the first phase of the mission of Jesus, until the "crisis of Caesarea" and in the tragic character of the rest of the mission of Jesus, until the epilogue on the Cross.
Therefore a choice is inevitable. On one side the doctrine of Trinity and of Incarnation, which attempts the impossible (and for me sacrilegious) combination of the "God" of philosophers with the One and True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and inevitably transforms Incarnation itself in some kind of "sacred representation", of "comedy", "pedagogical action" by God (but which God?) towards Humanity, without any true sharing of "human condition", in spite of every well-meaning apologetic effort. On the other side a creed that apparently introduces the notion of "cruelty" in God the Father, even towards His Beloved Son.
I believe that this apparent cruelty is the true key to understanding the Sacrifice of the Cross. We must think of Jesus who, as reads the "Letter to the Hebrews", "learns from His suffering", who at Gethsemane prays that He be spared the bitter cup (but only "if it is still possible"), who reminds Pontius Pilate that a legion of Angels could free Him, if only He should ask His Father. Jesus who in the supreme moment does not resort to His relationship with God the Father in any form other than obedience. Who affirms His Regality only by means of His Word. Who knows well the precariousness and unreliability of every human solidarity, even from one’s most trusted friends. Who finally, so His humanity can manifest itself in the fullness of its limits, is and feels totally abandoned by God the death, and like every human being faces the supreme moment with that fear of the unknown that every human being must experience and that God Father, abandoning Him totally to death, interrupting the intimacy with which He has always supported Him, lets Him taste in all its horror.
This is the Jesus who, "approved by God”, is resurrected by God. He has defied death and He has conquered it not because, inasmuch as Son of God, He could only win, but because, "first of the resurrected" God has put Him as a Guide of Humanity until the final Victory. Jesus has received from God, His Father, a mission to accomplish. He has gradually understood it and freely accepted it, up to the Sacrifice of His Life. We must think that Jesus could have failed, but that he had the Courage to endure to the end, for our Love.
-- Miguel de Servet 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider,
I am overjoyed that my contrib had caused an immediate response, and that it is sensible and reasonable: I believe this is what a "Discussion page" should be eminently for (I hope Rholton agrees on this!?). As the points you bring up are "sensitive", and need to be carefully dealt with, and besides it is a very late hour for me, I will reply in due course, a.s.a.p. -- Miguel de Servet 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I added the header as a subtle(?) hint that this is not an appropriate use of a discussion page on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the section What talk pages may be used for.– RHolton ≡– 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, you ask, "How on earth does one sit on the right hand of himself... If what you say is true, wouldn't it have been easier for Stephen to look into the heavens and saw God? That is not what he saw. He saw two indivdiuals."
I ask you, did Stephen see the Father? What of John 1:18 which says, "No man hath seen God at any time"? Or of John 6 which says, "Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God"? The Biblical symbolic significance of the "right hand" is that of power and birth right. Jesus is the first born of every creature and He is the power of God unto salvation, or at the right hand of God. You cannot attempt to squeeze doctrine from symbolic visions. If so, where are the eternal Son and Holy Ghost in Isaiah's kingly vision in Isa. 6? Where were the Son and Holy Ghost when Satan presented himself before God in the book of Job? When John the Revelator looked up into heaven, he beheld "one throne and one who sat upon the throne". No man can see God, who is invisible, except through the man by which God has chosen to reveal Himself (Col. 1:15). Again I refer to Isaiah 9:6, "the son shall be called Everlasting Father, the Mighty God". Jacob 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines,
What talk pages may be used for:
The talk pages of controversial topics can often be very heavily used. See for example Talk:Abortion, Talk:Capitalism, Talk:Socialism, Talk:Jesus Christ.[evidence mine]
@ RHolton: would you not agree that "Trinity" is just about as controversial as "Jesus Christ", if not more? So where is the "guideline problem"?
And I dare say the topic I have initiated hardly qualifies as "general chatter".Perhaps the addition of a
would do?
--
Miguel de Servet
07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, I will try to reply your questions as I best can:
Quoting from What talk pages may be used for:
I have no objection to the quantity of the posts, nor to their quality, which seems quite high. However, this discussion is not about how to improve the article, and thus is not appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page.– RHolton ≡– 12:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
RHolton:
Lets put two critical lines from the very same "guideline"
What talk pages may be used for next to each other [evidence mine]:
You quoted (only) the first (which, BTW, is rather clumsily and even ambiguously phrased, what with "are also not strictly a forum"?), I quoted (only) the second, but they are both from the same "guideline". How do you reconcile them? You simply don't. IMMO, you have to accept the fact-of-life that some issues (the "guideline" even gives relevant examples, are more controversial than others.
As for your remark that "this discussion is not about how to improve the article" your opinion obviously carries more authority and consequence for the simple fact that you are a wiki-administrator, so ultimately you decide, but I don't agree: for instance the Dissent from the doctrine section of Trinity's main article can benefit from this discussion.
More in general, I believe the Discussion page of an article should not be seen simply as a "technical tool for contributing users", but I am sure it is appreciated by most wiki-users (regardless of how heavily they contribute) as a resource in itself, as a "second layer" for the entry.
