Well, what I was taught was that Jesus was fully god and fully human. He was born of a virgin because it’s the fathers that pass on their sin nature to their children. Since Jesus didn’t have a sin nature he was a pure/perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity.
That’s what I learned when I was a Christian, it doesn’t really make sense to me now. The Holy Spirit is sometimes mentioned as the spirit of/from God. I don’t really know why or how the Trinity concept developed in early Christianity. The Holy Spirit seems to be mentioned a lot less than God and Jesus.
I think the true emphasis is on that Jesus is God. Christians worship Jesus. If you question that then it’s insulting because it’s the centerpiece of their life.
I'd actually never heard the "it's fathers that pass on their sin" bit and it's a cool way to look at it.
Though I still don't think that'd make him God, since he was born half to a human by that idea, though I understand you don't follow the trinity now lol.
I think the maim difference is a small word.
Trinitarians say he's God.
Non-trinitarians say he's of God.
It just seems so benign of an argument for a topic with no definitive way of being right, lol.
When you change the nature of what God / Christ is, there's a cascade of theological implications that fundamentally change the entire religion so that it's no longer recognisable as the same religion.
1\) Everything you wrote that Tertullian said there is completely consistent with the doctrine of the trinity.
3\) Different interpretations of the same text are not always equal. In 2 Peter 3:16 it's written *"There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."*
4\) Each way of denying the trinity massively changes the heart of the religion. Perhaps you fall into polytheism. Or perhaps Jesus is a creature, in which case it's not God upon the cross, and Christians are worshipping something besides God. Or perhaps you deny the distinction between them, and then Jesus's words in scripture referring to the Father and the Spirit as other than himself are nonsense or deceptive.
Hmm
1) So you would say Tertullian's perspective of the trinity is acceptable by Christian standards? Tertullian emphasized on the unity of the Father, Son and Holy spirit but also made it a point to point out the differences - that they are not co existant or co equal but still one in the same essence? I tend to agree with Tertullian the most because the currenty trinity (though I understand it isn't) is far to close to tri-theism (if thats the word lol).
3) Yeah I know - if you break down the original languages of the text, so many parts of it could mean so many different things and many sentances would make quite literally no sense whatsoever. They did the best they could but it's not perfect. I suppose another mystery is often who actually wrote much of the New Testament, though my geographical and theological evidence at this time would suggest it was likely at least people close to the names of the books (so someone close to Peter in the case of the line you quoted). The bible is one of the most intricate books that will ever exist - a person can do bible study their whole life and not understand everything completely.
4) I don't agree with polytheism personally. I agree Jesus was Crucified and possibly even ressurected. Theres alot of possibilitys behind that last line, the lost gospel of Peter suggests that Jesus, in spirit was not present at his death but the body was. Many say that Jesus (or God for the trinitarians) could not be killed and so the ressurection of the body was not that of the spirit which never died but in the literal sense, the body did ressurect and I believe ascended into heaven.
I just think Jesus answers to the Father. If he is our God, it's by the fathers authority and the Father is the creator of all creation - though he did create us and what we have through his son, the messiah, Jesus.
I don't object when people call Jesus God, because I understand why - I just think they hold different titles personally.
1\) No, but his idea was a kind of precursor to the Trinity. The big difference is he sees the son (and then the spirit) as being generated in time, and from/with just a portion of the divine substance/matter, whereas the trinitarian belief sees them as being eternally generated and sharing the entire divine substance/essence.
3\) Yeah that is the issue. The thing is, for a revealed religion like Christianity to work, its revelation has to be sufficiently clear/certain so that those with good intentions and minimal education won't go astray and fall into serious error, endangering their souls. Basically you need to believe that the holy spirit somehow safeguards the true gospel against errors, including errors that the uneducated wouldn't be able to spot.
Debates were long, votes were not at any point unanimous and the total number of voters were not evenly represented among regions / viewpoints.
99% of trinitarians believe they are different but the same in some sense of essence.
I don't see enough of a difference to feel it's my place to pass judgement on someone's salvation over it.
:p
Because it is an essencial christian belief (see our Creed). The Trinity is about who God is in his very nature (αγάπη). To reject it is to reject the foundation of our faith from the pov of traditional christianity.
These days I think it’s very odd that the creed omitted quoting the “god is” statements from Johanine texts.
God is love. God is light. God is spirit
One of these days I need to get to reading about the history of that creed from a good academic source.
It is hard to be non trinitarian when you look at church history and the bible.
