Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”
Thomas Allen

In his article, “Resurrecting the Old Right” in Chronicles (September 2019), Paul Gottfried presents himself as a paleoconservative and a disciple of the Old Right. In his article, he stresses the need to resurrect the Old Right.
He may be a paleoconservative, but his racial views are indistinguishable from neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists, and a majority of Americans. Like them, he is a racial nihilist and, therefore, cares nothing about the White race or any other race as unique species that God created, and, consequently, none is worthy of preservation. (Gottfried’s attitude toward Whites is based solely on this article.) Moreover, like all neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists and most Americans, he believes that the United States are a propositional country. He definitely does not believe that they are a genetic country as the founding father established.
He strongly condemns the establishment conservatives, the neoconservatives. They avoid discussing homosexual marriages, feminism, and other divisive social issues (and especially the sin of miscegenation, which Gottfried seems not to consider a sin). They often defend progressive and liberal social positions. On immigration, distinguishing between establishment conservatives and liberals is often difficult. Typically, liberals want to flood the country with an unlimited number of third-world immigrants, most of whom they expect to vote for Democrats. On the other hand, most conservatives want to flood the country with large numbers of third-world immigrants albeit via streamlined legal means. Other conservatives prefer restricting the number of third-world immigration to a level low enough to amalgamate them into the population. Gottfried seems to support the amalgamators. Almost no one favors prohibiting nonwhites entering the country.
At least, he rightly condemns conservatives, such as Rich Lowery, editor-in-chief of National Review, for supporting and promoting the destruction of Southern monuments and history.
Also, Gottfried denounces neoconservatives for kowtowing to the liberal controlled old media. They also fail to mention all the Zionist funding that conservative organizations receive — and that these Zionists support the left-wing social agenda.
Neoconservatives condemn anti-intervention Southern conservatives and all who are labeled “racist” or “antisemitic.” Gottfried identifies a few prominent conservatives whom the establishment conservatives have condemned, such as, M.E. Bradford. For its opposition to the Vietnam War, the establishment conservative William Buckley chastised the John Birch society. (Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and, perhaps more important, Skull and Bones. He also worked for the CIA and participated in the Bohemian Grove. Thus, Buckley was an establishment insider whose job was to control conservatives.)
Another group whom the establishment conservatives condemn is the White nationalist. (Does any White nationalist organization exist that does not have some federal agency or left-wing organization behind it?) Gottfried also denounces White nationalism and considers it an “obstacle to a credible, authentic right.” About White nationalism, he writes, “Its adherents represent a moribund ideology that offers an imaginary antidote to a misdiagnosed pathology.”
For Gottfried, the war is cultural and not racial — as though culture can exist independently of race. Thus, he thinks one-dimensionally. He thinks solely in terms of culture and ignores race. He refuses to recognize that culture depends on race. As race preceded culture, it created culture. Therefore, culture is racial. Consequently, each race has a different culture with each ethnicity of that race having its own subculture. To use some trite analogies, race and culture go together like hand and glove, love and marriage, and horse and carriage.
Contrary to what Gottfried may believe, most White nationalists are not as one dimensional as he is. Most recognize the connection between race and culture.
However, Gottfried is correct in that the leaders of the war to destroy the culture that he wants to save are White. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the war is not racial. Luciferians, self-hating White, and White racial nihilists are using nonwhites to bring down America and the civilization that Whites created and to genocide White race (species) — and, by that, annihilate everything that Gottfried values. Gottfried seems to be acting like the typical libertarian by condoning, if not outright promoting, policies that result in the death of his goal.
Unlike Gottfried, White nationalists at least dimly see that the war is racial. Unfortunately, they mostly ignore the primary leaders of this war to genocide the White race because these leaders are White. Thus, they focus on the nonwhite pawns instead of the White kings and queens.
Why would Whites seek to destroy the White race? All the top leaders are Luciferians. Lucifer, Satan, seeks to destroy the race (species) created in God’s image. They are merely doing their master’s bidding. Another group is the self-hating Whites like members of Antifa. However, like Gottfried, most are racial nihilists, who see no need to preserve the White race, the Black race, or any other race.