In conclusion, I strongly advice not to resort to "disciplinarian decisions" just for the sake of respect of neat guidelines (they are not "neat" anyway). Nobody means any harm, and it is not, repeat NOT, a waste of precious wiki-resourses.
--
Miguel de Servet
17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob (18:20, 29 June 2006) may I butt in your exchange with Storm Rider.
I subscribe to every single word in your post, except for something you have not written.
Otherwise, please show where (no fanta-exegesis, though, that is incompatible with your stance).
Also, I would like to know, what you mean by the expression “original Miguel de Servet”?
--
Miguel de Servet
18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob (05:07, 29 June 2006) only now do I reply your previous post. Thank you for the kind words. And now a few remarks:
Jacob, thank you for your clarifications and also for the more personal bio info. BTW, no offence regarding the “original Servetus”, I was just puzzled! Let’s leave scriptural exegesis aside for the moment: you bring up interpretations of some verses, I counter with different ones. The fact that the “critical” and conflicting interpretations, have been around for ages, by now, simply means to me that there is a certain amount of ineliminable ambiguity: we could argue for ages, to no avail.
So let me tackle the problem from a different angle. As you have noticed, from my initial post Trinity and Incarnation (II), my ultimate reason for rejecting the Trinity, and, at the same time for claiming an ontological difference between God as Creator and Father on one side, and Jesus Christ, as Son of God and Man, on the other, in terms of what I refer to as Strict Monotheism is that I cannot find it satisfactorily provided in any of the several theories of God’s Oneness (like the Monarchians, Modalists, Sabellians, Swedenborgians, The New Church, Pentecostals etc.).
In my original post, I wrote:
It appears difficult to me to accept and to believe that Jesus Christ can be the Incarnation of God (...) and that therefore, inasmuch as God, he cannot not enjoy divine attributes, in particular Omnipotence and Omniscience, that we consider necessarily associated with the notion of God.
I also wrote, in essence, that if Jesus Christ was fully God, and not (as the NT only says – and you have not given replies to this observation), Son of God (and consequently, somehow, “inferior” to God the Father), then his divinity would “burn out” his humanity, and his “humanity” would be in fact just “walking on earth”, "sacred representation", "comedy", "pedagogical action". A “humanity” that would not ultimately save our humanity, because, what would it really have in commmon with it?
You may ask: «In what does this Strict Monotheism differ form Arianism?». The answer is very simple. God is truly, "genetically", the Father of Jesus, but not "from all eternity", not "before all creation", in fact "in the domain of time", to wit: Palestine, year 6 BCE.
--
Miguel de Servet
11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob (15:20,30 June 2006),
first of all, Let me say that you have summed up fairly my argument, in your three points. Except, perhaps, I should rephrase better my previous remark: even admitting that a fully divine (Omnipotent and Omniscient) Jesus was in fact capable of saving humanity, I would find this an abominable travesty, a theatrical adoption of a humanity which is not really shared. But, perhaps, this is more a matter of style than substance, a bit too Dostoevskijan. So, let’s concentrate on the logic.
I confirm that my view that Jesus is Son of God in the twofold sense that he was miraculously generated, in the domain of time, from (ek) the Virgin Mary and also, mysteriously has received through generation something essential of God’s nature, which I (with John the Evangelist), identify with a “good measure” of God’s Logos (not only, maybe, but that, at least is biblical). So, inevitably Jesus is (my expression is deliberately trivial here - I hope everybody understands it is not irreverent or blasphemous) God-man: God on the Father’s side, and man of the Mother’s side:
As for blood (αιμα – Strong’s 129) surely you meant, as is correct, that is occurs 99 times in the NT in general, and never, thank Goodness, is it referred “literally” to God. But I must concur that αιμα never seems to mean, metonymically, “son”, “progeny”. So I am sure it refers to Jesus’ precious blood, which Paul rightly considers as God’s own blood, and twice so, because it has been shed by Jesus who is God’s Son and also God’s perfect victim.
--
Miguel de Servet
17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, please believe that I am perfectly capable of resorting to humour, if I want to, but I was not, in my previous post. As I have already remarked, no single quotation from the Bible is a knock-out, otherwise everybody who thinks differently would be either ignorant, or stupid, or in bad faith: are you implying one (or all) of these?
Just a comment on “Mighty God” (‘el gibbowr). You know, as well as I do, that even Jesus, when they tried to “frame” him for a supposed improper reference to himself as Son of God, replied not certainly equating himself even to God, but remarking that also the Judges of Israel are referred to as “Gods” (see John 10:34, which in turn refers to Ps 82:6, and in turn to Ex 22:28). BTW, Martin Luther (a Trinitarian!) translated the expression ‘el gibbowr at Isaiah 9:6 as “divine hero”.
And, for that matter, you could have resorted also to a verse of the NT:
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God ( o theos), will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb 1:8)
Where God, the Father, speaks unambiguously of His Son (other than him).
So, whether Hebrew or Greek, God (or rather god), does not automatically mean “The One and Only God YHWH”. You need to be discerning.
--
Miguel de Servet
22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not commented on Heb 1:8, and I suspect … you cannot! :)
Anyway, when all is said, I do confirm my main objection (psychological, if you like): I would consider an Omnipotent, Omniscient God walking on earth under human guise pure theatre. There are some theologians (Trinitarians and also Oneness Pentecostals) who openly accept, in fact support this POV (the leading RC was Hans Urs von Balthasar, who even minted the word "theodramatics"). If this becomes the official view of the Catholic Church, I am going to found the UJCMLFY (United Jewish, Christian, Muslim Liberation Front on YHWH)!