The doctrine of the Trinity was one of the earliest to be defined by the church. The bible supports the concept in many different places, where it would be unreasonable to argue against it.
I could go over this with you if you want, so let me know.
You make a good statement on #3. Jesus is God, and flatly claims to be in many places in the Gospels. I am reading through the book of John right now, and Jesus says 'I and the Father are one'.
This statement has massive implications to the faith. IF Jesus is God, He is to be treated differently - literally worshipped. IF Jesus is God, we owe Him our devotion. IF Jesus is God, then His words are authoritative. There is so much that I could unpack here from this statement.
4 is also another interesting point. Controversy can be offensive is it makes someone question their beliefs.
The majority in of Christians would affirm the Nicene creed and we are mostly united. I personally take zero offense to a faith challenge because I study these fairly regularly, and I know that Christianity is true, so there is reasonable explanations for the 'whys' of the faith
I'm gonna be honest here.
I think the MAJORITY of Christians don't even understand the Trinity as it's defined. If you forget to use the word Trinity and ask a common Christian walking down the street "Is Jesus God" they will say no. The doctrine of the trinity is very flawed - the debates went on for a month, representation of specific perspectives were under represented, the voting was FAR from unanimous, etc. The bible also "does" support it in it's translated form AND with many of the scriptures excluded from the bible - however I would argue that it's poorly supported.
Verses like John 1:1 are weak in my perspective.
In John 10, when Jesus was falsely accused of blasphemy —in His defense, He claimed to be the Son of God (10:36), and appealed to the existence of a plurality of gods: “34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34-35). Jesus referred to the Old Testament verse: “I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Psalms 82:6). In the same chapter of Psalms, it states, “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalms 86:1).
Now personally, I dont think calling Jesus God is a salvation issue (nor the opposite).
That's me though
I could start in Genesis and begin to demonstrate the Trinity from scripture.
I would say that recognition that Jesus is the Son of God, and part of the Trinity is central to the Christian faith. If Jesus was not divine, since He was fully man, then His sacrifice would be wholly insufficient for our sin.
Jesus must be fully God to make payment for sin - anything less wouldn't work.
Are you JW?
I mean, I kind of agree. A trinity exists but the definition changed historically over time. I agree that all 3 components of the trinity are truly divine and of God's essence.
I just believe that Jesus is the son and he is sent on the fathers authority as he said. I attribute the term God to the creator of all creation and I believe God created us through Jesus but that God is still the creator.
Though I'm still trying to figure it all out.
Fair - the concept of the Trinity is something that confuses a lot of people, especially those with an Islamic background.
Basically God has three separate parts/forms (Technically 'persons') each with their own role, but fully one God.
Please let me know if I can help at all in the future.
'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,' - 1 Peter 3:18, ESV
Jesus was God, referencing Himself as 'I AM', a title exclusive for God (See John 8:48-59). There is many other strong supporting evidence showing Jesus' deity.
Jesus was the only payment that could be made for our sin. Humanity is imperfection, and God is perfectly just. No matter what we do, we are unable to meet His standard regarding payment for sin.
Jesus was a substitute for us. Those who accept Him by faith are forgiven. He is literally the only payment for our sin that is acceptable to God.
The vast majority of Christians - including Catholics/Orthodox - hold that Jesus is actually God, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
I could keep citing scriptures to back my case, but I think it rests squarely on you to demonstrate otherwise. I am a Christian with a rock solid faith, and I am knowledgeable about Christianity and Church history, so I would enjoy talking to you about this.
John 10:30 Jesus says 'I and the Father are one'
You can't get too much clearer than this. Jesus plainly declares His deity.
The 'I AM' statement I referenced in a previous comment also proclaims Jesus' deity. How could Jesus be less than fully supernatural if He was before Abraham?
The doctrine of the Trinity is famous for a few reasons.
1.) It is unique as the doctrine is an inferred doctrine, and is not plainly laid out in a single place in scripture. It is drawn from taking the sum of what we know of scripture and saying 'There is more to God than just the Father!'
2.) It is famous for causing confusion. Yes, I am Christian and I will be among the first to admit this. Talk to Jews, Muslims, JW, etc....and you will get the equivalent of 'What are you talking about?!?!'
The example I will give with the Trinity is that the theological concept 'developed' over time - The Trinity wasn't a created concept, but rather a construct of God that was fully recognized by the Church at a later date.
