Questions for non-Trinitarians

[Matthew S Islam]

Hello everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not a Trinitarian or even a Christian for that matter, but I am rather intriguied by the complexities of your religious tradition.

I am really curious to see how non-Trinitarians make sense of these issues, which I cannot help but find problematic:

The Divinity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity was established as the orthodox interpretation and was enforced by the Roman authorities. This resulted in the Trinity's theological supremecy throughout Christian history and up until today.

1) If Christianity is truly from God, then why did God allow a polytheistic doctrine to contaminate the mainstream tradition? What exactly is the wisdom behind the majority of Christians being polytheists--if the religion is ultimately Divine and true?

2) If your theology is in agreement with ultimate truth and reality, then why didn't God make non-Trinitarianism the dominant trend? Isn't God expected to guide and facillitate the true religion?

3) If the Bible as we currently have it is consistent with the Will of God, then how do you justify the wisdom behind how Jesus was portrayed in the New Testament? To be more clear: Why didn't God make the matter so clear and descisive, that folks wouldn't even think of debating it? If God has Divine Knowledge and is also Merciful, then why didn't he continue the Old Testaments trend of clear speech and consistent theology? Don't you believe that God is not the author of confusion?

4) If you're willing to accept that God did not have to ensure the dominance of the correct theology over polytheism, then how are you so confident with Pauline Christianity? What if Paul is how he appears to be--an open heretic? Why 'trust' the Will of God here, when you confidently oppose the 'Will of God' at Niceae and the majority of Christian history?

Thank you!

[Tcg]

However, there are quite a number of different forms of Christianity.

Yes, different sects within one religion.

The single religion with the greatest number and fastest growing membership is Islam.

Which of the following Islamic sects do you consider to be the "single religion" of Islam? Or do you pick one of the numerous sub-sects of these major sects?

"The first centuries of Islam gave rise to three major sects: Sunnis, Shi'as and Kharijites. Each sect developed distinct jurisprudence schools (madhhab) reflecting different methodologies of jurisprudence (fiqh)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_s ... d_branches

Note also that my data is based on the present, not on a prediction of what may take place in the future.

[polonius]

However, there are quite a number of different forms of Christianity.

Yes, different sects within one religion.

The single religion with the greatest number and fastest growing membership is Islam.

Which of the following Islamic sects do you consider to be the "single religion" of Islam? Or do you pick one of the numerous sub-sects of these major sects?

"The first centuries of Islam gave rise to three major sects: Sunnis, Shi'as and Kharijites. Each sect developed distinct jurisprudence schools (madhhab) reflecting different methodologies of jurisprudence (fiqh)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_s ... d_branches

Note also that my data is based on the present, not on a prediction of what may take place in the future.

RESPONSE: Which of the Christian sects do you consider the single religion of Christianity?

Same question.

[Matthew S Islam]

Religious disaccord is not necessarily the result of lack of clarity. For example the Israelites were clearly told to avoid idolatry yet within weeks of agreeing to that clear and explicit prohibition, built a golden calf and began to worship it. Jesus clearly identified himself as God's son and there was no confusion about this for first century or indeed early Christians for centuries. The "New Testament" was evidently sufficietly clear and debate is not a matter of insufficient transmission of clear information so much as a deliberate effort to corrupt Christian teachings with a false ideology (see above).

• God certainly is not the author of confusion, but Satan is. All trinitarian "confusion" as to the nature of God is not found in the bible but rather in the non-biblical traditions that were introduced by the leaders of Apostate Christianity born after the death of the last of the Apostles.

I could have phrased my question much better, I apologize.

My contention ultimately comes down to these points:

1) If God is not the author of your confusion, then why does the New Testament contain passages which flirt with the deity of Christ?

I am aware that in your view the Bible is clear, however, I want to know why the passages quoted by Trinitarians exist in the first place? In my opinion, they shouldn't even exist. Their existance proves that 'God' is the author of your confusion.

2) Why did God reveal the Torah the way He did? Did He not know that the New Testament would reinterpret and conflict with sensitive aspects of it's theology?

In other words, why does Paul have to teach us about Jesus's Lordship? And why does he have to reinterpret those monotheistic OT passages by including Christ? Theologically speaking, shouldn't a Jew's first reaction be to reject these innovations as deviations from his Scriptures?


3) Why did God choose to create the Biblical version of Jesus--considering how problematic this entity has become?

Did he have to be this pre-existing Lord? Didn't God know that His people would become polytheist as they disputed over him? Why didn't He save His own people from such a tremendous matter? Had the Biblical Jesus not been ascribed with such powerful qualities, and had the New Testament been more sensitive towards how they portrayed him, all of this could have actually been avoided.