--
Miguel de Servet
23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Heb 1:8 was just a test really: you have convinced me for good. I will make my previous statement into a shibboleth:
An Omnipotent, Omniscient God (whether Second Person of a Trinity, or One-neat) walking on earth under human guise is (would be) pure theater.
As for the UJCMLFY, the foundation is not decided yet. It all depends whether I manage to (re)convert the Pope to Strict Monotheism.
As for theodramatics, in the case of Oneness Pentacostals, I must admit I had mostly in mind some scenes of "speaking tongues".
--
Miguel de Servet
01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
RHolton (00:28, 1 July 2006)
eisegesis? Moi? I could just as well reply you are “eisegesis-ing” into my intentions. My (few so far) contributions to Wikipedia (please check), albeit sometimes controversial (see Pontius Pilate), are IMMO useful, informed and constructive. I must admit I find the “nothing new, please” business a bit too insisted, and also, when carried beyond the “ideal type”, even a bit blockheaded.
Anyway, I agree this Talk sub-section has run its course. I suggest not to remove it, but, if necessary, to archive it (or part of it). So, it can be consulted for additions/deletions/corrections to the
Dissent from the doctrine section of Trinity's main article, as I have already suggested.
--
Miguel de Servet
02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Wesley (16:57, 30 June 2006),
even if RHolton, very much ill at ease, has hurriedly filed this section (with others) in Secret Archive #5, let me comment on your latest post, so as to leave everything in order, with t’s crossed and I’s dotted.
[W]hen I said I thought you were in fact rejecting a flawed understanding of the Trinity, I wasn't just saying that because I think no one could possibly reject the real Trinity [uh?]. I was saying that based on your statements about the Trinity doctrine that you find so repugnant. In particular etc. [Wesley]
You did not read carefully, I am afraid you will have to re-read (if you care at all, of course!). The reasons why I find the doctrine of the Trinity so repugnant are summed by saying that I consider it a “gradual forgery”, and are even itemized. Then I added that possibly I feel even more ill at ease about Incarnation (of course, the s.c. orthodox incarnation, that is the one which is congruent with the a.m. Trinity). Then I proposed my “personal credo”, which, in fact, I consider not only congruent with the Apostles’ Creed, but I make as bold as saying that it is the only truly apostolic exegesis of the words Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit (see The Apostles' Creed: text with notes on Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only then did I say that the reject of the traditional and “orthodox” doctrine of Trinity and Incarnation imposes an alternative choice: that is the inevitability of having to explain (if Jesus, the Son of God, NOT a purely imaginary God the Son is neither omnipotent nor omniscient), what I referred to as God’s “cruelty” (please note the “inverted commas”) and apparent cruelty (please note the: apparent).
If you re-read slowly and carefully the last two paragraphs of my initial post, you may (may!) have (like I did) the consolation and sudden revelation that the “cruelty”, or apparent cruelty, is only apparent, and is in fact no cruelty at all: it is the wonderful and corageous way (yes, corageous, even G. K. Chesterton uses this expression about Jesus in his Orthodoxy)in which Jesus Christ, Son of God the Father, and inspired by God the Father, recognized gradually, accepted and carried through, to the bitter end, our Salvation, and, been resurrected by God, opened for all humankind the gates of God’s Kingdom: a Kingdom which he only planted the seed of, with his mortal life, but most certainly God will make appear on earth, when He will have put “all enemies of His Son under his foot as a stool”.
Does it all sound terribly JW? Perhaps, but soundly biblical nonetheless. The JW main mistake is their “arianizing”; besides, of course, their foolish and uncharitable belief that God is so mean minded as they are, and will only save the ones who believe along their guidelines.
I will leave out Athanasius and Pope Leo, as this would reopen a debate which has been decreed for the archives :)
--
Miguel de Servet
23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I notice in the argument against the Trinity, the anti-trinitarian (Oneness, Sabelleaus) position makes "person" identical to "being". In addition, I cannot fathom the Oneness notion of Jesus talking to...(?) when he is addressing the Father. Nor can I understand who (else) the Comforter is, if not the Holy Spirit, when Jesus says he will send another.