Gottfried reproves White nationalists for being too willing to accept the agenda of the left on nonracial issues, such as sexual immorality. (Gottfried does not seem to recognize that miscegenation is a sin; at least White nationalist acknowledge this sin and denounce it.) For White nationalists, the issue is Whites against everyone else. Correctly, Gottfried condemns White nationalists for having too narrow of a focus. They ignore the cultural aspects of the war just as Gottfried ignores the racial aspects.
Furthermore, Gottfried condemns White nationalists who seek to become acceptable in the national debate. These White nationalists typically hold left-of-center views except they are staunch Zionists and advocates of an aggressive, missionary foreign policy. Unfortunately, to receive positive support from the establishment, they have to compromise significantly their racial views. At least, he credits them with attempting to raise the self-esteem of Whites about their race. Nevertheless, for a racial nihilist like Gottfried, why should self-esteem about one’s race matter?
According to Gottfried, for anyone on the right who wants to be “acceptable to large numbers of people on the right,” he has to free himself from being seen as a White nationalist. Thus, Gottfried shows that most people on the right are racial nihilists who loathe racial identitarians. In this respect, they are indistinguishable progressives, liberals, and libertarians, and even self-hating Whites of Antifa and Luciferian Whites. Therefore, the White race (species) is doomed to extinction.
Moreover, Gottfried is “especially bothered by the reductionist argument about racial IQ.” He recognizes the importance of IQ to society and civilization and the possibility of some parts of the world (he avoids “race”) having a cognitive advantage over others.  However, he questions general intelligence being the only precondition for managing human development.
Gottfried is correct about highly intelligent people leading the destruction of America and Western Civilization. Again, he fails to recognize that the annihilation of the White race is part, the most important part, of this destruction.
Furthermore, Gottfried is proof that being White and highly intelligent does not automatically make one an albusphile. He is White and highly intelligent, yet he is completely indifferent to the fate of the White race. He does not care whether the White race lives or dies if the culture that it created survives.
Gottfried claims that he never stopped believing in the Old Right. However, from my reading of the works of the Old Right, none gave me the impression that he believed in the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. To the contrary, they all seemed to believe in the old morality of racial preservation. Unlike Gottfried, who seems to have no concerns about the sin of miscegenation, they seem adamant in opposing interracial mating. (Gottfried claims to want to restore social morality. Yet, he ignores the sin of miscegenation, the amalgamation of the species of men.)
In conclusion, Gottfried is a racial nihilist and abhors racial identitarians. He is a disciple of the new morality. His revival of conservatism would be void of any race consciousness.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3
Thomas Allen

    36. How could the preexisting God the Son become a man without any diminishment of his deity? How could God the Son live a fully human life while continuing to exercise his divine function?
    37. How can Christ be both finite (human) and infinite (Deity) simultaneously? How can one be both God and the Son of God simultaneously?
    38. Do today’s Trinitarians follow the early Trinitarians and believe the Trinity Doctrine and its dual-nature Christology because it is impossible?
    39. Jesus states that God is spirit. If Jesus is God, how could he be flesh — unless the heretical Docetists are correct?
    40. How can the Son be God’s equal if God has appointed the Son heir? If the Son is the heir, there must have been a time when he was not the owner. If Christ were God, he would be the owner, or under the Trinity Doctrine, part owner. Therefore, he could not be an heir.
    41. If the Son were equal to the Father, why did he derive his power from the Father? Would not he, being God and equal to the Father, already have these powers and authority?
    42. The Bible states that blaspheming the Son will be forgiven, but blaspheming the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are coequal persons in one God, should not the result of blaspheming one be the same as blaspheming the other? Why are these coequal persons treated unequally?
    43. Many verses of the Bible clearly and plainly call Jesus a man. Also, the Bible declares that “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), If God is not a man and if Jesus is a man, then how can Jesus, a man, be God, who is not a man? Likewise, if God is not “a son of man,” how can Jesus, who is called “a son of man,” be God?
