This conversation might be one of the most clear presentation of the Unitarian faith I have ever heard. I was listening to Dustin Smith speak the other day about the need to offer up something in place of what is being attempted to deconstruct. This is that something. Thank you brother Sam for sharing your heart and being a vessel for God to share what I believe to be an amazing and wonderful biblical truth.
Hi Sam, you might find the following lecture series by David Bentley Hart interesting. Check out the pod "Leaves in the wind" with the Mt.Tabor reference in the title.
I always find your discussions super interesting. Basically representing the logical end point of Protestant epistemology. Here's to hoping you and Dr. Ortlund can eventually sit down and chat. I've been repping your channel on his videos, and he replied to one of my comments, so maybe some day! I enjoyed listening to this one, especially since the incarnational nature of the Trinity is traditionally viewed as a fundamental aspect of salvation in Christianity. Even though I land on the other side of this spectrum, but it was still interesting listening to the reasoning for this.
yeah as good as he is in showing how catholicism and orthodoxy are not historically tenable, he's quite stubborn on the trinity. but i guess he's not alone in that.
🤔Sometimes I want to simply "like" somebody's comment, without "necessarily" agreeing with viewpoint. For instance the individual that started this thread was "very kind", lol it was conundrum!! 🤗
21:50 Sinning in the name of tradition is a topic discussed in the Bible (Matthew 15:6). The importance of letting go of any idols in our lives is also emphasized, including strongly held traditions that obstruct the truth and lead to sin. I don't think any Biblical Unitarian would disagree that the trinity doctrine can be viewed as the greatest idol (false doctrine) that the mainline Christian institution has ever conceived, hence our laser focus on Christology. It's my firm belief that a Christian who is able to sufficiently articulate the trinitarian doctrine and willingly embrace it is plainly violating the first commandment of God, regardless of their awareness of this transgression. So I believe that as Unitarians, we have the responsibility of helping our fellow Christians steer clear of sin with the knowledge that has been entrusted to us, and vice versa. Our trinitarian friends and even non Christian friends may provide us with mutually beneficial corrections in other areas. Jacob, a non-Christian Jew, and Anselman, a trinitarian, for example, can give you a hand with your cosmology. I'm biased, of course, lol :-) Knowing about your personal experiences of being expelled from several trinitarian congregations due to your convictions (I can relate), it's obvious to me that you sympathize with the marginalized and strive to prevent others from enduring the same suffering that you've experienced, but I also get the sense that your more inclusivist mindset is coming from personal desires for validation and a stable fellowship, perhaps as much, if not more, than it is about the truth. For me, drawing hard doctrinal lines doesn't mean isolating myself from other Christians, but it does mean maintaining boundaries and making them clearly known. There's no doubt in my mind that a Christian who participates in a trinitarian fellowship can experience a closer connection with God compared to a Christian involved in a unitarian fellowship. It's a case-by-case basis; therefore, I acknowledge that doctrinal correctness is not the sole determining factor of one's standing with God. However, if an individual possesses the ability to comprehend theological concepts, I do believe they will be held responsible for their beliefs (Luke 12:48), and as such, they are also subject to the respectful correction of those that do possess an accurate biblical understanding of Christ's nature. Lack of growth in Christians' grasp of Christ, given their potential for understanding, for me, most likely points to a moral impediment in their spiritual development. I don't think it's wise to judge our closeness to God by the closeness we have with Christians of differing backgrounds, because you can make human interconnection (Luke 6:32) as much of an idol as you can with human propositions (Matt 15:9). Holiness should be the metric by which we judge our relationship to God and then with each other, and as Christians that have sufficient intellectual capacity, a part of that is propositional correctness. The growth of our closeness to God, to community, and to creedal accuracy should all be concurrent and, most importantly, rooted in direct revelation and vetted by scripture. Any misalignment indicates the presence of an idol, whether that's firmly supporting a false doctrine, which consequently has led to countless divisions and denominations, or whether it's maintaining a strong, flourishing, and unified community at the expense of doctrinal accuracy (as is typical with cult groups). They are just two sides of the same coin, and both lack that emanational aspect, in my view. I propose that if you desire to have a thriving Christian fellowship alongside trinitarian Christians, neither traditions nor communal desires should take the highest place, but a desire for what is true, no matter the cost, even if the cost ends up being a long-held tradition or community ideal itself. I'd also argue this applies to TLC as well.