Anyone here have some good insight into the Oneness position on "who" else is Jesus referring to if not another "person"? -- Zaphnathpaaneah 10:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Midnite Critic's reply to Exile: OKay, so I could have been more NPOV in the above; however, this IS a talk page, not the article itself. Just to let you know, I don't hold what I- and Orthodox Christianity as a whole- consider to be theological errors to, in and of themselves, make anyone a candidate for "the firey furnace." And, unlike many Western Christians, I don't find the doctrine of the Trinity to be particularly "mysterious." That's also the case for the mysticism found in the Gospel of John and throughout the Christian tradition. Okay, well, groovy. As Jesus said, "To whom much is given, from them much is expected." Therefore, that makes ME much more of a candidate for hell if I don't avail myself of the grace of God in order to live up to what I know I am called to: "peace with all people, and especially those who are of the household of faith," as St. Paul puts it. -- Midnite Critic 13:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Jacob's reply to Zaphnathpaaneah. I realize that this conversation is long since over, but I just read it and wanted to reply from the Sabellian or Oneness position in regard to who Jesus prayed to. Short answer: the Son of God prayed to his Father, who was God. Trinitarians might say, "That's what we believe". The breakdown comes in understanding what is meant by "the Son of God". Trinitarians say that "Son of God" and "God the Son" mean the same thing. They do not. When the Bible uses the term "Son of God", it is referring to the incarnate human being, Jesus Christ. "God the Son" is non-Biblical terminology, much like the number "Three" when used in relation to God. Regarding "the Son of God", was Jesus not a human person? Did Jesus not get tired? Wasn't Jesus tempted to sin? And if Jesus was a human person just like you and me, doesn't it make sense that Jesus would pray just like you and me? The humanity of Jesus was not God and thus needed to pray. Jehovah God integrated His Spirit with the flesh of Jesus, or as the Bible states it, God manifest himself in flesh. This is what the scripture means when it says "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself". It does not say, "God the Son was in Christ" or "God the Father was in Christ". It says simply and wonderfully, "God (in all His fulness) was in Christ".
Most of us probably have some comprehension of the dual nature of Christ -- that he was fully man and fully God. Thus, when interpreting the life of Christ, you must determine if He is acting as a man or as God. When Jesus calmed the storm, He acted as God. But when He said "I thirst", He was acting as a man. In light of this, when Jesus prayed, it was "the man Christ Jesus" praying to God. St. Paul masterfully gave the Oneness view in a nutshell in Ephesians 4 when he said that there is "One body and one Spirit". A few verses later he said that there is "One God and Father of all". Awesome! Jacob 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
@ Jacob
Amazing how totally I agree with you about the fact that Athanasius and Marcellus were close allies to begin with, and then went fell apart, not because of Marcellus, but because of Athanasius. It is possible to reconstruct Athanasius’ change of mind (after 341 CE, when A. & M. were still defending themselves at the Synod of Rome against the then temporarily prevailing Arians): up to Nicea 325 CE, Athanasius’ main concern was not the homousios doctrine (which P.F. Beatrice from the University of Padua, in his The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity [1] shows convincingly to depend entirely on Constantine’s pressures on the Council), but rather to insist that Jesus Christ really shared God’s nature (homogenes, homophyes). Afterwards, when Athanasius started insisting that the “personality” of the Holy Spirit was “obviously” implied in the Creed of Nicea, he showed to have lost sincerity and integrity.
There is no doubt that Marcellus of Ancyra was a much more important figure than what we perceive him to be nowadays: unfortunately for him, he was regarded with suspicion (inevitably) by both sides, Athanasians and Arians alike. The fact that he (an Easterner!), presented to Pope Julius in 341 the very first recorded text (in Greek) of the Apostles’ Creed; the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea also started quarrelling with him, after Eusebius himself had turned “Nicean” (and Eusebius was the ambiguous character that “sold” Constantine’s problematic homousios formula to the other bishops at Nicea); the fact that he never shared the “orthodox” Trinitarian doctrine, make him a most interesting, albeit elusive figure. I am really looking forward to when Sara Purvis from Edinburgh University [2] publishes her The Extant Works of Marcellus of Ancyra: the Canons of Ancyra 314, the Contra Asterium, De Sancta Ecclesia, the Letter to Julius and the Western Creed of Serdica.
Although Marcellus was persecuted and repeatedly removed from his Episcopal site, he was never formally condemned for heresy (unlike his deacon Photinus). I don’t think he can be tagged as a Sabellian: I believe he cannot be fitted properly in any heretic category, he was simply a defender of the Creed of the Apostles.