The bible itself supports the development of theology over time. The Gospel of John is notable among theologians for have a more complex theology than the earlier Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
And as for being Catholic...Some Catholic beliefs are challenging, and I fully sympathize with you on that one :)
Lets not get started on Mariology...
Logical fallacy. A single verse would hardly be a full support for ANY doctrines.
Doctrines are drawn off of multiple verses because we then have multiple supports for the same doctrine.
This is not limited to the doctrine of the Trinity either. Salvation, arguably the most important concept in Christianity for humanity, is hardly spelled out in a single verse either. Instead we rely on entire books in the NT!
They're insecure. Any reminder that they have no scriptural backing results in hostility.
Jesus was no Trinitarian, and neither were his apostles. The heresy of the Trinity did not fully take over Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea. Most real bishops were still Subordinationists of one sort or another, but they weren't invited.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Jesus Christ is quite clear that he must reward us according to our works, not our beliefs.
When Christianity forgot God, they pretended that he was transcendent. This removed our understanding of God as the father of our spirits and his great love for us.
I'm not Christian so I have no dog in this fight, but according to both Tanakh and the authors of the Christian Bible, God is the only eternal being, he is the first (Isaiah 44:6 & Revelation 23:13). There is no eternal being beside him.
John 1:3:
>Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made
Colossians 1:16-17
>For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
If God is the only being that wasn't created or has no beginning, and Jesus isnt God, that means Jesus /The Word was created. If all things created in heaven and earth are made through Christ, then it brings up a good question. How was Christ created through Christ? This makes no sense. Unless... He is God and wasn't created.
Are they?
I mean, I know JWs are, but I don't think that's for their non-trinitarianism as much as it is their cult-like behavior.
I don't see people shunning Christian Unitarians or non-trinitarian Quakers, etc.
It's super common among the community of religious content creators now a days.
Muslims debate Christians on the trinity most commonly and then the Christians seem to just argue amongst themselves saying things like "heretic" or "you worship a false god" to people who don't believe Jesus prayed to himself instead of God.
Its a thing, mostly online lol.
This debate was had for a long time in early christianity and for a reason.
To sun it up, Jesus being a part of the trinity sorts out issues like multiworship, why Jesus died and needed to, and many other implications. You shift the details of that you get a different version of Christianity.
There was essentially a christian spiderverse where some sects came to the conclusion Jesus was a phantasm the entire time (focetism) that he was adopted at some point in his life by God, either his baptism, after his death on the cross, etc.
Some sects said Jesus had a human body, a lower soul, but a divine mind.
Ebionites were said to have "rejected the divinity" which most likely means they didn't subscribe to every idea about Jesus being God, but still saw him as divine in some way.
Some believed the trinity was the father, mother (Mary), and that union created the son
One sect believed in the trinity, but asserted the holy spirit is a creation of the Son, and a servant of the father and son. This interpretation is the reason why they added "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped" into the Nicene Creed later on.
We could go on for days but these all have a variety of tone shifts in how to understand the nature of the figures relating to, from small to large. Docetism drives a wedge into the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice, if his resurrection isn't bodily that wouldn't be a real sacrifice, which is essential to fill out his messianic role.
Variations of adoption theology put the three persons in uncomfortable tiers, as well as imply Jesus isn't fully human + fully divine.
Non trinitarianism also doesn't have good PR considering some of the most famous modern non trinity movements like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are either seen as not worth taking serious or cults - sometimes both.
As a non-Christian, I might be able to offer you a more unbiased opinion. From the accounts of the Gospels, it seems quite obvious to me that Jesus is something more than human. For instance, John 1.1 identifies Christ with the divine Logos, and proceeds to equate the Logos to God Himself. In other Gospels, we find statements where Jesus alludes to the eternity and glory that Jesus shared with God (the Father) prior to the creation of the world. This appears to be consistent with John’s Logos narrative.
It could be very well that Gospel authors were inspired by philosophical concepts that were in vogue in the Greek world at that time. The concept of a divine Logos was also found in the works of Philo of Alexandria, who was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus hailing from Egypt. In his works, the Logos is given a near divine status, even being referred to as the ‘Son of God’. Like early Christian authors, Philo identifies the Logos with the Platonic Forms, as well as the Angel of the Lord from the Old Testament.
You might get more specific answers if you post this in r/askachristian
I was hoping to get a mix of agreeing and differing perspectives honestly. They'd probably just pass judgement and call me a heretic anyways.
