-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Any Binitarians out there?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
I personally would love if we found some strong evidence that the Peshitta was older than it is; but as it stands now seems our Greek stuff is older.
As a student of Greek, I enjoy it, but it does bother me on some level that this is how the New Testament scriptures come down to us. How I wish we had the Hebrew Mathew text at least.
The Majority Text -is it just 10% of manuscripts found?
No, It actually is the majority of manuscripts found.
That doesn't mean it's correct in all places though, otherwise we could just use it and forget about textual criticism.
Our oldest **surviving** manuscripts are not Majority text either.
I agree with you in principal about accepting later texts, the problem is we just don't know how old many of the textual traditions are.
Think about it, until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest complete Hebrew Bible was just a about thousand years old! Younger than our oldest new testament! Incredible. Having the large number of manuscripts which are nearly identical point to some ancient ancestor.
In the end, oldest manuscript witness doesn't necessarily win and neither does sheer quantity of witnesses.
The modern scholarship's conclusions may be wrong...
I actually think there is a lot of scripture supporting the trinitarian, or tri-une position; the text in question, however, as @FollowingHim put it, is almost too perfect, especially in light of the challenges made by other manuscripts.
Last edited:
We forget sometimes that God preserves His Word. What we have is what He wants us to have.
I think it was a deliberate decision on His part to withhold the Hebrew text. I don't think He wanted us in a similar position to Muslims who are told they can only access their scriptures in a foreign language.
And is no one going to deal with the Trinity showing up at the Baptism in its three parts and physical manifestations? This seems to clinch the whole debate. You might be able to talk about some details around the edges but it seems like binitarianism dies right there.
I think it was a deliberate decision on His part to withhold the Hebrew text. I don't think He wanted us in a similar position to Muslims who are told they can only access their scriptures in a foreign language.
And is no one going to deal with the Trinity showing up at the Baptism in its three parts and physical manifestations? This seems to clinch the whole debate. You might be able to talk about some details around the edges but it seems like binitarianism dies right there.
Nothing "clinches" the debate. There are enough proof texts all around (and enough ambiguity all around) to keep the debate going long after all of us have shuffled off this mortal coil.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a bigger question than "which verses make you feel right about your doctrinal position?" is "what are you going to do about those who disagree with you?". Is there anything in scripture that teaches that accepting a particular dogmatic formulation of the exact nature of God (a concept that should be recognized as by-definition unknowable) is even important enough to divide into separate factions over, let alone fundamental to salvation?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a bigger question than "which verses make you feel right about your doctrinal position?" is "what are you going to do about those who disagree with you?". Is there anything in scripture that teaches that accepting a particular dogmatic formulation of the exact nature of God (a concept that should be recognized as by-definition unknowable) is even important enough to divide into separate factions over, let alone fundamental to salvation?
But..but..but...there's three of Him. It says so...right there. Of course I completely agree He is incomprehensible to us and we should not even pretend like we can understand how this all works. But there's three right? I mean I keep counting and I keep getting three. What is the argument for there being only two?
Preconceived, learned bias?
Husband of ONE wife...I keep getting ONE! Why would anyone see two or more there?
Adam was given ONE wife, not Eve and Sally!
There's three of something. Maybe call it three ways in which we experience God, or talk about what we know about God. The question is whether all the scholastic hypothesizing about the exact relationships between these three manifestations (for lack of a better word) can be reduced to doctrine, then dogma, then a litmus test for "real" Christians. (Depends on what the word 'Christian' means, doesn't it?...)
Systematic theology is great when you're not making stuff up. That is, to the extent our actual knowledge of God (not knowledge of books, or knowledge of dogma) can be systemized, then super. It's what we do. But when we start overemphasizing our respective beliefs about unknowable things that are way above our pay grade, we lose sight of the very things that Christ taught us about what's important, and to a certain extent align ourselves with certain religious enforcers that Jesus typically clashed with because they were so attached to their doctrines (beliefs about God) they missed the reality of God at work right in front of them (Mt 15:9).