As for Arius being murdered, I also believe (as Isaac Newton already did) that he was poisoned, but maybe it was just food poisoning, an ominous historical coincidence.-- Miguel de Servet 00:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, you are right that we only kow about Sabellianism indirectly, by what opponents say about it, but we know enough about it to say that not only with it the Trinitarian distinction of persons within God was denied, but also that all distinction between God as Creator, on the one side, and Jesus on the other, was wiped out as simple "modes" of presentation to us humans, with our imperfect understanding. I do not think, from Marcellus' extant works (I have only read his On the Holy Church, though), that he shared this Modalistic view, I think, rather, that he boldly managed to affirm Strict Monotheism, and at the same time a strong belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. This was, by all appearence, also the original belief of Athanasius, until he corrupted his thought with the Trinitarian doctrine (which, as P.F. Beatrice argues convincingly in this essay that I have quoted in my previous post, is directly derived from pagan Egyptian Hermetism). Another authoritative, recent work on Marcellus of Ancyra is Contra Marcellum, by Joseph T. Lienhard [3]. I am glad to see that, by our mutual usernames, we both pay homage to Michael Servetus, the staunch defender, hero and martyr of Strict Monotheism. -- Miguel de Servet 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, you “wonder at my true understanding of Modalism”. Let me first reassert where I believe the “original” Athanasius stood, together with Marcellus: they (and I with them) «boldly managed to affirm Strict Monotheism, and at the same time a strong belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ». The difficulty is to reconcile the above position with the refusal of “Ontological” (or “Immanent” – though the term is somewhat confusing, because it is usually opposed to “Transcendent” ) Trinitarianism (or, for that matter, Binitarianism) and with the affirmation of a real Divine-human Jesus. You quote Paul (Col 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”). I accept it, but I think it is necessary to combine it with John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) and John 1:14 (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us …”). What do I mean by this? I mean that it is not generically Godhead (“God-stuff”) that “inhabited” in Jesus Christ, but, more specifically, God’s Word (or Logos, Wisdom, Sophia, Hochmah). But, unlike in the Trinitarian dogma, this Logos is not for me (and I “feel” also, perhaps, for Athanasius, and certainly for Marcellus) a personal and pre-existent entity, but an eternal attribute of the One and Only God, the Father, YHWH, who bestowed his Logos, by generation, on His Son Jesus Christ:
As for the Holy Spirit (Pneuma, Ruah) I also consider it (similar to the Logos) an “attribute” of God. Using a beautiful image, derived from Deuteronomy, Michael Servetus says that God’s Word and God’s Spirit are His two “arms”:
Having said all the above, I claim to be (I claim the above defines) a Strict (Christian) Monotheist. And I make as bold as saying that, for what I know of him, also Marcellus (unlike Sabellius, probably) was one. -- Miguel de Servet 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
there is something paradoxical in our exchange, a risk that I am sure you also perceive, but that nevertheless I want to point out. We both refuse the existing dogma (Trinitarian etc.), but we run the risk of falling, by our debate, in the trap of creating yet another dogma. So, with this caveat in mind, I will say that I strongly believe that all (all!) the Church dogma should be reduced to the Apostles Creed, and anything beyond it should be either forbidden (but this requires an accepted authority), or considered strictly personal, and therefore not binding.
Bearing in mind the above disclaimer, and that it is very hard to go beyond the conceptual and verbal level we have already reached, I will try to reply your questions with some further clarifications on my (strictly personal!) positions.
There is also a deeper reason for my rejection of the Trinity, and it really has more to do with Incarnation: I will expand on this in a next instalment. -- Miguel de Servet 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
God, according to Genesis, made man “in His image and likeness”
Now, if by “man” we do not mean human society, but the real and concrete human being of flesh and blood, the concrete human being that each of us is, then God can only be One Person, and Trinity is nothing but the symbolic expression of the inner Life of this Person, of His Creative Power, His Loving Wisdom and His Vivifying Spirit.
If, on the other hand, we do not mean “man” as concrete human being, but rather as human society, we may likewise argue that God is a Society of Persons, and in this case the dogma of Trinity is not a symbolic expression, but a literal truth.
This latter position, which can be perfectly upheld from a rational point of view, has the main disadvantage that it is not supported anywhere in the Scriptures. Neither in the Old Testament, in which God’s Oneness only is proclaimed, and when God’s Wisdom or Spirit are spoken of, there is no reason to assume that what is referred to is anything other than attributes of the One God and Father. Nor in the New Testament, in which, rather, it is insisted that God is Abba, Father.
Things become even more complicated with the dogma of Incarnation. Assuming, in fact, that in God there subsist a Trinity of Persons, and that in Jesus human nature has been united to the divine nature of the Eternal Son so as to constitute one Person, how is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, posited with respect to this Trinity? Two only are the possibilities: either the divinity of the Son has been changed and somehow “enriched” by the humanity of Jesus, or the humanity of Jesus has been entirely “absorbed” into the divinity of the Son.
In the former case it is God’s immutability which is questioned, in the latter case it is the very reality, value and meaning of Resurrection which dissolve into a haze.
-- Miguel de Servet 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am rather surprized that, while
Trinity and Incarnation (II) caused ample and immediate response, nobody touches this T & I (I). Does it mean to say that what I say here is not controversial? I doubt it! But it is here that I laid out the fundamental logical and rational criticism of the traditional dogma of Trinity and, most of all, of Incarnation.
--
Miguel de Servet
08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In my tormented relationship with Christianity I have developed a total repulsion for the Doctrine of Trinity, as it is proposed by the Catholic Church and more in general by all the Christian churches, Orthodox, Protestant etc., with the single exception of the Unitarian Church.
For a long time I believed that the motivation of my attitude was due to several facts, amongst which I mention the main ones:
Without modifying anything of the above exposed convictions, I gradually came to realize that the true problem for me is above all that of Incarnation. It appears difficult to me to accept and to believe that Jesus Christ can be the Incarnation of God (or more exactly, according to the Dogma, of the second person of the Trinity) and that therefore, inasmuch as God, he cannot not enjoy divine attributes, in particular Omnipotence and Omniscience, that we consider necessarily associated to the notion of God.
How can in fact such Man-God actually suffer the limitations imposed by human nature? What kind of redemptive value has for humans the death of Someone who ultimately only has "up to a certain point" shared the human condition? Which is the meaning and the value of the Resurrection of a Man-God who, in inasmuch as God, cannot really suffer death and, inasmuch as man, whose nature is intimately connected to his divine nature, from this same divine nature would have received, so to speak "by dragging", victory over death, making therefore superfluous to think of the intervention of the One God Father, which however is expressed without possible misunderstanding in the NT, and in particular in Peter’s speech in the "Acts of the Apostles"?
