• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Trinity and the Atonement

Logicman said:
Recommend you do a study of John chapter 1 and the Logos, and also study up on the incarnation of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a study chapter will solve the mystery of the Logos. It's all so simple. Why didn't I think of that! Gee, you can become a theologian with Cliff Notes.
 
head of joaquin said:
Yeah, a study chapter will solve the mystery of the Logos. It's all so simple. Why didn't I think of that! Gee, you can become a theologian with Cliff Notes.
Click to expand...

Of course the alternative is that you live in ignorance about that.
 
head of joaquin said:
I thought Jesus' name was Jesus, not Logos. Who is this Logos fellow?

In any case, what in Sam Hill does God incarnated as man mean? It is inexplicable, unintelligible, beyond meaning. I'm happy to go with it as a mystery (God and his love are ultimately profoundly mysterious), but then for some Christians to pretend they understand it and somehow it means God is one but three, boggles.
Click to expand...

Anyone who can claim to understand God is delusional or lying. The wonderful thing is that we are not required to understand God or the Holy Trinity or any other theological detail. As Christians we are commanded to love and know the source of that love is God.
 
Logicman said:
Of course the alternative is that you live in ignorance about that.
Click to expand...

No, the alternative way is real scholarship and a commitment to the gospel texts, not to your easy apologist claptrap.
 
gilbertc1908 said:
Anyone who can claim to understand God is delusional or lying. The wonderful thing is that we are not required to understand God or the Holy Trinity or any other theological detail. As Christians we are commanded to love and know the source of that love is God.
Click to expand...

The essence of the matter. If we needed to understand God and Christ to be saved, we'd all be doomed. But the doctrinal types want to put a stumblingblock in the way of real faith by creating these ornate complex theological concepts that they claim they understand and everybody else must pronounce as "true".

Paul warned us about these types.
 
head of joaquin said:
No, the alternative way is real scholarship and a commitment to the gospel texts, not to your easy apologist claptrap.
Click to expand...

The only "real scholarship" you're interested in is whatever twists the facts to help you support your whacked out liberal theology.
 
Logicman said:
The only "real scholarship" you're interested in is whatever twists the facts to help you support your whacked out liberal theology.
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference between apologists and real scholarship, there's no helping you. I have no grudge against Trinitarians. They can believe anything they want. In my form of Christianity, it won't help them or harm them, so it doesn't matter. If it makes their faith deeper, God bless them. Nobody should be a stumblingblock to anybody else's faith.

But confusing apologists with scholarship is just intellectually lazy.
 
head of joaquin said:
If you can't tell the difference between apologists and real scholarship, there's no helping you. I have no grudge against Trinitarians. They can believe anything they want. In my form of Christianity, it won't help them or harm them, so it doesn't matter. If it makes their faith deeper, God bless them. Nobody should be a stumblingblock to anybody else's faith.

But confusing apologists with scholarship is just intellectually lazy.
Click to expand...

You should know, with your Biblically-challenged, liberal apologists.
 
Logicman said:
You should know, with your Biblically-challenged, liberal apologists.
Click to expand...

This is terribly lame, and intellectually dishonest. Something I've come to expect from evangelicals.

My view is don't trust anybody who calls himself a Christian but can't be intellectually dishonest. It's a sure sign of some political or other private agenda, inimical to the gospel.
 
head of joaquin said:
This is terribly lame, and intellectually dishonest. Something I've come to expect from evangelicals.

My view is don't trust anybody who calls himself a Christian but can't be intellectually dishonest. It's a sure sign of some political or other private agenda, inimical to the gospel.
Click to expand...

You can't even get the physical resurrection of Christ right, even though it's clearly spelled out in the Gospel of John. Just sweep it right under your rug and play like it isn't there.

That's what's intellectually dishonest.
 
Logicman said:
It was God who incarnated as a man (John chapter 1 - "the Word made flesh") who died at Calvary.

As for debating the individual scriptures, I'll just refer you to online commentaries from scholars, such as the one below. You can look up each individual verse. So knock your lights out.

A.T. Robertson (commentary below) is a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament Bible Commentary
Click to expand...

I've dealt with all of those arguments before, in other threads, over and over again, and I'll go up and refute each one of them here IF you're willing to defend them.

But you're not answering the question, if God, (the divine nature of Jesus) didn't die on the cross, then it IS TRUE that a mere man can die and fulfill the atonement, right? If not why not?
 
RGacky3 said:
I've dealt with all of those arguments before, in other threads, over and over again, and I'll go up and refute each one of them here IF you're willing to defend them.
Click to expand...

I'll stick with the renowned New Testament Greek scholar's analysis in the link I previously posted.

RGacky3 said:
But you're not answering the question, if God, (the divine nature of Jesus) didn't die on the cross, then it IS TRUE that a mere man can die and fulfill the atonement, right? If not why not?
Click to expand...

Jesus as a man did die on the cross. His divine Spirit did not die. That's all that God the Father required, according to the Bible. After all, Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven.
 
RGacky3 said:
Really ... He's in ignorance?

Then why not defend your case

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...discussion-logic-man-nature-jesus-christ.html

Which you know you can't do, you copy and paste, then when challenged you can'd defend your position.
Click to expand...

Listen, just like Jehovah's Witnesses, there's no amount of evidence people like you will ever accept about the deity of Christ. I've made my case and you don't like it. So believe whatever you want. The only people who deny the deity of Christ are cults.
 
Logicman said:
I'll stick with the renowned New Testament Greek scholar's analysis in the link I previously posted.
Click to expand...
Listen, just like Jehovah's Witnesses, there's no amount of evidence people like you will ever accept about the deity of Christ. I've made my case and you don't like it. So believe whatever you want. The only people who deny the deity of Christ are cults.
Click to expand...