    44. If Jesus Christ is God, why does he lack the attributes of God: self-existent, immortality, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? The Trinitarian would reply that Jesus’ human nature lacks these attributes, but his divine nature does not.
    45. In developing their Christology, the Trinitarians abandoned the Scriptures in favor of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures did not support their dual-nature doctrine. However, they could find statements in some of the writings of the Church Fathers that did.
    46. Both God the Father and God the Son have thrones in heaven. However, God the Holy Spirit does not have a throne in heaven. Why not? (Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit does have a heavenly throne, needs to provide the Scriptural support that explicitly states that the Holy Spirit has a heavenly throne.) If the Holy Spirit does not have a heavenly throne, how can he be equal to God the Father and God the Son as the Trinity Doctrine declares?
    47. According to the Trinity Doctrine, God the Holy Spirit is omniscient. Yet, Mark 13:32 declares that only God the Father knows when the end will occur. Not knowing when the end will occur, God the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. Nor is God the Son. However, Trinitarians avoid God the Son lacking omniscience in the passage by claiming that Jesus is speaking in his human nature and not in his God nature. Yet, unless Jesus had two minds, which Trinitarians deny, how could his mind both know an event and be ignorant of it simultaneously? Further, they do not have the dual-nature out for the Holy Spirit. Lacking omniscience, which is an essential characteristic of God, God the Holy Spirit is not equal to God the Father, who is omniscient. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine of three coequal Gods collapses.
    Further, Trinitarians may not even use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to avoid God the Son’s lack of omniscience without risking heresy. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas or Twelve Chapters were accepted as orthodox at the Council of Ephesus (where Mary was formally declared the Mother of God) and the Council of Chalcedon (where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills). The fourth anathema reads: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the Gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” (The Word is the God the Son.) Thus, whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. As Mark 13:32 clearly shows, Jesus, who spoke as God the Son, was not omniscient. Not being omniscient, God the Son cannot be equal to God the Father. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine falls.
    48. If the Holy Spirit is one of the three coequal Gods of the triune God, how can he be given to people? How can such a divine person be given by another divine person unless he is under the authority of the giver? Coequals cannot be under the authority of other coequals and remain equal. Moreover, if the spirit of God is the third person of the triune God, how can he be divided and distributed?
    49. If the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune God, why does the Bible fail to command the worship of the Holy Spirit? Being a coequal person of the triune God, should not the Holy Spirit receive the same amount of worship as the Father, who is his coequal?
    50. The description of the Holy Spirit given in the Bible suggests that he not be independent or self-existent, and, therefore, should be referred to as “it” instead of “he.” Moreover, the relation of the spirit of God is to God as the spirit of man is to man. If the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, and it is not, then the spirit of God is not another person distinct from Himself.
    51. Since the “breath of God” is synonymous with the “spirit of God,” is the breath of God a distinct person from God — one of the coequal Gods of the triune God? It is if the Trinity Doctrine is correct. Moreover, if the breath of God is a distinct person, then the breath of man has to be a distinct person from man. Likewise, the “spirit of God” is synonymous with the “hand” and the “finger.” Does this make the hand and finger coequal Gods of the Godhead? Or, are they and the spirit of God subordinate to the will of God?
    52. Every writer of the New Testament epistles identifies himself with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, yet none identifies himself with the Holy Spirit. Did they fail to understand the Trinity Doctrine and its importance, even its necessity, for salvation? Further, did they fail to believe in a triune God?
    53. The Greek word for “spirit” is neuter; therefore, the appropriate pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit should be “it” instead of “he.” (In Hebrew, the word for spirit is feminine.)
    54. Except for a few difficult verses that are often misunderstood, the Bible offers no incontrovertible proof or even indication that the Holy Spirit is a coequal, coeternal person with the Father and Son.