Therefore, thinking to overcome my repulsion for the doctrine of Trinity, but in fact (as I came to realize) above all in order to overcome the difficulties with the Doctrine the Incarnation (difficulties that, it is worth noticing, do not depend on the formulation according to the Trinitarian Dogma, but indeed would be aggravated by a “Unitarian", "Patripassian" formulation of the Incarnation), I have thought to find a satisfactory solution to both problems in the enunciations that follow, which constitute some kind of "personal creed":
This "creed", with its heterodoxy, has somehow satisfied the primary requirement to refer to God as a Personal Entity, present in the world created by Him and acting on it with Wisdom and Love.
Besides this requirement, but of no less importance , this "creed" allows me to feel that the call to sharing with Jews and Muslims the same One God of Abraham is neither strained nor fictitious.
But if on one side this creed helps overcome my repulsion for the doctrine of Trinity, and my perplexities regarding the doctrine of Incarnation, I cannot deny that a different problem arises. A God Father, who loves His Creation so much as to give it His One-begotten Son, in the end is also the one who sent Him in this world without any warning of danger, who literally gave Him the illusion of the imminent foundation of God’s Kingdom, and of the possibility to establish this Kingdom in a non traumatic way. This can be clearly perceived from the Gospels in the first phase of the mission of Jesus, until the "crisis of Caesarea" and in the tragic character of the rest of the mission of Jesus, until the epilogue on the Cross.
Therefore a choice is inevitable. On one side the doctrine of Trinity and of Incarnation, which attempts the impossible (and for me sacrilegious) combination of the "God" of philosophers with the One and True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and inevitably transforms Incarnation itself in some kind of "sacred representation", of "comedy", "pedagogical action" by God (but which God?) towards Humanity, without any true sharing of "human condition", in spite of every well-meaning apologetic effort. On the other side a creed that apparently introduces the notion of "cruelty" in God the Father, even towards His Beloved Son.
I believe that this apparent cruelty is the true key to understanding the Sacrifice of the Cross. We must think of Jesus who, as reads the "Letter to the Hebrews", "learns from His suffering", who at Gethsemane prays that He be spared the bitter cup (but only "if it is still possible"), who reminds Pontius Pilate that a legion of Angels could free Him, if only He should ask His Father. Jesus who in the supreme moment does not resort to His relationship with God the Father in any form other than obedience. Who affirms His Regality only by means of His Word. Who knows well the precariousness and unreliability of every human solidarity, even from one’s most trusted friends. Who finally, so His humanity can manifest itself in the fullness of its limits, is and feels totally abandoned by God the death, and like every human being faces the supreme moment with that fear of the unknown that every human being must experience and that God Father, abandoning Him totally to death, interrupting the intimacy with which He has always supported Him, lets Him taste in all its horror.
This is the Jesus who, "approved by God”, is resurrected by God. He has defied death and He has conquered it not because, inasmuch as Son of God, He could only win, but because, "first of the resurrected" God has put Him as a Guide of Humanity until the final Victory. Jesus has received from God, His Father, a mission to accomplish. He has gradually understood it and freely accepted it, up to the Sacrifice of His Life. We must think that Jesus could have failed, but that he had the Courage to endure to the end, for our Love.
-- Miguel de Servet 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider,
I am overjoyed that my contrib had caused an immediate response, and that it is sensible and reasonable: I believe this is what a "Discussion page" should be eminently for (I hope Rholton agrees on this!?). As the points you bring up are "sensitive", and need to be carefully dealt with, and besides it is a very late hour for me, I will reply in due course, a.s.a.p. -- Miguel de Servet 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I added the header as a subtle(?) hint that this is not an appropriate use of a discussion page on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the section What talk pages may be used for.– RHolton ≡– 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, you ask, "How on earth does one sit on the right hand of himself... If what you say is true, wouldn't it have been easier for Stephen to look into the heavens and saw God? That is not what he saw. He saw two indivdiuals."
I ask you, did Stephen see the Father? What of John 1:18 which says, "No man hath seen God at any time"? Or of John 6 which says, "Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God"? The Biblical symbolic significance of the "right hand" is that of power and birth right. Jesus is the first born of every creature and He is the power of God unto salvation, or at the right hand of God. You cannot attempt to squeeze doctrine from symbolic visions. If so, where are the eternal Son and Holy Ghost in Isaiah's kingly vision in Isa. 6? Where were the Son and Holy Ghost when Satan presented himself before God in the book of Job? When John the Revelator looked up into heaven, he beheld "one throne and one who sat upon the throne". No man can see God, who is invisible, except through the man by which God has chosen to reveal Himself (Col. 1:15). Again I refer to Isaiah 9:6, "the son shall be called Everlasting Father, the Mighty God". Jacob 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines,
What talk pages may be used for:
The talk pages of controversial topics can often be very heavily used. See for example Talk:Abortion, Talk:Capitalism, Talk:Socialism, Talk:Jesus Christ.[evidence mine]
@ RHolton: would you not agree that "Trinity" is just about as controversial as "Jesus Christ", if not more? So where is the "guideline problem"?
And I dare say the topic I have initiated hardly qualifies as "general chatter".Perhaps the addition of a
would do?