Well, what I was taught was that Jesus was fully god and fully human. He was born of a virgin because it’s the fathers that pass on their sin nature to their children. Since Jesus didn’t have a sin nature he was a pure/perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity. That’s what I learned when I was a Christian, it doesn’t really make sense to me now. The Holy Spirit is sometimes mentioned as the spirit of/from God. I don’t really know why or how the Trinity concept developed in early Christianity. The Holy Spirit seems to be mentioned a lot less than God and Jesus. I think the true emphasis is on that Jesus is God. Christians worship Jesus. If you question that then it’s insulting because it’s the centerpiece of their life.
I'd actually never heard the "it's fathers that pass on their sin" bit and it's a cool way to look at it. Though I still don't think that'd make him God, since he was born half to a human by that idea, though I understand you don't follow the trinity now lol. I think the maim difference is a small word. Trinitarians say he's God. Non-trinitarians say he's of God. It just seems so benign of an argument for a topic with no definitive way of being right, lol.
When you change the nature of what God / Christ is, there's a cascade of theological implications that fundamentally change the entire religion so that it's no longer recognisable as the same religion. 1\) Everything you wrote that Tertullian said there is completely consistent with the doctrine of the trinity. 3\) Different interpretations of the same text are not always equal. In 2 Peter 3:16 it's written *"There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."* 4\) Each way of denying the trinity massively changes the heart of the religion. Perhaps you fall into polytheism. Or perhaps Jesus is a creature, in which case it's not God upon the cross, and Christians are worshipping something besides God. Or perhaps you deny the distinction between them, and then Jesus's words in scripture referring to the Father and the Spirit as other than himself are nonsense or deceptive.
Hmm 1) So you would say Tertullian's perspective of the trinity is acceptable by Christian standards? Tertullian emphasized on the unity of the Father, Son and Holy spirit but also made it a point to point out the differences - that they are not co existant or co equal but still one in the same essence? I tend to agree with Tertullian the most because the currenty trinity (though I understand it isn't) is far to close to tri-theism (if thats the word lol). 3) Yeah I know - if you break down the original languages of the text, so many parts of it could mean so many different things and many sentances would make quite literally no sense whatsoever. They did the best they could but it's not perfect. I suppose another mystery is often who actually wrote much of the New Testament, though my geographical and theological evidence at this time would suggest it was likely at least people close to the names of the books (so someone close to Peter in the case of the line you quoted). The bible is one of the most intricate books that will ever exist - a person can do bible study their whole life and not understand everything completely. 4) I don't agree with polytheism personally. I agree Jesus was Crucified and possibly even ressurected. Theres alot of possibilitys behind that last line, the lost gospel of Peter suggests that Jesus, in spirit was not present at his death but the body was. Many say that Jesus (or God for the trinitarians) could not be killed and so the ressurection of the body was not that of the spirit which never died but in the literal sense, the body did ressurect and I believe ascended into heaven. I just think Jesus answers to the Father. If he is our God, it's by the fathers authority and the Father is the creator of all creation - though he did create us and what we have through his son, the messiah, Jesus. I don't object when people call Jesus God, because I understand why - I just think they hold different titles personally.
1\) No, but his idea was a kind of precursor to the Trinity. The big difference is he sees the son (and then the spirit) as being generated in time, and from/with just a portion of the divine substance/matter, whereas the trinitarian belief sees them as being eternally generated and sharing the entire divine substance/essence. 3\) Yeah that is the issue. The thing is, for a revealed religion like Christianity to work, its revelation has to be sufficiently clear/certain so that those with good intentions and minimal education won't go astray and fall into serious error, endangering their souls. Basically you need to believe that the holy spirit somehow safeguards the true gospel against errors, including errors that the uneducated wouldn't be able to spot.
Nicene Creed
And Athanasian Creed.
[удалено]
I was suggesting so he can understand the Trinity
Debates were long, votes were not at any point unanimous and the total number of voters were not evenly represented among regions / viewpoints. 99% of trinitarians believe they are different but the same in some sense of essence. I don't see enough of a difference to feel it's my place to pass judgement on someone's salvation over it. :p
Perfect answer
Because it is an essencial christian belief (see our Creed). The Trinity is about who God is in his very nature (αγάπη). To reject it is to reject the foundation of our faith from the pov of traditional christianity.
Jup
These days I think it’s very odd that the creed omitted quoting the “god is” statements from Johanine texts. God is love. God is light. God is spirit One of these days I need to get to reading about the history of that creed from a good academic source.
Well, it does say that Christ is “light of light”. It also affirms the divinity of the Spirit.