---


Although I do favour a Unitarian overview of the Gospels and the early Christians, this conclusion of mine essentially relies on my perception of monotheism, and what I would expect from the Jewish authors of the New Testament. In saying that, I'd like to point something out which might be significant towards how we determine what is clear from what is unclear. I would say that from non-Christian point of view, determining what the early Christians believed is not exactly my yardstick. I might be reasonably convinced that the Gospel writers were Unitarians, however, this does not necessarily negate the element of confusion that I recognize within the Gospels.

I believe that the Jesus of the New Testament contradicts aspects of Jewish theology and monotheism, making him a perpetual theological problem for those who believe in him.

He's been described as:

1) The Lord
2) Pre-existing
3) The tool which created the universe
4) Divine Names
5) Used to reinterpret monotheistic Old Testment passages.
6) He is prayed to and through (By Paul)
7) He has control over our affairs
8) Paul preaches pure devotion to Christ.
9) He fulfills Divine prophecies
10) and so on..

Even if you say that the New Testament does not explicitly state that Jesus is fully God--it really does not matter. This entity is nothing less than a partner with God Almighty. This 'partnership' conflicts with God's singularity and His exclusive role as our Lord and God.

The Trinitarians respond to the Unitarians using similar logic, whereby they accuse you of compromising monotheism. They recognize this 'problem' aswell, and their solution has been to recognize the deity of Christ. Perhaps the question is not: What did the early Christians believe? But rather: How can we ascribe this problem to the early Christians while maintaining this religion to be true?

Peace

[JehovahsWitness]

I want to know why the passages quoted by Trinitarians exist in the first place?

Because all bible passages are there to reveal truth. Is God to self censor what he communicates for fear the perverse and the wicked may find room in what he says for misinterpretation? Satan the Devil quoted scripture. Are you going to ask why God "allowed" those scriptures in the bible in the first place too?

Jesus said "I am God's son" (John 10:36)

Trinitarian respond to this clear statement by saying "That means he is God"

Your question is like someone asking : Why was Jesus allowed to say he was God's son" in the first place? Surely he knew this would cause confusion!

Jesus asked his disciple "Who do you think I am?"

Peter answers "You are the son of God"

Jesus responds that God himself has revealed this truth to them

Trinitarians respond to this passage, ah this means God himself revealed to Peter that Jesus is God.

What you ask is like someone asking God (and the bible writers that reported the event) why you allow this account to be in the bible in the first place? Did you not know that when Jesus confirmed Jesus to be God's son, trinitarians would, 200 years later, take this to mean Jesus confirmed he was God?!

Where would it end ?

The above passages show there is no limit to what would have to be removed from the bible if the goal is to remove passages that could be used to support the trinity, since there is no limit to the folly of those that have deliberately chosen to disregard explicit statements of truth. Why should God self censor the deeper (and subsequently less evident) truths he wishes to reveal to honest hearted believers because those passages may cause confusion* for those that follow teachers of falsehood? God is not subject to minimalize the damage TRUTH will inflicted on false dogma, he has chosen to reveal truth and will not be compromised by what those truths do to those that dwell in darkness!





JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

*NOTE Jesus said "The truth would set you free" He didn't say "The truth will make you confused". Those that accept truth are subsequently free from, among other things, religious confusion. No Jehovah's Witness is confused about the identity of Jesus, no more that Peter and the first century Christians were. Satan however sows confusion. Those that see confusion in bible truths, do well to verify who is at the origin of thier theology.

[polonius]

The term “Son of God� does not prove divinity. There were many “sons fo God.�

The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israelis my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Son of God

[Matthew S Islam]

Because all bible passages are there to reveal truth. Is God to self censor what he communicates for fear the perverse and the wicked may find room in what he says for misinterpretation? Satan the Devil quoted scripture. Are you going to ask why God "allowed" those scriptures in the bible in the first place too?

1) Sure, if you have faith in the Bible then every verse is true and with a purpose. But if your Scripture is actually from God, then it should also conform with our reality and a sound intellect.

2) God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful and Loving. He is not the author of confusion. So naturally, in His Perfection, He would ensure that the Revelation is consistent with reality.. So yes, I do believe that God censors Himself from saying things that are not befitting of Him. I hold God to a certain standard.

Mind you, I'm not trying to limit God's Ability here; but rather, to free God from being ignorant and incompetant.

3) No, I'm not suggesting that we become unrealistic with Scripture. Human beings will always fall into errors or have a difference of opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when we cannot even agree on the basic fundamentals, and the majority of our bretherin are polytheists.

Jesus said "I am God's son" (John 10:36)

Trinitarian respond to this clear statement by saying "That means he is God"

Your question is like someone asking : Why was Jesus allowed to say he was God's son" in the first place? Surely he knew this would cause confusion!

It might not be completely applicable here, but yeah, in general that is what I'm saying. All I'm asking for is a clear and well balanced Scripture. It's really nothing special; at least not for God.

Think about it like this, do you see Muslims or Jews arguing over who God is and who He isn't? If not, ask yourself why not? Do you think their Scriptures have anything to do with it? If they do, then what separates their Scriptures from yours--content wise? Which of the two brings about success and clarity?

Jesus asked his disciple "Who do you think I am?"

Peter answers "You are the son of God"

Jesus responds that God himself has revealed this truth to them

Trinitarians respond to this passage, ah this means God himself revealed to Peter that Jesus is God.

The Trinitarians who argue this are not relying solely on these passages to prove their point. The reality is, this 'reach' of an interpretation is actually the result of the internal theological conflict within the NT. I think they call it the 'floodgate'. Deviance only leads to further deviance. Had the Biblical Jesus been narrated to us appropriately, then the son of God would never be used to prove Jesus's Divinity, except by the extremely ignorant.

What you ask is like someone asking God (and the bible writers that reported the event) why you allow this account to be in the bible in the first place? Did you not know that when Jesus confirmed Jesus to be God's son, trinitarians would, 200 years later, take this to mean Jesus confirmed he was God?!

1) Once again, what you're neglecting is the fact that God has Infinite Knowledge and the Ability to modify His creation to whatever He Wills.

2) God knew how the Trinitarians would think 200 years later and He also facilitated their circumstance. Unless He is careless, He should have done something to prevent them from misinterpretting the text. On the contrary, He granted victory to the Trinitarians at Niceae which resulted in 1000+ years of theological domination backed by the ruling state.

Where would it end ?

The above passages show there is no limit to what would have to be removed from the bible

It would start and finish whereever God Almighty determines. However, what God determines should bring about success--not failure. If the Scripture has a bad track-record for misguiding those who read it, then God is free from evil and corruption

[JehovahsWitness]

Because all bible passages are there to reveal truth.

1) Sure, if you have faith in the Bible then every verse is true and with a purpose

Yes, that is what I believe. Do you not agree?

2) God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful and Loving. He is not the author of confusion. So naturally, in His Perfection, He would ensure that the Revelation is consistent with reality.

I would agree, so are you suggesting that the revelations revealed in scripture are NOT consistent with reality? And that as such are evidently not of divine origin?

3) No, I'm not suggesting that we become unrealistic with Scripture. Human beings will always fall into errors or have a difference of opinions.

Given the above, is it possible that you are in error and that the bible isn't the cause of your confusion but that rather the confusion you see is because you (and those like you) hold to an erroneous views?

[Matthew S Islam]

too early

[Matthew S Islam]

Yes, that is what I believe. Do you not agree?

Wasn't sure if this was a trick question Evidently, I do not believe in the Bible--at least not in it's entirety.

I'm a Muslim.

I would agree, so are you suggesting that the revelations revealed in scripture are NOT consistent with reality? And that as such are evidently not of divine origin?

Yes, by 'reality' I was intending the 'truth'. You see, just because something is in the Bible does not necessarily make it true. Sure, if you want to believe that, then it's your life. But you should be completely aware of the fact that your belief in the Bible is rationalized through biased presuppositions and circular reasoning--not Divine proofs.

As I've been attempting to display within this thread, the internal inconsistencies and imperfections of the Bible, proves with certainty that the source is not completely Divine.

Given the above, is it possible that you are in error and that the bible isn't the cause of your confusion but that rather the confusion you see is because you (and those like you) hold to an erroneous views?

No my friend. The Bible is the author of Christianity's confusion and we know this because the statistics prove it. The overwhelming majority of Christians believe in the deity of Christ. This actually makes my argument irrefutable--at least against your minority sect.

--

I strongly believe that the only way to escape your theological problem is by adopting Islamic theology. Islam has the correct Christology along with a truly logical and completely Divine interpretation of the rejected Messiah. I can elaborate further, if you are interested.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, that is what I believe. Do you not agree?

Wasn't sure if this was a trick question Evidently, I do not believe in the Bible--at least not in it's entirety.

I'm a Muslim.

.

Well that clears up a lot. Thanks for sharing,

Have an excellent evening.



JW