--
Miguel de Servet
07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, I will try to reply your questions as I best can:
Quoting from What talk pages may be used for:
I have no objection to the quantity of the posts, nor to their quality, which seems quite high. However, this discussion is not about how to improve the article, and thus is not appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page.– RHolton ≡– 12:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
RHolton:
Lets put two critical lines from the very same "guideline"
What talk pages may be used for next to each other [evidence mine]:
You quoted (only) the first (which, BTW, is rather clumsily and even ambiguously phrased, what with "are also not strictly a forum"?), I quoted (only) the second, but they are both from the same "guideline". How do you reconcile them? You simply don't. IMMO, you have to accept the fact-of-life that some issues (the "guideline" even gives relevant examples, are more controversial than others.
As for your remark that "this discussion is not about how to improve the article" your opinion obviously carries more authority and consequence for the simple fact that you are a wiki-administrator, so ultimately you decide, but I don't agree: for instance the Dissent from the doctrine section of Trinity's main article can benefit from this discussion.
More in general, I believe the Discussion page of an article should not be seen simply as a "technical tool for contributing users", but I am sure it is appreciated by most wiki-users (regardless of how heavily they contribute) as a resource in itself, as a "second layer" for the entry.
In conclusion, I strongly advice not to resort to "disciplinarian decisions" just for the sake of respect of neat guidelines (they are not "neat" anyway). Nobody means any harm, and it is not, repeat NOT, a waste of precious wiki-resourses.
--
Miguel de Servet
17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob (18:20, 29 June 2006) may I butt in your exchange with Storm Rider.
I subscribe to every single word in your post, except for something you have not written.
Otherwise, please show where (no fanta-exegesis, though, that is incompatible with your stance).
Also, I would like to know, what you mean by the expression “original Miguel de Servet”?
--
Miguel de Servet
18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob (05:07, 29 June 2006) only now do I reply your previous post. Thank you for the kind words. And now a few remarks:
Jacob, thank you for your clarifications and also for the more personal bio info. BTW, no offence regarding the “original Servetus”, I was just puzzled! Let’s leave scriptural exegesis aside for the moment: you bring up interpretations of some verses, I counter with different ones. The fact that the “critical” and conflicting interpretations, have been around for ages, by now, simply means to me that there is a certain amount of ineliminable ambiguity: we could argue for ages, to no avail.
So let me tackle the problem from a different angle. As you have noticed, from my initial post Trinity and Incarnation (II), my ultimate reason for rejecting the Trinity, and, at the same time for claiming an ontological difference between God as Creator and Father on one side, and Jesus Christ, as Son of God and Man, on the other, in terms of what I refer to as Strict Monotheism is that I cannot find it satisfactorily provided in any of the several theories of God’s Oneness (like the Monarchians, Modalists, Sabellians, Swedenborgians, The New Church, Pentecostals etc.).
In my original post, I wrote:
It appears difficult to me to accept and to believe that Jesus Christ can be the Incarnation of God (...) and that therefore, inasmuch as God, he cannot not enjoy divine attributes, in particular Omnipotence and Omniscience, that we consider necessarily associated with the notion of God.
I also wrote, in essence, that if Jesus Christ was fully God, and not (as the NT only says – and you have not given replies to this observation), Son of God (and consequently, somehow, “inferior” to God the Father), then his divinity would “burn out” his humanity, and his “humanity” would be in fact just “walking on earth”, "sacred representation", "comedy", "pedagogical action". A “humanity” that would not ultimately save our humanity, because, what would it really have in commmon with it?
You may ask: «In what does this Strict Monotheism differ form Arianism?». The answer is very simple. God is truly, "genetically", the Father of Jesus, but not "from all eternity", not "before all creation", in fact "in the domain of time", to wit: Palestine, year 6 BCE.
--
Miguel de Servet
11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob (15:20,30 June 2006),
first of all, Let me say that you have summed up fairly my argument, in your three points. Except, perhaps, I should rephrase better my previous remark: even admitting that a fully divine (Omnipotent and Omniscient) Jesus was in fact capable of saving humanity, I would find this an abominable travesty, a theatrical adoption of a humanity which is not really shared. But, perhaps, this is more a matter of style than substance, a bit too Dostoevskijan. So, let’s concentrate on the logic.
I confirm that my view that Jesus is Son of God in the twofold sense that he was miraculously generated, in the domain of time, from (ek) the Virgin Mary and also, mysteriously has received through generation something essential of God’s nature, which I (with John the Evangelist), identify with a “good measure” of God’s Logos (not only, maybe, but that, at least is biblical). So, inevitably Jesus is (my expression is deliberately trivial here - I hope everybody understands it is not irreverent or blasphemous) God-man: God on the Father’s side, and man of the Mother’s side:
As for blood (αιμα – Strong’s 129) surely you meant, as is correct, that is occurs 99 times in the NT in general, and never, thank Goodness, is it referred “literally” to God. But I must concur that αιμα never seems to mean, metonymically, “son”, “progeny”. So I am sure it refers to Jesus’ precious blood, which Paul rightly considers as God’s own blood, and twice so, because it has been shed by Jesus who is God’s Son and also God’s perfect victim.
--
Miguel de Servet
17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, please believe that I am perfectly capable of resorting to humour, if I want to, but I was not, in my previous post. As I have already remarked, no single quotation from the Bible is a knock-out, otherwise everybody who thinks differently would be either ignorant, or stupid, or in bad faith: are you implying one (or all) of these?