Systematic theology is great when you're not making stuff up. That is, to the extent our actual knowledge of God (not knowledge of books, or knowledge of dogma) can be systemized, then super. It's what we do. But when we start overemphasizing our respective beliefs about unknowable things that are way above our pay grade, we lose sight of the very things that Christ taught us about what's important, and to a certain extent align ourselves with certain religious enforcers that Jesus typically clashed with because they were so attached to their doctrines (beliefs about God) they missed the reality of God at work right in front of them (Mt 15:9).
I don't think anyone is denying that there are three of them, only that the three individual entities are also capable of being one entity at the same time. It is interesting that the binitarian view has no issue with two entities being one, but that third entity just moves it entirely beyond the realm of possiblility.
Here's another trinity that becomes pretty obvious though I've never heard anyone suggest this as being a "trinity"
John 17
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;
I heard a message once by Johnathan Kahn on the trinity of God. It was the best mathematical explanation I've heard about it. In short, most people have difficulty wrapping their minds around how something that is divided into 3 parts could ever have 1 part equal to three parts. (1 divided by 3 can never be a whole number). However, what Mr Kahn pointed out is the mathematical basis is flawed. We are trying to understand an infinite God using finite math. If, on the other hand, we examine the trinity through the lense of infinite math, it all works. For example, 1 infinity divided by 3 infinities, = infinity
No, I think that's a form of polytheism you just described. A binitarian would just say that of the three, only Father and Son are deity; Spirit is not (it's only the power exuded from the Father and Son.). Father and Son comprise two persons of a binary Godhead.
Seems like your verse is more a "proof verse" for binitarianism. Jesus is only referring to Father and Son. Two can be "us". It doesn't take three to be "us". And if you are referring to the "glory which thou gravest me I have given them" as an individual person in the form of the Spirit, a binitarian would say that Christ gives us his personal pneuma as an empowering force, not a personal deity living within us. I think.
If 1 infinity/3 infinities=infinity....couldn't 1 infinity/2 infinities also equal infinity? Why does it require three?
Once again, I haven't necessarily given up trinitarianism, or embraced modalism (that's for another thread). I just find the "proof" in scriptural form to be less than convincing.
It's kinda like pre-Millenial, pre-tribulational, dispensational eschatology. For years, it was just the evidentiary mode of eschatology for fundamental evangelicals since Schofield popularized and codified it. But, even some stalwart defenders are questioning it big time, since it may not be so "evident". (Again, topic for another thread).
Still, no one has provided convincing evidence that it effects soteriology...or did I miss something?
Exactly!
I've long held this position that when people discuss the nature of G-d's existence it is a great luxury we have in the times we live to be able to delve into deep theological constructs.
It seems the scriptures are primarily concerned with how we live: obeying and loving G-d (same thing sometimes).
I don't see any commandment litmus testing our perception of how G-d exists.
Everything is "profess with your mouth faith" and "faith without works is dead" and other such things but nothing says "If you do not believe the 3 are 1 or the 2 are 1 or there is just 1 and the others are agents, etc... then you're doomed".
Many churches, unfortunately, will disfellowship over secondary doctrinal issues like this. Although I've personally long held the trinitarian position,
I have come to understand that I may not have reached that conclusion on my own if there weren't doctrines already in place to steer me that way as a new believer.
It's hard to get away from church traditions (modern day "traditions of the elders")
and really examine what is true but the first step is to say "OK we aren't going to split up and disfellowship over *anything* which is not
sinful" and then we gradually can escape the traditions of the institutions.
The 1st step is what you hinted at though... having unity in diverse opinion. We don't tie our faith to our abstract theological constructs.
It is not a sin to disagree about how the "godhead" exists. It's fun and interesting to explore but it's not a sin/salvation issue so there must necessarily be tolerance in this area.
As long as there three and its all somehow all God. We can't lose Christ's divinity and we don't want to commit the unforgivable sin.
Oh, let's just go there....