1:00:41 - Yes! Thank you for this. This has been my view for a long time. Non-dualists sort of jump the gun; we begin scattered and unfinished and move towards unity and perfection. History, separate identity, all things embodied and finite, are not merely maya.
I honestly don't know. I think that Anthony Buzzard did a lot to popularize it. I should say, I never even heard the phrase "biblical unitarian" until I was in my 20s.
One thing that Trinitarians can claim easier than Unitarians is the suffering of God. Trinitarianism sort of alienate us from Jesus but brings God closer, it could be argued. I appreciate the intellectual elegance and consistency of Unitarianism though. I'm undecided.
@@EmJay2022 "Godhood as the Trinitarians suggest that Jesus posseses." -- Ok, if 'Godhood' is attainable then it's not the same thing; i.e., substance/nature/ousia as the Father's. Trinitarians would say that the (pre-incarnate) Son & Spirit eternally possess the Father's ousia/essence/nature. So, their ousia/nature/essence/substance is common, not distinct like their hypostases/personhood.
@@InfinitelyManic No, neither position, unitarian nor trinitarian claim that godhood is attainable by us, as in being grafted into the supposed godhead. Hence why trinitarians make an unrelatable Christ vs the more relatable and approachable human Christ.
Sam the problem is I have a hard time grasping what people mean when they say that prophets and messengers are sinless. From your explaination all prophets before Jesus were tempted and they fell in sin. Some prophets died as sinners, such as Solomon. According to you Jesus was also tempted like prophets before him but he did not sin and hence he broke a trend that had lasted for 200000 years and a trend of sinning that continued after Jesus’s death and ressurection. In the Quran Jesus does not seem to sin because he has grasped the Torah and the Gospel litteraly directly after his delivery(3:46). However Jesus Will be questioned on whether he asked the people to worship God alone or if he asked the people to worship him and his Mother beside God.(5:116)
Excellent conversation, especially venturing into realms of Human/Divine interaction. Like you Sam, I am a Unitarian. And like you I arrive at that conclusion through Scripture. However, I see no need for virgin birth, Incarnation. Doesn’t that concept make Jesus other than human? I regard the Bible seriously but not literally, seeing Incarnation as mythological. One line of your discussion about Panentheism piqued my interest. I’m with Luke on this one. Here’s why: I don’t believe in Original Sin, neither did Pelagius. I think Augustine misunderstood the scripture and went overboard on human depravity. Like Matthew Fox , I think Original Blessing makes much more sense. I think Judaism affirms this as well. In this sense, God’s connection to us is and always has been ongoing. Otherwise, how could Jesus , a human, respond to and fully embrace God’s presence? How could all the other great prophets and Avatars of history function as they did? All over the world. If you drop OSin, you don’t need atonement, which is archaic in my mind. Instead you have in Jesus the way, showing the world the way. Another benefit of my theology is that with Panentheism built in to Evolution you can see the world in progress towards the kind of Transfiguration you hope to see happen. This also means that it is our privilege and responsibility to help that happen. Pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”. Occams Razor. No need for old and new creations etc.
You could also see the virgin birth metaphorically in the sense that Jesus seemed to have unique genetics/abilities/gifts from a very young age as if he was uniquely "divine" from the womb.
I think that the distinction between being mythologically true but literally/historically false is breaking down. In order to be mythologically true you must be historically true as well. All layers of truth operating in harmony up and down the stack.
@@transfigured3673 I couldn't disagree more. Cannot Lord of the Rings be mythologically true in the stories it tells without being historically/literally true? Since none of us are privy to actual reality/history (lacking a time machine and all knowledge), do we not all just operate in metaphor/interpretation based on our limited knowledge which almost certainly will be shown to be wrong given enough time? Were lepers in the 1st century AD literally "unclean"? The idea of uncleanness was certainly not "literally" true as we know now from germ theory but accurate enough from a pragmatic sense to prevent spread of leprosy.