    55. God usually speaks through one or at most a few people. Almost never does he speak through councils and committees: for example, the 400 prophets of Ahab versus the one prophet of God. The unanimous majority of Ahab’s prophets were wrong, whereas the minority of one prophet was right. A majority in some council has adopted all the major creeds of Christendom.
    56. Trinitarians are notorious for changing the meaning of everyday words, e.g., person and begotten, when they apply to God. As most of the Bible is about God, how does one know what the words in the Bible really mean? Are they being used in the ordinary sense, or are they being used in a theological technical sense? Does a word mean what it means in its ordinary, everyday use, or does it mean something else? Only a trained, enlightened theologian knows. Therefore, only a trained and enlightened theologian can really understand the Bible. Unless such a theologian explains the Bible and its meaning to the laity, the laity forever remains ignorant even if he reads and studies the Bible daily. (Were the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was true trained theologians? If not, were they wasting their time because they were searching in ignorance?)
    57. Trinitarians maintain that biblical truths are incomprehensible mysteries. Examples of such truths being mysteries are the Trinity Doctrine and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. Thus, Trinitarians depend on mysticism instead of the Scriptures and reason. Yet, speculation about this mysterious, unknowable God has brought forth the Trinity Doctrine. If God is incomprehensible, then how does one know that he is a triune God?
    Moreover, honest Trinitarians admit that they worship an incomprehensible Deity. Furthermore, no attempt should be made to try to understand their God.
    58. Most Trinitarians maintain that God had to die so that man could be saved; the crucifixion of a human who possessed no divine nature is not enough for salvation. Salvation depends on God dying. Besides the human egotism involved in this assertion, it also suffers from the inability of God to die and still remain God.
    59. An underlying premise of the incarnation of God is that it is necessary for the deification of man. Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, and other Orthodox Trinitarians declared that God had to become man so that man could become God. Was not the desire to become like God the great sin of Eve and Adam? (Additionally, one of the Mormon doctrines that cause Trinitarians to consider Mormonism a heresy is the doctrine of man becoming a god.)
    60. Under the creeds related to the Trinity adopted by the ecumenical councils, salvation ceased depending on faith in Jesus or even good works. Salvation came from believing, or at least claiming to believe, in what some council said about Jesus.
    61. The notion that only an uncreated, eternal being, i.e., God Himself, can redeem mankind comes from Gnosticism and was incorporated into orthodox Christology. Where is the scriptural support for this notion? According to the Scriptures (v. Romans 5:15), redemption came from a man, Jesus Christ.
    62. If belief in the triune God of the Trinity Doctrine is necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians claim, why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine? Further, why did Jesus never even teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Nowhere does the Bible give a systematic presentation of the Trinity. Nor does it state that God is a triune God of three coequal, coeternal persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, it does not claim that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
    63. Do Trinitarians agree with Bernard of Clairvaux that “faith in God has no merit, if human reason provides proof for it”? Is faith believing what one does not comprehend, or does faith require some kind of mental understanding?
    64. Why did Jesus teach his followers to pray only to the Father? Why did he not also teach them to pray to the Father’s coequal Gods: the Son and the Holy Spirit?
    65. Often, Trinitarians seem to stress the theoretical over the practical, a system of dogmas over the development of principles, and a series of unknown and unintelligible propositions that must be subscribed to and believed in over a revelation of truths which common minds may understand and sincere and honest hearts appreciate.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 2

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 2
Thomas Allen

    15. Expect for the heretical subordinationists and modal trinitarians, one question that Trinitarians have never been able to answer satisfactorily, except perhaps to themselves, is how three distinct persons, each of whom is fully God, are not three Gods. That is, how can God consist of three distinct Gods without being three Gods? Most Trinitarians just assert that three Gods are one God with no real Scriptural proof. Others claim that it is all a mystery beyond human comprehension, although they offer no Scripture that explicitly states such mystery. How can the Godhead consist of three persons, each of whom is fully God, while not having three Gods? Furthermore, where do the Scriptures explicitly claim that God is three persons, three beings, three Gods, three modes, three attributes, or three somewhats, etc.?