Zec, what does it mean to you that you are born of incorruptible seed (1 Pe 1:23), that you have become a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pe 1:4), that we are predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ, that he might become the firstborn of many brethren (Ro 8:29).
Zec, what does it mean to you that you are born of incorruptible seed (1 Pe 1:23), that you have become a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pe 1:4), that we are predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ, that he might become the firstborn of many brethren (Ro 8:29).
Just reposting this bit because I can. I agree with everything you said above.
I meant to mention this yesterday, but I think @steve was on the right track with the simple approach. We can talk usefully about the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit as they are revealed in scripture or as we experience their presence in our lives without having to argue about "behind the curtain" stuff that no one can prove.
It's actually liberating to not have to worry about it....
It's actually liberating to not have to worry about it....
I don't know and to be honest and to my great shame I'm probably not going to try and find out.
Can you give me the outline of where we're going and I'll tell you if you got me? I'm probably just going to say "three" again though.
Well, my point at this point is that most of these issues are driven by slogans and catch phrases that we either don't really understand, or our "understanding" is a matter of technical definitions that then need to be explored to figure out whether they make any real world sense.
So for example, as described above, it's a bit of a stretch to consider the pneuma of God a "person" unless one considers and basically retools the working definition of "person". But then you're using the word "person" in a way that sort of overlaps with its original definition but isn't really the same. Hence my Humpty Dumpty quote earlier....
Above, you referenced "Christ's divinity", which means one thing to you but could mean other things to other people. Depends on what "divine" means. Depends on what we've been taught in Sunday school (or bible college or whatever). If we have become "partakers of the divine nature", are we divine? Are we divine in some ways but not others? If so, which are which? What does it mean that it's God's intention that Christ be the firstborn among many brothers? Are we those brothers? If not, who's Paul talking about? In what way are we so much like Christ that we are considered his brothers? And what about that "incorruptible seed"? Has something been planted in us the same way something was planted in Mary? Is it the same in some ways but different in others? Which is which?
I'm not going anywhere with that other than to illustrate that there is a big difference between learning dogma in church and actually understanding what we're talking about. It is precisely because some of the concepts taught by Jesus and the apostles, as they've been handed down to us, are baffling, and in my opinion awe-inspiring, that some scholars thought they could help us by trying to figure out what it all meant and then explain it to us. (Mental picture: A guy who can read standing in front of a bunch of illiterate peasants and explaining religious concepts to them....) But then those teachings get burnished over the years and get enshrined as what we're supposed to believe about God. Required to believe about God.
But you and I can read (and frankly, we're both pretty well-spoken—we're skilled with language). We can see what's written and what's not, and we can tell when somebody is blowing smoke. And now with the internet we can meet up with other like-minded guys and compare notes on what makes sense and what doesn't—what's in the text and what's a gloss on the text. And we can leave room for awe and wonder and the humility and freedom to say "I don't know". I still think it's liberating.
So for example, as described above, it's a bit of a stretch to consider the pneuma of God a "person" unless one considers and basically retools the working definition of "person". But then you're using the word "person" in a way that sort of overlaps with its original definition but isn't really the same. Hence my Humpty Dumpty quote earlier....
Above, you referenced "Christ's divinity", which means one thing to you but could mean other things to other people. Depends on what "divine" means. Depends on what we've been taught in Sunday school (or bible college or whatever). If we have become "partakers of the divine nature", are we divine? Are we divine in some ways but not others? If so, which are which? What does it mean that it's God's intention that Christ be the firstborn among many brothers? Are we those brothers? If not, who's Paul talking about? In what way are we so much like Christ that we are considered his brothers? And what about that "incorruptible seed"? Has something been planted in us the same way something was planted in Mary? Is it the same in some ways but different in others? Which is which?