54:00 In terms of ascending and descending, Sam, the text does not indicate that Jesus ascended first from a subcelestial position into heaven and then descended as implied in a supposed spiritual experience. It just says that he descended. I interpret this as a reference to John 1:13, which suggests that an individual cannot ascend into heaven unless they have received a new name from above through spiritual rebirth. However, Jesus did not need to be reborn through the sanctification of God's word, as his identity originated from God's word. In this sense, Jesus (his identity) descended from heaven.
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended" I think the most straight forward reading is that only one person has ascended into heaven and that person also descended and that is Jesus.
@@transfigured3673 Oh, ok I see. I overlooked the fact that the first part of that verse is in the past tense. However, you also have to take into account the last part of the verse "even the son of man who is in heaven" which is in the present tense so it conpares to the confusion that we find in the structure of John 8:48.
@@transfigured3673It's true that the last clause isn't found in all translations, but if we are referring to the Greek manuscripts, that section is present in the Byzantine majority texts. As far as I'm aware, it's only omitted in the eclectic Greek texts. Either way, I'm not making a majority rule argument, but typically the more contentious texts are ones that are biased toward the trinity doctrine in some way, which I don't see how this one would apply, so what is the benefit of adding that verse if it's assumed to be an unauthorized addition to the text?
Unitarianism sure makes more sense than trinitarians, but isn't there a problem with God demanding a human sacrifice? Jesus as god has the advantage that god didn't do anything evil since he sacrificed himself to himself, like Odin. A compromise between the two could be to have there just be one god who incarnated as Jesus somehow. God the father on the cross. Of course I have no idea what the point of the sacrifice actually was for such an omnipotent being, but it seems to make sense to Christians.
"Jesus as god has the advantage that god didn't do anything evil since he sacrificed himself to himself, like Odin. " -- This appears to be Modalism:i.e., one (1) hypostasis vs three (3) hypostases (Father, Son & Spirit) of the Trinity.
@@InfinitelyManic Yes, I think so. I have no idea why modalism wasn't preferred back in the day. Maybe it made too much sense so people knew to disagree. I've always felt that trinity was a sort of compromise by confusion. No one understood it well enough to formulate a critic against it.
@@kulturkriget Speaking as a former Oneness Pentecostal a/k/a kinda wild Modalist, the most glaring issue is the destruction of the second person singular speech: The Son talks/prays to the Father in the second person The Father refers to the Son in the third person Otherwise, Father & Son relationship has ZERO meaning.
@@InfinitelyManic True. If I was to try to solve that problem I could go with amnesia. That the god have to forget his godness to live like a human and actually experience the fear of death and so on. Of course that probably contradict other gospels where Jesus seems to know all along, maybe gJohn, I don't remember exactly what is where. The easiest answer is of course to go more secular and not assume everything in the bible is true. That there are 4 (at least) different gospel authors that disagree about what happened and what it meant. But that is probably to go too far for most, and the faith would lose some of its tension/energy/mystery.
@@kulturkriget "That the god have to forget his godness to live like a human and actually experience the fear of death and so on." -- Lord Jesus did experience human frailty as expected in His compound hypostasis a/k/a hypostatic union. "That there are 4 (at least) different gospel authors that disagree about what happened and what it meant" -- If the four (4) Gospel accounts were identical in every sense, then some would construe that as superfluous redundancy. We know there is some sharing of source material, but we don't expect multiple witness accounts of same events to be identical, moreso over time. In the final analysis, some degree of faith is always going to be required in holding the Gospel accounts as true.
I just find it amazing that not one mention is made of the Cappadocian Church Fathers and their writings on the Trinity that were the foundation of the Nicene Creed. Unitarianism is a Protestant heresy. You won't know that unless you know how these issues were dealt with during the first thousand years of Christianity. The early church believed in the Monarchy of the Father. The eternal generation of the Son. And the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Father being the source and fount of the Godhead. That is why the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one God the Father". The Father is God. The Trinity is rooted in the philosophy of hierarchy not Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a product of absolute divine simplicity and the inconsistency that is produced from pagan philosophy. All forms of Protestantism are gnostic and neo-platonic. The only Christian tradition that teaches historic Trinitarianism is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholics and Protestants are heterodox for that reason.
so you come into the comments section complaining about my lack of discussion of the Cappadocian Fathers or Monarchical trinitarians in a video that was not about them, didn't realize I am currently doing a series on (check notes) the Cappadocian Fathers and that I probably have more content about Monarchical Trinitarianism than almost any other channel except perhaps a view niche Orthobro channels, and then leave this response? Orthobros gonna orthobro.