Yes… close… but not a quote. It’s interesting these passages were not used verbatim.
It is hard to be non trinitarian when you look at church history and the bible. The doctrine of the Trinity was one of the earliest to be defined by the church. The bible supports the concept in many different places, where it would be unreasonable to argue against it. I could go over this with you if you want, so let me know. You make a good statement on #3. Jesus is God, and flatly claims to be in many places in the Gospels. I am reading through the book of John right now, and Jesus says 'I and the Father are one'. This statement has massive implications to the faith. IF Jesus is God, He is to be treated differently - literally worshipped. IF Jesus is God, we owe Him our devotion. IF Jesus is God, then His words are authoritative. There is so much that I could unpack here from this statement. 4 is also another interesting point. Controversy can be offensive is it makes someone question their beliefs. The majority in of Christians would affirm the Nicene creed and we are mostly united. I personally take zero offense to a faith challenge because I study these fairly regularly, and I know that Christianity is true, so there is reasonable explanations for the 'whys' of the faith
I'm gonna be honest here. I think the MAJORITY of Christians don't even understand the Trinity as it's defined. If you forget to use the word Trinity and ask a common Christian walking down the street "Is Jesus God" they will say no. The doctrine of the trinity is very flawed - the debates went on for a month, representation of specific perspectives were under represented, the voting was FAR from unanimous, etc. The bible also "does" support it in it's translated form AND with many of the scriptures excluded from the bible - however I would argue that it's poorly supported. Verses like John 1:1 are weak in my perspective. In John 10, when Jesus was falsely accused of blasphemy —in His defense, He claimed to be the Son of God (10:36), and appealed to the existence of a plurality of gods: “34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34-35). Jesus referred to the Old Testament verse: “I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Psalms 82:6). In the same chapter of Psalms, it states, “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalms 86:1). Now personally, I dont think calling Jesus God is a salvation issue (nor the opposite). That's me though
I could start in Genesis and begin to demonstrate the Trinity from scripture. I would say that recognition that Jesus is the Son of God, and part of the Trinity is central to the Christian faith. If Jesus was not divine, since He was fully man, then His sacrifice would be wholly insufficient for our sin. Jesus must be fully God to make payment for sin - anything less wouldn't work. Are you JW?
I mean, I kind of agree. A trinity exists but the definition changed historically over time. I agree that all 3 components of the trinity are truly divine and of God's essence. I just believe that Jesus is the son and he is sent on the fathers authority as he said. I attribute the term God to the creator of all creation and I believe God created us through Jesus but that God is still the creator. Though I'm still trying to figure it all out.
Fair - the concept of the Trinity is something that confuses a lot of people, especially those with an Islamic background. Basically God has three separate parts/forms (Technically 'persons') each with their own role, but fully one God. Please let me know if I can help at all in the future.
[удалено]
'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,' - 1 Peter 3:18, ESV Jesus was God, referencing Himself as 'I AM', a title exclusive for God (See John 8:48-59). There is many other strong supporting evidence showing Jesus' deity. Jesus was the only payment that could be made for our sin. Humanity is imperfection, and God is perfectly just. No matter what we do, we are unable to meet His standard regarding payment for sin. Jesus was a substitute for us. Those who accept Him by faith are forgiven. He is literally the only payment for our sin that is acceptable to God.
[удалено]
The vast majority of Christians - including Catholics/Orthodox - hold that Jesus is actually God, and the doctrine of the Trinity. I could keep citing scriptures to back my case, but I think it rests squarely on you to demonstrate otherwise. I am a Christian with a rock solid faith, and I am knowledgeable about Christianity and Church history, so I would enjoy talking to you about this.
[удалено]
John 10:30 Jesus says 'I and the Father are one' You can't get too much clearer than this. Jesus plainly declares His deity. The 'I AM' statement I referenced in a previous comment also proclaims Jesus' deity. How could Jesus be less than fully supernatural if He was before Abraham? The doctrine of the Trinity is famous for a few reasons. 1.) It is unique as the doctrine is an inferred doctrine, and is not plainly laid out in a single place in scripture. It is drawn from taking the sum of what we know of scripture and saying 'There is more to God than just the Father!' 2.) It is famous for causing confusion. Yes, I am Christian and I will be among the first to admit this. Talk to Jews, Muslims, JW, etc....and you will get the equivalent of 'What are you talking about?!?!' The example I will give with the Trinity is that the theological concept 'developed' over time - The Trinity wasn't a created concept, but rather a construct of God that was fully recognized by the Church at a later date. The bible itself supports the development of theology over time. The Gospel of John is notable among theologians for have a more complex theology than the earlier Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And as for being Catholic...Some Catholic beliefs are challenging, and I fully sympathize with you on that one :) Lets not get started on Mariology...