I'm not going anywhere with that other than to illustrate that there is a big difference between learning dogma in church and actually understanding what we're talking about. It is precisely because some of the concepts taught by Jesus and the apostles, as they've been handed down to us, are baffling, and in my opinion awe-inspiring, that some scholars thought they could help us by trying to figure out what it all meant and then explain it to us. (Mental picture: A guy who can read standing in front of a bunch of illiterate peasants and explaining religious concepts to them....) But then those teachings get burnished over the years and get enshrined as what we're supposed to believe about God. Required to believe about God.
But you and I can read (and frankly, we're both pretty well-spoken—we're skilled with language). We can see what's written and what's not, and we can tell when somebody is blowing smoke. And now with the internet we can meet up with other like-minded guys and compare notes on what makes sense and what doesn't—what's in the text and what's a gloss on the text. And we can leave room for awe and wonder and the humility and freedom to say "I don't know". I still think it's liberating.
Of course I agree with you and I would never think you were getting sideways on important issues. But there are somethings that scare me. Its this area that the enemy goes after with so many of the cults. They all seem to reject the "Trinity" and lessen Christ to some degree. Now that may be because we label anyone who does so a cult but still you have to admit this seems to be the area that all of the weirdos agree on.
And of course we've all seen really smart men go sideways and end up renouncing Christ entirely.
I'm not sure why alarm bells went off for me this time but they did and I wanted to ground the conversation. And this may be completely silly, but I've put my full name on this forum. I flung open the closet and declared my fellowship so its important to me that on the big issues and on the public forums there be some left and right lateral limits. My family and my children can come here and say, "Well they reject the Trinity. Of course they want sleep with all those underage girls!"
I would imagine you feel something similar but bigger considering you are literally the face of the whole thing.
They lessen Christ. And you're completely right, they do do that. No one here is rejecting Christ.
I'm pretty sure than no one here is rejecting the trinity. I know I'm not. The point is that it's complicated and we don't know the true answer.
I fully understand where you're coming from here. There are conversations about some matters which are not discussed on this forum for that very reason. They are very few. But here's the thing, we all need to be able to discuss things on here in a rational biblical way. If we restrict too much because of what people might see and misinterpret, then we get to the point where we can't even discuss PM.
There are some groups where I can't talk about PM. There are some groups where I can't talk about biblical slavery. There are some where I can't discuss vaccinations, or the feasts, or even home birthing. Because apparently you can make all those things anti-God. What I like about this forum is that I can discuss virtually anything on here and I know it's (most likely) going to be a decent conversation with well thought out responses from people that are truly following YHWH. We need to keep that here. There is nowhere else to go online. Find me another place that has the quality of people that BF does where we can discuss all the things we can discuss here. It doesn't exist.
BF stands out, and it needs to stand out. As Christians that's what we're supposed to do, and as a Christian forum that's what this should do too.
If we all lived next to each other and could just hang out and discuss things in person whenever we wanted then that would be so much better. Of course then we'd be in a 'commune' of polygamists which doesn't look so good from the outside world now does it? Really, you can't win.
The first time I ran across a conundrum in biblical studies like this one was years and years ago when someone asked me to describe and defend my viewpoint of grace.....yes, that whole "election" thing.
As I researched, read, studied, contemplated, then asked others their viewpoints, I finally had to throw up my arms and admit....I don't know. It wasn't all like I had been taught from a pulpit, nor was it all like the other side insisted it was.
So now, when people ask me, I answer yes to both questions.
Did God sovereignly elect me? Yes!
Did I freely choose to follow Christ? Yes!
How it all works out is a HUGE mystery to me. The nature of the Godhead is an ever greater mystery.
This was all just an illustration
Start a new thread if you want to hash election out.
As I researched, read, studied, contemplated, then asked others their viewpoints, I finally had to throw up my arms and admit....I don't know. It wasn't all like I had been taught from a pulpit, nor was it all like the other side insisted it was.
So now, when people ask me, I answer yes to both questions.
Did God sovereignly elect me? Yes!
Did I freely choose to follow Christ? Yes!
How it all works out is a HUGE mystery to me. The nature of the Godhead is an ever greater mystery.
This was all just an illustration
Start a new thread if you want to hash election out.