@@transfigured3673 I'm not an ortho bro. I've never seen your channel before. For some reason it came up on my UA-cam cache. I have no animosity toward you at all. I'm a Protestant who started looking at church history and I ended up rejecting Protestantism. I'm not an atheist. I'm just in no man's land right now. I listened to the broadcast and it sounded very pro Unitarian. If you have had programs on the Monarchial view of the Trinity then kudos to you. Most people don't know that there is a different view in the East. I'm all for anyone putting out good content. More power to you.
If I mischaracterized you I apologize. I get "orthobros" coming in to my comment section and complaining about this or that almost daily so I suppose I'm a little trigger happy on using that label. Again, my apologies. I can relate to feeling in "no man's land" spiritually speaking. I'm glad you stumbled on my channel. I would encourage you to check out my other videos. My very first public youtube video on this channel is talking to Beau Branson, Eastern Orthodox Philosopher, about Monarchical Trinitarianism.
We must remind ourselves what the Bible is clear on, Jesus is the only begotten SON of the only GOD. With that in mind, Jesus came from God's being as our children came from us. The only way a human could not sin is because because God gave Jesus his spirit without measure john 3:34.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
This conversation might be one of the most clear presentation of the Unitarian faith I have ever heard.
I was listening to Dustin Smith speak the other day about the need to offer up something in place of what is being attempted to deconstruct. This is that something. Thank you brother Sam for sharing your heart and being a vessel for God to share what I believe to be an amazing and wonderful biblical truth.
That’s kind of you to say. Thanks!
Thanks for the shout out.
You deserve more than I give you
Great talk together. Thank You 😊💗
Thanks Jan!
Thanks again, Sam, for the wonderful conversation! 🙂
Thank you for hosting it!
Hi Sam, you might find the following lecture series by David Bentley Hart interesting. Check out the pod "Leaves in the wind" with the Mt.Tabor reference in the title.
A couple people have recommended that to me. Thanks for helping bring it to my attention.
Got it, thanks Sam
Thanks for listening
I always find your discussions super interesting. Basically representing the logical end point of Protestant epistemology. Here's to hoping you and Dr. Ortlund can eventually sit down and chat. I've been repping your channel on his videos, and he replied to one of my comments, so maybe some day!
I enjoyed listening to this one, especially since the incarnational nature of the Trinity is traditionally viewed as a fundamental aspect of salvation in Christianity. Even though I land on the other side of this spectrum, but it was still interesting listening to the reasoning for this.
yeah as good as he is in showing how catholicism and orthodoxy are not historically tenable, he's quite stubborn on the trinity. but i guess he's not alone in that.
Thanks. Gavin and I have been talking. Hopefully we'll talk sometime.
Being good at showing the faults in catholicism and orthodoxy are connected to my stubborness on the trinity
🤔Sometimes I want to simply "like" somebody's comment, without "necessarily" agreeing with viewpoint.
For instance the individual that started this thread was "very kind", lol it was conundrum!! 🤗
I momentarily thought you were talking with Michael Bird again! That accent...
New Zealand this time.
21:50 Sinning in the name of tradition is a topic discussed in the Bible (Matthew 15:6). The importance of letting go of any idols in our lives is also emphasized, including strongly held traditions that obstruct the truth and lead to sin. I don't think any Biblical Unitarian would disagree that the trinity doctrine can be viewed as the greatest idol (false doctrine) that the mainline Christian institution has ever conceived, hence our laser focus on Christology.
It's my firm belief that a Christian who is able to sufficiently articulate the trinitarian doctrine and willingly embrace it is plainly violating the first commandment of God, regardless of their awareness of this transgression. So I believe that as Unitarians, we have the responsibility of helping our fellow Christians steer clear of sin with the knowledge that has been entrusted to us, and vice versa. Our trinitarian friends and even non Christian friends may provide us with mutually beneficial corrections in other areas. Jacob, a non-Christian Jew, and Anselman, a trinitarian, for example, can give you a hand with your cosmology. I'm biased, of course, lol :-)
Knowing about your personal experiences of being expelled from several trinitarian congregations due to your convictions (I can relate), it's obvious to me that you sympathize with the marginalized and strive to prevent others from enduring the same suffering that you've experienced, but I also get the sense that your more inclusivist mindset is coming from personal desires for validation and a stable fellowship, perhaps as much, if not more, than it is about the truth. For me, drawing hard doctrinal lines doesn't mean isolating myself from other Christians, but it does mean maintaining boundaries and making them clearly known.