Just a comment on “Mighty God” (‘el gibbowr). You know, as well as I do, that even Jesus, when they tried to “frame” him for a supposed improper reference to himself as Son of God, replied not certainly equating himself even to God, but remarking that also the Judges of Israel are referred to as “Gods” (see John 10:34, which in turn refers to Ps 82:6, and in turn to Ex 22:28). BTW, Martin Luther (a Trinitarian!) translated the expression ‘el gibbowr at Isaiah 9:6 as “divine hero”.
And, for that matter, you could have resorted also to a verse of the NT:
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God ( o theos), will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb 1:8)
Where God, the Father, speaks unambiguously of His Son (other than him).
So, whether Hebrew or Greek, God (or rather god), does not automatically mean “The One and Only God YHWH”. You need to be discerning.
--
Miguel de Servet
22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not commented on Heb 1:8, and I suspect … you cannot! :)
Anyway, when all is said, I do confirm my main objection (psychological, if you like): I would consider an Omnipotent, Omniscient God walking on earth under human guise pure theatre. There are some theologians (Trinitarians and also Oneness Pentecostals) who openly accept, in fact support this POV (the leading RC was Hans Urs von Balthasar, who even minted the word "theodramatics"). If this becomes the official view of the Catholic Church, I am going to found the UJCMLFY (United Jewish, Christian, Muslim Liberation Front on YHWH)!
--
Miguel de Servet
23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Heb 1:8 was just a test really: you have convinced me for good. I will make my previous statement into a shibboleth:
An Omnipotent, Omniscient God (whether Second Person of a Trinity, or One-neat) walking on earth under human guise is (would be) pure theater.
As for the UJCMLFY, the foundation is not decided yet. It all depends whether I manage to (re)convert the Pope to Strict Monotheism.
As for theodramatics, in the case of Oneness Pentacostals, I must admit I had mostly in mind some scenes of "speaking tongues".
--
Miguel de Servet
01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
RHolton (00:28, 1 July 2006)
eisegesis? Moi? I could just as well reply you are “eisegesis-ing” into my intentions. My (few so far) contributions to Wikipedia (please check), albeit sometimes controversial (see Pontius Pilate), are IMMO useful, informed and constructive. I must admit I find the “nothing new, please” business a bit too insisted, and also, when carried beyond the “ideal type”, even a bit blockheaded.
Anyway, I agree this Talk sub-section has run its course. I suggest not to remove it, but, if necessary, to archive it (or part of it). So, it can be consulted for additions/deletions/corrections to the
Dissent from the doctrine section of Trinity's main article, as I have already suggested.
--
Miguel de Servet
02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Wesley (16:57, 30 June 2006),
even if RHolton, very much ill at ease, has hurriedly filed this section (with others) in Secret Archive #5, let me comment on your latest post, so as to leave everything in order, with t’s crossed and I’s dotted.
[W]hen I said I thought you were in fact rejecting a flawed understanding of the Trinity, I wasn't just saying that because I think no one could possibly reject the real Trinity [uh?]. I was saying that based on your statements about the Trinity doctrine that you find so repugnant. In particular etc. [Wesley]
You did not read carefully, I am afraid you will have to re-read (if you care at all, of course!). The reasons why I find the doctrine of the Trinity so repugnant are summed by saying that I consider it a “gradual forgery”, and are even itemized. Then I added that possibly I feel even more ill at ease about Incarnation (of course, the s.c. orthodox incarnation, that is the one which is congruent with the a.m. Trinity). Then I proposed my “personal credo”, which, in fact, I consider not only congruent with the Apostles’ Creed, but I make as bold as saying that it is the only truly apostolic exegesis of the words Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit (see The Apostles' Creed: text with notes on Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only then did I say that the reject of the traditional and “orthodox” doctrine of Trinity and Incarnation imposes an alternative choice: that is the inevitability of having to explain (if Jesus, the Son of God, NOT a purely imaginary God the Son is neither omnipotent nor omniscient), what I referred to as God’s “cruelty” (please note the “inverted commas”) and apparent cruelty (please note the: apparent).
If you re-read slowly and carefully the last two paragraphs of my initial post, you may (may!) have (like I did) the consolation and sudden revelation that the “cruelty”, or apparent cruelty, is only apparent, and is in fact no cruelty at all: it is the wonderful and corageous way (yes, corageous, even G. K. Chesterton uses this expression about Jesus in his Orthodoxy)in which Jesus Christ, Son of God the Father, and inspired by God the Father, recognized gradually, accepted and carried through, to the bitter end, our Salvation, and, been resurrected by God, opened for all humankind the gates of God’s Kingdom: a Kingdom which he only planted the seed of, with his mortal life, but most certainly God will make appear on earth, when He will have put “all enemies of His Son under his foot as a stool”.
Does it all sound terribly JW? Perhaps, but soundly biblical nonetheless. The JW main mistake is their “arianizing”; besides, of course, their foolish and uncharitable belief that God is so mean minded as they are, and will only save the ones who believe along their guidelines.
I will leave out Athanasius and Pope Leo, as this would reopen a debate which has been decreed for the archives :)
--
Miguel de Servet
23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)