    16. The more honest Trinitarians admit the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere expounded in the New Testament. It cannot be found in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles taught it — and would not understand today’s orthodox Trinity Doctrine. The Trinity Doctrine rests upon the authority of the Church, i.e., the Pope: The Church declares that the Trinity Doctrine is true; therefore, it is true.
    17. The Trinity Doctrine seems to have been developed — albeit, most likely, subconsciously — primarily to justify error. Christ instructed people to pray to and worship God the Father, whom Christ claimed was the only true God (John 17:3). He never instructed them to pray to or worship the Messiah; neither did Paul, Peter, nor other apostles. After the apostles died, people began praying to and worshiping Christ. Instead of correcting this error, the leaders and intellects of the Church began applying Greek philosophy to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to justify worshiping Christ. The same can be said for other errors that became doctrines of the Catholic Church. Examples are praying to saints and Mary and declaring Mary to be the mother of God (she eventually supplanted Christ, who had become God, as the mediator between man and God). Instead of correcting errors, Church leaders and intellects sought to justify them.
    18. Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism have defined and defended the Trinity Doctrine. They provide the terms, e.g., one substance, person, and trinity, used to define the Trinity.
    19. Unlike various subordination doctrines, the orthodox Trinity Doctrine did not grow organically from the Scriptures. Moreover, many Scriptures that Trinitarians use to support their doctrine testify against it.
    20. If the Trinitarians are correct, then the God of the Old Testament cannot be the God of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God is described as a unipersonal God. Most Trinitarians now admit that the Old Testament describes a unipersonal God and not a triune God. However, according to the Trinitarians, the New Testament describes God as a triune God. That is, three Gods, persons, or whatevers are one God. Moreover, a triune God of three Gods, three persons, or three whatevers differs significantly from a unipersonal God of one God, one person, or one whatever. Now more Trinitarians, especially Catholics, are admitting that the Scriptures do not support the Trinity Doctrine as expressed in the Athanasian Creed or other similar creeds. It relies on revelation and Church tradition.
    If the Trinitarians and Jewish rabbis are correct, then Marcion was correct when he said that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different Gods. However, his explanation of the two different Gods was incorrect.
    21. Honest Trinitarians acknowledge that they worship a triune God. Thus, they are not monotheists in the sense of the Old Testament worship of a unipersonal God, whom good Jews worship. If Christians claim that the God of the Old Testament is a triune God and the Jews claim that he is a unipersonal God, then either one is wrong or God suffers from dissociative identity disorder. (If Christians assert that the Jews are wrong, then they need to explain their antisemitism.)
    22. Trinitarians claim that God became flesh so that he could experience suffering, ignorance, death, etc. like humans. Such a claim impinges on God’s omniscience. If God is omniscient, he knows how it is to suffer and die like humans. He knows how it is to be a dog or a flea without becoming one.
    Furthermore, if most theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, are correct about God being impassible, how could he experience pain, etc. like a human? Yet, many Trinitarians claim that God had to become man so that he could suffer like man.
    Moreover, how could God really die and still be eternal? If he were to die, he would cease being eternal. Or, is the pagan Greek idea of death, which most Christians believe, correct: Death is not a cessation of consciousness; it is a metamorphosis from one state of conscious being to another state of conscious being. And, the Hebrew idea of death is wrong: Death is the cessation of consciousness; this is the concept taught in the Old Testament. If death is a metamorphosis, then the Son changed state or condition. An attribute of God is that he is unchangeable. In any event, God the Son either ceased being eternal or changed state. Therefore, he ceases being equal to God the Father, who is eternal and unchangeable. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine collapses.
    According to the Hebrews, the body and soul are one. When the body dies, the soul also dies. All consciousness ceases at death.
    According to the pagan Greeks, the body and soul are two. When the body dies, the soul continues to exist in a conscious state.
    23. The triune God is not a personal God, a real being with a personality, will, and desire. He, or perhaps more correctly, it, is an essence, substance, and entity — an abstraction.
    24. If Jesus is God, why does he always pray to the Father and never to himself, who is also Deity, or to the Holy Spirit? Why does he ask the Father for what is in his own power as God the Son?
    25. If God the Father is the God of God the Son (Jesus declares that his Father is his God in John 20:17), then who is the God of God the Father? For God the Son, who has a God, to maintain his equality with God the Father, God the Father must also have a God. Likewise, God the Holy Spirit must also have a God. Who is the God of God the Holy Spirit? Moreover, if Jesus is God, how can he have a God?
    26. According to the Trinity Doctrine, the Son is eternal and is also begotten. He who is begotten cannot be eternal because he has a beginning — when he is begotten. An eternal being has no beginning or ending. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine contradicts itself with an oxymoron: the Son being begotten and eternal.
    Moreover, God is self-existing. He who is begotten, the Son, is not and cannot be self-existing. Furthermore, how can an unbegotten being, the Father, be the same kind of being as a begotten being, the Son?
    27. Unless the separationists are correct, why did Jesus cry out while he was dying on the cross? After all, according to many Trinitarians, Jesus’ God nature did not abandon his human nature while he was dying on the cross. As God the Son indwelt him, why did he need to cry out to God? God was already a part of him.
    28. To prevent God from dying on the cross, Trinitarians must have Jesus’ divine nature abandoning Jesus’ human nature by or at the time Jesus dies. The Valentinians solve the problem of God dying by having Christ, who is the divine nature, separating from Jesus, who is the human nature, just before the crucifixion. To avoid having God die, Trinitarians must adopt a Valentinian-like doctrine. However, to avoid the heresy of Valentinianism, Trinitarians seem to have the human nature of Jesus leaving the divine nature of Jesus at death. Whereas Valentinians have the divine leaving the human, Trinitarians have the human leaving the divine.
    29. Trinitarians subvert the title of the “Son of God” into “God the Son,” a title that the Scriptures never give Jesus. The two phrases mean different things. “X the son” has an entirely different meaning than “the son of X.” Isaac the son means Isaac as the son of Abraham; he is not Abraham. The son of Isaac means Jacob; he is not Isaac; nor is he Abraham. Likewise, “God the Son” has a different meaning than “the Son of God” and refers to a different person, being, entity, or whatever.
    30. When Jesus speaks, is he speaking in his divine nature as God or is he speaking in his human nature as man? Most assume that when he says something that sounds godly to them (e.g., “I and the Father are one” – John 10:30), he speaks as God. However, if he says something that sounds humanly to them (e.g., “the Father is greater than I” – John 14:28), he speaks as man. How do they know with absolute certainty which is speaking? Moreover, being ignorant of a triune God and the incarnation of God, which thus made Jesus have two natures and two wills, his audience would have always understood him speaking as a man. (Clergy often preach “context relevance” and the “way the audience at that time who received the remarks would have understood them.” Jesus’ audience at that time would have always understood him to be speaking as a man. If he intended otherwise, he was deceiving, i.e., lying to, his audience.)
    Where does the Bible expressly state that Jesus has two natures and two wills? Where does the Bible even strongly imply such?
    31. The doctrine of Jesus possessing two natures raises several questions. Did the two natures exist before the Incarnation? If they did, how did or could the Father and Son still be of one substance? If they did not, when and how was Jesus’ human nature combined with his divine nature? What prevented the divine nature from dominating? How can Jesus’ humanity be like the rest of humanity if he lacked the ability to sin like the rest of humanity? What Scriptures support the answers to these questions?
    Jesus was tempted like all other men (Hebrews 4:15). If he were God or had a divine nature, he could not have been tempted like other men. Being tempted like other men implies the ability to sin. Under the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus could not sin. An attribute of God is his inability to sin. If Jesus consisted of two natures, divine and human, then his divine nature would have coerced the human will not to sin.