There's no doubt in my mind that a Christian who participates in a trinitarian fellowship can experience a closer connection with God compared to a Christian involved in a unitarian fellowship. It's a case-by-case basis; therefore, I acknowledge that doctrinal correctness is not the sole determining factor of one's standing with God. However, if an individual possesses the ability to comprehend theological concepts, I do believe they will be held responsible for their beliefs (Luke 12:48), and as such, they are also subject to the respectful correction of those that do possess an accurate biblical understanding of Christ's nature. Lack of growth in Christians' grasp of Christ, given their potential for understanding, for me, most likely points to a moral impediment in their spiritual development.
I don't think it's wise to judge our closeness to God by the closeness we have with Christians of differing backgrounds, because you can make human interconnection (Luke 6:32) as much of an idol as you can with human propositions (Matt 15:9). Holiness should be the metric by which we judge our relationship to God and then with each other, and as Christians that have sufficient intellectual capacity, a part of that is propositional correctness. The growth of our closeness to God, to community, and to creedal accuracy should all be concurrent and, most importantly, rooted in direct revelation and vetted by scripture. Any misalignment indicates the presence of an idol, whether that's firmly supporting a false doctrine, which consequently has led to countless divisions and denominations, or whether it's maintaining a strong, flourishing, and unified community at the expense of doctrinal accuracy (as is typical with cult groups). They are just two sides of the same coin, and both lack that emanational aspect, in my view.
I propose that if you desire to have a thriving Christian fellowship alongside trinitarian Christians, neither traditions nor communal desires should take the highest place, but a desire for what is true, no matter the cost, even if the cost ends up being a long-held tradition or community ideal itself. I'd also argue this applies to TLC as well.
Your feedback is always deeply insightful and deeply appreciated. Thanks
@@transfigured3673 I've gained a lot from your content and exposure to TLC. The feeling is mutual.
1:00:41 - Yes! Thank you for this. This has been my view for a long time. Non-dualists sort of jump the gun; we begin scattered and unfinished and move towards unity and perfection. History, separate identity, all things embodied and finite, are not merely maya.
Amen
Do you know who first used the term "Biblical Unitarianism"?
I honestly don't know. I think that Anthony Buzzard did a lot to popularize it. I should say, I never even heard the phrase "biblical unitarian" until I was in my 20s.
One thing that Trinitarians can claim easier than Unitarians is the suffering of God. Trinitarianism sort of alienate us from Jesus but brings God closer, it could be argued. I appreciate the intellectual elegance and consistency of Unitarianism though. I'm undecided.
The Biblical Unitarian Jesus did not sin; which could be viewed by some as "unrelatable".
Unrelatable, yes, but not unattainable.
@@EmJay2022 "Unrelatable, yes, but not unattainable." -- What does unattainable mean? Sinlessness?
@@InfinitelyManic Godhood as the Trinitarians suggest that Jesus posseses.
@@EmJay2022 "Godhood as the Trinitarians suggest that Jesus posseses." -- Ok, if 'Godhood' is attainable then it's not the same thing; i.e., substance/nature/ousia as the Father's. Trinitarians would say that the (pre-incarnate) Son & Spirit eternally possess the Father's ousia/essence/nature. So, their ousia/nature/essence/substance is common, not distinct like their hypostases/personhood.
@@InfinitelyManic No, neither position, unitarian nor trinitarian claim that godhood is attainable by us, as in being grafted into the supposed godhead. Hence why trinitarians make an unrelatable Christ vs the more relatable and approachable human Christ.
Sam the problem is I have a hard time grasping what people mean when they say that prophets and messengers are sinless. From your explaination all prophets before Jesus were tempted and they fell in sin. Some prophets died as sinners, such as Solomon.