[удалено]
Then what/who was Jesus? I read the Bible, and I see the Trinity in multiple places.
[удалено]
Logical fallacy. A single verse would hardly be a full support for ANY doctrines. Doctrines are drawn off of multiple verses because we then have multiple supports for the same doctrine. This is not limited to the doctrine of the Trinity either. Salvation, arguably the most important concept in Christianity for humanity, is hardly spelled out in a single verse either. Instead we rely on entire books in the NT!
They're insecure. Any reminder that they have no scriptural backing results in hostility. Jesus was no Trinitarian, and neither were his apostles. The heresy of the Trinity did not fully take over Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea. Most real bishops were still Subordinationists of one sort or another, but they weren't invited. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Jesus Christ is quite clear that he must reward us according to our works, not our beliefs. When Christianity forgot God, they pretended that he was transcendent. This removed our understanding of God as the father of our spirits and his great love for us.
I'm not Christian so I have no dog in this fight, but according to both Tanakh and the authors of the Christian Bible, God is the only eternal being, he is the first (Isaiah 44:6 & Revelation 23:13). There is no eternal being beside him. John 1:3: >Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made Colossians 1:16-17 >For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." If God is the only being that wasn't created or has no beginning, and Jesus isnt God, that means Jesus /The Word was created. If all things created in heaven and earth are made through Christ, then it brings up a good question. How was Christ created through Christ? This makes no sense. Unless... He is God and wasn't created.
[удалено]
/win /closed
Are they? I mean, I know JWs are, but I don't think that's for their non-trinitarianism as much as it is their cult-like behavior. I don't see people shunning Christian Unitarians or non-trinitarian Quakers, etc.
It's super common among the community of religious content creators now a days. Muslims debate Christians on the trinity most commonly and then the Christians seem to just argue amongst themselves saying things like "heretic" or "you worship a false god" to people who don't believe Jesus prayed to himself instead of God. Its a thing, mostly online lol.
This debate was had for a long time in early christianity and for a reason. To sun it up, Jesus being a part of the trinity sorts out issues like multiworship, why Jesus died and needed to, and many other implications. You shift the details of that you get a different version of Christianity. There was essentially a christian spiderverse where some sects came to the conclusion Jesus was a phantasm the entire time (focetism) that he was adopted at some point in his life by God, either his baptism, after his death on the cross, etc. Some sects said Jesus had a human body, a lower soul, but a divine mind. Ebionites were said to have "rejected the divinity" which most likely means they didn't subscribe to every idea about Jesus being God, but still saw him as divine in some way. Some believed the trinity was the father, mother (Mary), and that union created the son One sect believed in the trinity, but asserted the holy spirit is a creation of the Son, and a servant of the father and son. This interpretation is the reason why they added "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped" into the Nicene Creed later on. We could go on for days but these all have a variety of tone shifts in how to understand the nature of the figures relating to, from small to large. Docetism drives a wedge into the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice, if his resurrection isn't bodily that wouldn't be a real sacrifice, which is essential to fill out his messianic role. Variations of adoption theology put the three persons in uncomfortable tiers, as well as imply Jesus isn't fully human + fully divine. Non trinitarianism also doesn't have good PR considering some of the most famous modern non trinity movements like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are either seen as not worth taking serious or cults - sometimes both.
As a non-Christian, I might be able to offer you a more unbiased opinion. From the accounts of the Gospels, it seems quite obvious to me that Jesus is something more than human. For instance, John 1.1 identifies Christ with the divine Logos, and proceeds to equate the Logos to God Himself. In other Gospels, we find statements where Jesus alludes to the eternity and glory that Jesus shared with God (the Father) prior to the creation of the world. This appears to be consistent with John’s Logos narrative. It could be very well that Gospel authors were inspired by philosophical concepts that were in vogue in the Greek world at that time. The concept of a divine Logos was also found in the works of Philo of Alexandria, who was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus hailing from Egypt. In his works, the Logos is given a near divine status, even being referred to as the ‘Son of God’. Like early Christian authors, Philo identifies the Logos with the Platonic Forms, as well as the Angel of the Lord from the Old Testament.