    32. An angel strengthened Christ in the garden of Gethsemane. However, if he possessed divinity in conjunction with humanity, why would he have needed such assistance? Such assistance would have been wholly unnecessary.
    33. When Christ speaks of himself, he uses the pronoun “I.” He is speaking of his whole person and not of only part of his person. According to Trinitarian Christology, Christ is one person who consists of a divine nature and a human nature. So, when he says, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 ), he is speaking of himself as the whole person consisting of both divine and human natures. Therefore, by this assertion, he declares himself, both of his natures, inferior to God the Father.
    34. If Thomas calling Jesus God (John 20:28) identifies Jesus as one of the Persons of God, then God making Moses God (Exodus 7:1) should make Moses a Person of God. If not, why not? After all, God speaks much more authoritatively than Thomas.
    35. An important part of the Christology of Trinitarianism is the doctrine of the Incarnation. Not until 451 was this doctrine formerly defined when the Council of Chalcedon promulgated it. The reason that 350 years were needed to develop it was that nowhere does the Scriptures described such a doctrine — although the first chapter of John may weakly hinted at it. Moreover, the doctrine of the Incarnation resembles pagan mythology more than biblical truth. That is, the notion that God Himself descended from Heaven, took the form of a man, and dwelt among humans strongly resembles pagan mythology.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1 Part 3

More religious articles.

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1
Thomas Allen

    Trinitarianism and its Christology may be 100 percent correct, which would be surprising because they are manmade. The following issues and problems with Trinitarianism and its Christology are presented in no order of importance.
    1. The way that the creeds relating to the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology were developed and adopted is a disgrace to Christianity and an insult to Jesus. Their development and adoption depended mostly on speculation, intrigue, and violence and little on Christian charity, forgiveness, humility, restraint, and the Scriptures. They were long on speculation and short on Scripture. Their adoption depended much more on conniving and coercing than on reasoning and persuading. The doctrine of the faction that excelled in cunning, scheming, bribing, and wielding the sword won and became orthodox. Most of the leaders at the councils that adopted these doctrines seemed to be extremely egotistical and void of humility. More often than not, individual egos seemed to be more important than God, Christ, or the Scriptures. The winner got everything, and the losers were anathemized and were often exiled and stripped of their property. Thus, the dissidents were not allowed the dignity of maintaining their opinion. They had to agree with the majority of the council or be anathemized and, otherwise, punished.
    Especially in the Eastern Empire, Christians believed in the vendetta and carried their grudges for a century or more. When they gained enough power in a council, they would declare the theological ancestors of their theological opponents heretics, even if they had been dead for more than a century.
    Furthermore, the discussions of the various councils often concerned church politics more than Christian doctrine. Usually, the side that won the debate had imperial support and became orthodoxy. Imperial support came not only from the emperor, but also his family, courtiers, and the bureaucracy. Moreover, religious issues were often used to advance political issues. Thus, the development and adoption of the Christian creeds on the Trinity and related issues depended much more on politics, both secular and church, than on theological debate.
    When these doctrines were adopted, the behavior of Christians was like that of radical Muslims of today. Both the clergy and laity behaved like today’s college students who seek to oppress all with which they disagree; they disdained the free exchange of ideas. The councils that developed these Christian doctrines often behaved like political conventions at their worst. All sorts of corruption (bribery, threats, violence, etc.) and political influence were used to win the agreement. Slogans, symbols, stereotypes, and guilt by association were used much more frequently to advance doctrinal discourse than reasonable, intelligent, and logical debate.
    Moreover, the laity did not behave any better than their leaders in the councils. Often, they acted worse. Although the laymen were ignorant of the theology involved, they were hostile toward anyone who disagreed with them.
    Arguments for the various competing doctrines were often written so convoluted, complex, and technical that few could understand them.
    If it were not for several emperors of the Roman Empire, the Nicene Trinity may never have become the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church. These emperors enforced the Nicene Trinity doctrine, while suppressing competing doctrine.