According to you Jesus was also tempted like prophets before him but he did not sin and hence he broke a trend that had lasted for 200000 years and a trend of sinning that continued after Jesus’s death and ressurection.
In the Quran Jesus does not seem to sin because he has grasped the Torah and the Gospel litteraly directly after his delivery(3:46). However Jesus Will be questioned on whether he asked the people to worship God alone or if he asked the people to worship him and his Mother beside God.(5:116)
Excellent conversation, especially venturing into realms of Human/Divine interaction. Like you Sam, I am a Unitarian. And like you I arrive at that conclusion through Scripture. However, I see no need for virgin birth, Incarnation. Doesn’t that concept make Jesus other than human? I regard the Bible seriously but not literally, seeing Incarnation as mythological.
One line of your discussion about Panentheism piqued my interest. I’m with Luke on this one. Here’s why: I don’t believe in Original Sin, neither did Pelagius. I think Augustine misunderstood the scripture and went overboard on human depravity. Like Matthew Fox , I think Original Blessing makes much more sense. I think Judaism affirms this as well. In this sense, God’s connection to us is and always has been ongoing. Otherwise, how could Jesus , a human, respond to and fully embrace God’s presence? How could all the other great prophets and Avatars of history function as they did? All over the world.
If you drop OSin, you don’t need atonement, which is archaic in my mind. Instead you have in Jesus the way, showing the world the way.
Another benefit of my theology is that with Panentheism built in to Evolution you can see the world in progress towards the kind of Transfiguration you hope to see happen. This also means that it is our privilege and responsibility to help that happen. Pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”.
Occams Razor. No need for old and new creations etc.
You could also see the virgin birth metaphorically in the sense that Jesus seemed to have unique genetics/abilities/gifts from a very young age as if he was uniquely "divine" from the womb.
I think that the distinction between being mythologically true but literally/historically false is breaking down. In order to be mythologically true you must be historically true as well. All layers of truth operating in harmony up and down the stack.
@@transfigured3673 I couldn't disagree more. Cannot Lord of the Rings be mythologically true in the stories it tells without being historically/literally true? Since none of us are privy to actual reality/history (lacking a time machine and all knowledge), do we not all just operate in metaphor/interpretation based on our limited knowledge which almost certainly will be shown to be wrong given enough time? Were lepers in the 1st century AD literally "unclean"? The idea of uncleanness was certainly not "literally" true as we know now from germ theory but accurate enough from a pragmatic sense to prevent spread of leprosy.
54:00 In terms of ascending and descending, Sam, the text does not indicate that Jesus ascended first from a subcelestial position into heaven and then descended as implied in a supposed spiritual experience. It just says that he descended. I interpret this as a reference to John 1:13, which suggests that an individual cannot ascend into heaven unless they have received a new name from above through spiritual rebirth. However, Jesus did not need to be reborn through the sanctification of God's word, as his identity originated from God's word. In this sense, Jesus (his identity) descended from heaven.
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended" I think the most straight forward reading is that only one person has ascended into heaven and that person also descended and that is Jesus.
@@transfigured3673 Oh, ok I see. I overlooked the fact that the first part of that verse is in the past tense. However, you also have to take into account the last part of the verse "even the son of man who is in heaven" which is in the present tense so it conpares to the confusion that we find in the structure of John 8:48.
the last clause "who is in heaven" is missing from most manuscripts
@@transfigured3673It's true that the last clause isn't found in all translations, but if we are referring to the Greek manuscripts, that section is present in the Byzantine majority texts. As far as I'm aware, it's only omitted in the eclectic Greek texts. Either way, I'm not making a majority rule argument, but typically the more contentious texts are ones that are biased toward the trinity doctrine in some way, which I don't see how this one would apply, so what is the benefit of adding that verse if it's assumed to be an unauthorized addition to the text?
Unitarianism sure makes more sense than trinitarians, but isn't there a problem with God demanding a human sacrifice? Jesus as god has the advantage that god didn't do anything evil since he sacrificed himself to himself, like Odin.
A compromise between the two could be to have there just be one god who incarnated as Jesus somehow. God the father on the cross.
Of course I have no idea what the point of the sacrifice actually was for such an omnipotent being, but it seems to make sense to Christians.
"Jesus as god has the advantage that god didn't do anything evil since he sacrificed himself to himself, like Odin. " -- This appears to be Modalism:i.e., one (1) hypostasis vs three (3) hypostases (Father, Son & Spirit) of the Trinity.
@@InfinitelyManic Yes, I think so. I have no idea why modalism wasn't preferred back in the day. Maybe it made too much sense so people knew to disagree. I've always felt that trinity was a sort of compromise by confusion. No one understood it well enough to formulate a critic against it.
@@kulturkriget Speaking as a former Oneness Pentecostal a/k/a kinda wild Modalist, the most glaring issue is the destruction of the second person singular speech:
The Son talks/prays to the Father in the second person
The Father refers to the Son in the third person
Otherwise, Father & Son relationship has ZERO meaning.
@@InfinitelyManic True. If I was to try to solve that problem I could go with amnesia. That the god have to forget his godness to live like a human and actually experience the fear of death and so on.
Of course that probably contradict other gospels where Jesus seems to know all along, maybe gJohn, I don't remember exactly what is where.
The easiest answer is of course to go more secular and not assume everything in the bible is true. That there are 4 (at least) different gospel authors that disagree about what happened and what it meant. But that is probably to go too far for most, and the faith would lose some of its tension/energy/mystery.
@@kulturkriget "That the god have to forget his godness to live like a human and actually experience the fear of death and so on." -- Lord Jesus did experience human frailty as expected in His compound hypostasis a/k/a hypostatic union.
"That there are 4 (at least) different gospel authors that disagree about what happened and what it meant" -- If the four (4) Gospel accounts were identical in every sense, then some would construe that as superfluous redundancy. We know there is some sharing of source material, but we don't expect multiple witness accounts of same events to be identical, moreso over time.
In the final analysis, some degree of faith is always going to be required in holding the Gospel accounts as true.
I just find it amazing that not one mention is made of the Cappadocian Church Fathers and their writings on the Trinity that were the foundation of the Nicene Creed. Unitarianism is a Protestant heresy. You won't know that unless you know how these issues were dealt with during the first thousand years of Christianity. The early church believed in the Monarchy of the Father. The eternal generation of the Son. And the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Father being the source and fount of the Godhead. That is why the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one God the Father". The Father is God. The Trinity is rooted in the philosophy of hierarchy not Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a product of absolute divine simplicity and the inconsistency that is produced from pagan philosophy. All forms of Protestantism are gnostic and neo-platonic. The only Christian tradition that teaches historic Trinitarianism is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholics and Protestants are heterodox for that reason.
might i suggest checking out other videos on my channel before you come out guns blazing. A little humility goes a long way.
@@transfigured3673 I have better sources for material. Thanks.
so you come into the comments section complaining about my lack of discussion of the Cappadocian Fathers or Monarchical trinitarians in a video that was not about them, didn't realize I am currently doing a series on (check notes) the Cappadocian Fathers and that I probably have more content about Monarchical Trinitarianism than almost any other channel except perhaps a view niche Orthobro channels, and then leave this response? Orthobros gonna orthobro.
@@transfigured3673 I'm not an ortho bro. I've never seen your channel before. For some reason it came up on my UA-cam cache. I have no animosity toward you at all. I'm a Protestant who started looking at church history and I ended up rejecting Protestantism. I'm not an atheist. I'm just in no man's land right now. I listened to the broadcast and it sounded very pro Unitarian. If you have had programs on the Monarchial view of the Trinity then kudos to you. Most people don't know that there is a different view in the East. I'm all for anyone putting out good content. More power to you.
If I mischaracterized you I apologize. I get "orthobros" coming in to my comment section and complaining about this or that almost daily so I suppose I'm a little trigger happy on using that label. Again, my apologies. I can relate to feeling in "no man's land" spiritually speaking. I'm glad you stumbled on my channel. I would encourage you to check out my other videos. My very first public youtube video on this channel is talking to Beau Branson, Eastern Orthodox Philosopher, about Monarchical Trinitarianism.
We must remind ourselves what the Bible is clear on, Jesus is the only begotten SON of the only GOD. With that in mind, Jesus came from God's being as our children came from us. The only way a human could not sin is because because God gave Jesus his spirit without measure john 3:34.