In otherwords you will not and CANNOT defend your position ....

Jesus as a man did die on the cross. His divine Spirit did not die. That's all that God the Father required, according to the Bible. After all, Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven.
Click to expand...

Ok, so then it is possible that a mere man can die for the atonement? Since that's what happened?
 
RGacky3 said:
In otherwords you will not and CANNOT defend your position ....
Click to expand...

See my previous comments on that.

RGacky3 said:
Ok, so then it is possible that a mere man can die for the atonement? Since that's what happened?
Click to expand...

He was God incarnate, not a mere man. But in his humanity he paid the price for humanity's sins. Apart from that you'll have to take the rest of that up with God, because he's fine with what went down.
 
Logicman said:
Listen, just like Jehovah's Witnesses, there's no amount of evidence people like you will ever accept about the deity of Christ. I've made my case and you don't like it. So believe whatever you want. The only people who deny the deity of Christ are cults.
Click to expand...

Texts aren't evidence. They're texts that must be interpretated. The word "Trinity" never even occurs in the NT and nothing like a Trinitarian position is discernible. Instead, Trinitarians have to piece together ornate and convoluted arguments to claim these texts have anything to do with a Trinity.

So I think your post above is easily reversed -- no amount of interpretation of the plain meaning of the NT will convince you that the Trinity is a later doctrinal development that has nothing to do with the NT, and in particular is irrelevant to the gospel narrative.
 
head of joaquin said:
Texts aren't evidence. They're texts that must be interpretated.
Click to expand...

Read the NIV or the NKJV or the NASB, etc. Christ is physically resurrected in all of them.

head of joaquin said:
The word "Trinity" never even occurs in the NT and nothing like a Trinitarian position is discernible. Instead, Trinitarians have to piece together ornate and convoluted arguments to claim these texts have anything to do with a Trinity.
Click to expand...

This is a tired old strawman. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And the word "Bible" isn't in the Bible either, but we know what it is.

head of joaquin said:
So I think your post above is easily reversed -- no amount of interpretation of the plain meaning of the NT will convince you that the Trinity is a later doctrinal development that has nothing to do with the NT, and in particular is irrelevant to the gospel narrative.
Click to expand...

Nut. The scriptural evidence for the Trinity is in the earliest manuscripts.

Joachin, until you are able to make the connection that Jesus is God, your theology will continue to be akin to what antichrist teachers profess.
 
Logicman said:
Read the NIV or the NKJV or the NASB, etc. Christ is physically resurrected in all of them.



This is a tired old strawman. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And the word "Bible" isn't in the Bible either, but we know what it is.



Nut. The scriptural evidence for the Trinity is in the earliest manuscripts.

Joachin, until you are able to make the connection that Jesus is God, your theology will continue to be akin to what antichrist teachers profess.
Click to expand...

You've made my point again, piecing together irrelevant and vague ideas and traditions to produce something like the Trinity, which just doesn't appear in the NT. You've even thrown in the anti-Christ for good measure. That's perfect.
 
head of joaquin said:
You've made my point again, piecing together irrelevant and vague ideas and traditions to produce something like the Trinity, which just doesn't appear in the NT. You've even thrown in the anti-Christ for good measure. That's perfect.
Click to expand...

The only denominations that buy into your theology are cults and Christ deceivers.
 
Logicman said:
The only denominations that buy into your theology are cults and Christ deceivers.
Click to expand...

I know you'd like to think that, but you're essentially calling Jesus a deceiver.

In any case, I'll stick with what the gospel says, and you can stick with the obscure arguments of theologians from the 3rd century.
 
head of joaquin said:
I know you'd like to think that, but you're essentially calling Jesus a deceiver.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

head of joaquin said:
In any case, I'll stick with what the gospel says, and you can stick with the obscure arguments of theologians from the 3rd century.
Click to expand...

Let me show you how lame that last statement is.

Early Trinitarian Quotes | Doctrine of the Trinity Quotes | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

So, contrary to joachin's claims, the essence of the Trinity was taught long before the 3rd century.
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense.



Let me show you how lame that last statement is.

Early Trinitarian Quotes | Doctrine of the Trinity Quotes | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

So, contrary to joachin's claims, the essence of the Trinity was taught long before the 3rd century.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, we know you can construct Trinitarian concepts by cherrypicking and taking things out of context. The fact remains: nobody ever unequivocally says in the entire NT that Jesus is God. What they say is that he is the Son of God -- indeed that's what Jesus says he is. That's good enough for me. It's odd it isn't good enough for trinitarians.

The fact that you are forced to assemble arcane and complex arguments to come up with trinitarianism just makes the point that it clearly wasn't important to Jesus or the early church. If it had been, all Jesus had to say was that he was God. But he never says that. He says he's the Son of God.

That's doesn't mean Jesus isn't God or even that trinitarianism is wrong. It just means it's not important to the gospel message.
 
head of joaquin said:
Yes, yes, we know you can construct Trinitarian concepts by cherrypicking and taking things out of context. The fact remains: nobody ever unequivocally says in the entire NT that Jesus is God. What they say is that he is the Son of God -- indeed that's what Jesus says he is. That's good enough for me. It's odd it isn't good enough for trinitarians.

The fact that you are forced to assemble arcane and complex arguments to come up with trinitarianism just makes the point that it clearly wasn't important to Jesus or the early church. If it had been, all Jesus had to say was that he was God. But he never says that. He says he's the Son of God.

That's doesn't mean Jesus isn't God or even that trinitarianism is wrong. It just means it's not important to the gospel message.
Click to expand...

That's nuts. Here's just a small sampling of reasons why you're wrong.

Jesus' Claims to be God - Probe Ministries
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom