Theological gymnastics.

[Elijah John]

1) Theological Gymnastic: God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but monotheism is still claimed.

Simple alternative: The Father alone is God.

----

2) Theological Gymnastic: Jesus is entirely human, and entirely God.

Simple alternative: Jesus is an exceptional human being, completely human and entirely devoted to his God.

---

3) Theological Gymnastic: God needs blood in order to forgive, but human sacrifice is forbidden, so God became man in order to sacrifice himself to himself on our behalf.

Simple alternative: God does not want nor does He need blood, but only sincere repentance in order to forgive.

---

For debate, in each (or any) of these three cases, which is the more a) Biblical and the more b) reasonable alternative?

Please support your answers.

[YahDough]

1) Theological Gymnastic: God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but monotheism is still claimed.

Simple alternative: The Father alone is God.

The Father has the Son, so He is not alone.

--2) Theological Gymnastic: Jesus is entirely human, and entirely God.

Wrong, Jesus is the Son of God, human and divine.

Simple alternative: Jesus is an exceptional human being, completely human and entirely devoted to his God.

You have sold Him a little short. He is also Lord and Messiah.

3) Theological Gymnastic: God needs blood in order to forgive, but human sacrifice is forbidden, so God became man in order to sacrifice himself to himself on our behalf.

You have used your own "theological gymnastics" to mock the truth.

Simple alternative: God does not want nor does He need blood, but only sincere repentance in order to forgive.

That's not how Moses described it nor is it the dynamics of God's plan. Forgiveness is not always that simple.---

For debate, in each (or any) of these three cases, which is the more a) Biblical and the more b) reasonable alternative?

Your debate question is bogus. You falsely generalize Christians without even having a good concept of who Christ Jesus is.

If Jesus is not your Lord and Savior your debate for truth in this matter has little value.

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

EJ, you and I have had our debates in the past about if the Trinity is biblical (I say yes; you say no). I imagine that we both think that the other has to do some mental gymnastics to support his view. I won’t rehash that material here.

Instead, I want to address the idea of the Trinity being the most reasonable view. I think that it is not. I think that is part of the point.

When the doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated there was an idea that it was not reasonable. That is, we can’t get there by reason alone and our reason will not be able to fully comprehend the three-in-one God or the dual nature of Christ. This is because we cannot comprehend God. The moment that we think that we have fully and reasonably understood the living God is the moment that we are farthest from genuine understanding.

This is one of the things that originally drew me to orthodox Christianity. I am a man of reason, but my reason tells me that the true God must be beyond my reason. Any system of belief that claims to fully and reasonably understand the true God is a system of belief I should immediately distrust.

So I see a non-Trinitarian view of God as more reasonable. However, I view that as a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage. It suggests that we are trying to limit God and transform Him into something that we can understand, as opposed to being transformed by Him in a way that is beyond our understanding.

[ttruscott]

My attachment to the Trinity is also logical.

I consider that GOD is from everlasting past AND that HE is love. So, who was the object of HIS love? IF there was no object where was HIS focus, inward, outward??? Love is an emotion of attraction and bringing together so a single person who loves himself is a bit meh, right?

The only thing that makes sense to me is the constant and everlasting loving attraction between the persons of the Trinity to explain this which it does so easily. Love as an attribute of being is only logical if there is an object of that love.

[Elijah John]

My attachment to the Trinity is also logical.

I consider that GOD is from everlasting past AND that HE is love. So, who was the object of HIS love? IF there was no object where was HIS focus, inward, outward??? Love is an emotion of attraction and bringing together so a single person who loves himself is a bit meh, right?

The only thing that makes sense to me is the constant and everlasting loving attraction between the persons of the Trinity to explain this which it does so easily. Love as an attribute of being is only logical if there is an object of that love.

If the Trinity is "love within Himself for Himself," isn't THAT love directed inward, and not outward?

God's love is displayed outward, towards His Creation.

[Elijah John]

If Jesus is not your Lord and Savior your debate for truth in this matter has little value.

Really Yahdough? So are you suggesting that we, on a debating site, should only have "trinitarian on trinitarian, or atheist on atheist debates here? Like on like?

And YHVH is my LORD and Savior, (and, by the way, that is Biblical, not mockery.) So I am not qualified because I have a different take on Scripture than you do?

I would be willing to bet that more than a few atheists here know far more about Jesus than does the average Evangelical.

Also, regarding gymnastics. What constitutes gymnastics, complexity or simplicity?

Unnecessary complexity:

-Trinitarianism,
-Jesus as God/man,
-vicarious blood atonement, animal and Jesus
-"Jesus is constantly spoken of in the Old Testament"

Simple and straightforward alternatives (that are also VERY Biblical):

-pure monotheism
-simple repentance

So let the reader decide which position is more prone to back-flipping, stretching, revisionism and forced interpretation. In short, theological and Biblical gymnastics.

[ttruscott]

If the Trinity is "love within Himself for Himself," isn't THAT love directed inward, and not outward?

God's love is displayed outward, towards His Creation.

Each person of the Trinity expressed their love out to the other two and also to their creation.

[Elijah John]

If the Trinity is "love within Himself for Himself," isn't THAT love directed inward, and not outward?

God's love is displayed outward, towards His Creation.

Each person of the Trinity expressed their love out to the other two and also to their creation.

Fair enough. Roman Catholics teach this as well, and say that God draws his people into the life of the Trinity.

My problem with the Trinity is not that it draws many people closer to God, it's the claim that it is the ONLY theology that brings one closer to God. Plus it just don't make sense to me. And I don't see it as taught by Jesus or the Prophets.

For many, absolute Monotheism works far better....myself included, along with billions of Jews, Muslims, Sihks, Ba'hais, and unitarian Christians. (small "u" not UU)

Difference is I don't claim that Trinitarians burn forever in hell, but many Trinitarians claim that NON-Trinitarians burn forever in hell.

When in fact, only God knows who is rewarded or punished in the afterlife, and how.

[YahDough]

And YHVH is my LORD and Savior, (and, by the way, that is Biblical, not mockery.) So I am not qualified because I have a different take on Scripture than you do?

Your effort to try to bypass Christ Jesus in the Godhead is notable. It leads me to think that you are not a saved Christian.

I would be willing to bet that more than a few atheists here know far more about Jesus than does the average Evangelical.

If one does not know Christ as their personal Lord, they have missed the whole point of His coming. What kind of knowledge is that to brag about?

Also, regarding gymnastics. What constitutes gymnastics, complexity or simplicity?

In theology it is any way it takes to make the truth known.

Unnecessary complexity:

-Trinitarianism,

Well if you believe in God and believe in Jesus and believe in Truth, there's at least three things you believe in. God is more than a "trinity".

-Jesus as God/man,

We have established Jesus is not the Father. How about Lord/Messiah/Man?

-vicarious blood atonement, animal and Jesus

That's the history of our God unless you are not a Christian.

-"Jesus is constantly spoken of in the Old Testament"

Jesus was the Lord before He was Jesus. King David knew Him.

Ps:110:1: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool....."

Simple and straightforward alternatives (that are also VERY Biblical):

-pure monotheism

Jn:14:1: Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Salvation is through Christ Jesus. You can't leave Him out/

-simple repentance

Repentance does not complete the requirement for salvation. Baptism into and believing in Jesus along with repentance does.

[catnip]

1) Theological Gymnastic: God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but monotheism is still claimed.

Simple alternative: The Father alone is God.

What is the Holy Spirit, then? Because it is referred to often enough in scripture.

I am a little bit more forgiving of the doctrine of the Trinity in considering that the triumphant church and theology was not alone in the claim that Jesus Christ was God. I think that they were struggling to describe what role Jesus played and how and this is what they came up with. There are passages in the Gospels that describe something in even the oldest of the Gospels, Mark, and yet they never claim he is God anymore than he is said to have claimed all to whom the Word of God came down to be "gods".

http://biblehub.com/mark/14-62.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-64.htm

----

2) Theological Gymnastic: Jesus is entirely human, and entirely God.

Simple alternative: Jesus is an exceptional human being, completely human and entirely devoted to his God.

How, in what way is he "exceptional"? According to the New Testament he is the Messiah or the Anointed One, translated into Greek as Christ, that we had been waiting. He is not the only one if the Old Testament is considered. But I think this is the question that plagued early Christians.

---

3) Theological Gymnastic: God needs blood in order to forgive, but human sacrifice is forbidden, so God became man in order to sacrifice himself to himself on our behalf.

Simple alternative: God does not want nor does He need blood, but only sincere repentance in order to forgive.

This description is only one of many different atonement theories that have been favored by one Christian group or another over time and the more recent dating back to the 1100s. I personally think that it is the weakest. So, what brings about at-one-ment? If we were in bondage to sin and death and Christ rescued us from it, the early church thought this was Satan that which caused sin and death, that held us in bondage, thus the older Ransom theory/Christus Victor. The atonement theory described by the Church Fathers was more what we would now call Moral Influence theory and this is what those of us who believe in doing as Christ taught tend to live into.

---

For debate, in each (or any) of these three cases, which is the more a) Biblical and the more b) reasonable alternative?

Please support your answers.

I think it is simple. I can't disagree with that. And it begins with simple, sincere repentance. But then I think we follow where Christ and the Holy Spirit lead us by living intentionally into faith. If we truly believe, then would we not do as we are told to do? A number of popular theologies claim we don't need to do what Jesus taught, but I disagree completely. Simple faith, complete trust, always trying to do what we are taught. Then we will see the role of the Christ IN God.