    Christianity would have been a more peaceful and Christlike religion if both the “orthodox” and “heterodoxy” had followed the Scriptures instead of abandoning them in favor of speculation. In developing their doctrines, both the orthodox and heterodoxy seem to prefer speculation to the Scriptures, although both used selected Scripture to support their speculations. Moreover, to have used persuasion instead of coercion to convince opponents of the error of their doctrine would have resulted in a more peaceful, trusting, and loving society.
    If the clergy had expended the effort of living as Christ taught instead of forcing their speculations about his being on everyone else, this era would have been much more peaceful and probably would have made greater advancement in Christianity. Moreover, a united Roman Empire would most likely have lasted longer, and Islam may never have left the Arabian peninsula.
    2. Jesus’ rise to become God Himself, i.e., the eternal God the Son, who is equal to the Father, had much more to do with Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire than with anything in the Scriptures. Jesus had to lose his image as a human rebel against the Empire. Furthermore, having Jesus as God suited the autocratically ruled Empire much better than having Jesus remaining a humble man. As a result, the gospel texts that stressed Jesus’ humanity and supported his subordination to the Father, were minimized. Paul’s letters describing Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were transformed from the political context in which these events occurred to a cosmic event.
    3. How many orthodox Trinitarians realize that the prevailing (orthodox) idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for about 200 years before Constantine made Christianity the state religion was similar to the heresy of the Jehovah Witnesses: the preexisting Son was subordinate to the Father and was not eternal and the Holy Spirit was an attribute or operation of the Father instead of a person of a triune God (however, many believed that the Holy Spirit was a person, but inferior to the Father and the Son). Before then, the prevailing idea of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit was similar to the heresy of the Biblical Unitarians (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalists) and Christadelphians.
    4. In the early days of Christianity, people believed that if the state (country) practiced an incorrect form of Christianity, God would punish that state and society with wars, plagues, famines, and other disasters. If true, Orthodoxy must have been an incorrect form of Christianity because the Roman Empire collapsed under Christianity. Furthermore, Orthodox Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East fell to Islam.
    5. The Church Fathers who developed the Nicene Creed used Platonic philosophy and speculative reasoning in deriving their Creed. Scriptural support in its development was scant. Scriptural support came later when the Scriptures were interpreted to support a predetermined dogma.
    6. A majority vote in a council of bishops decided to change the unipersonal God about whom Jesus preached and to whom he prayed to a triune God of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Thus, they elevated the man Jesus to Deity (Paul, Peter, and John referred to Jesus as a man and never as God Himself). Moreover, the council was not even representative of the Church as a whole — as though a council could change God.
    7. From the late fourth century onward, anyone who disagreed with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity (or any other Catholic doctrine) has been branded a heretic. For more than a thousand years, free religious debate ceased. Apparently, the Trinity Doctrine is so insecure that Trinitarians must suppress any questioning of their doctrine. Moreover, Trinitarians became notorious for their book burning.
    8. Ask a Trinitarian if there is only one God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Ask him if Jesus is God, and again he will answer, “Yes.” Next, ask him if the Heavenly Father is God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Finally, ask him if Jesus is the Heavenly Father, and he will answer, “No.” Thus, the Trinitarian says that there is one God, and then he says that there are two Gods. Which is correct? For there to be only one God, the answer to one of the questions must be incorrect: Jesus is not God; the Heavenly Father is not God; or Jesus is the Heavenly Father. This is the logical and reasonable conclusion. However, the Trinitarian would muster all the logic that Trinitarianism allows and declare, “Not two Gods, but three Gods who are one God” and then quote the Athanasian Creed, “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” Thus, he shows that the Trinity Doctrine is void of logic and reason and relies mainly on mere assertion (and for hundreds of years, on political power).
    9. For many Trinitarians, the test of a true Christian is not believing Jesus, loving him, and striving to follow his example and teachings. It is believing what some ancient councils, about which most Christians know nothing, said about his nature.
    10. Why do Protestants reject the doctrine of Mary being the Mother of God? It is such a component part of the Nicene Trinity Doctrine that for a thousand years any Trinitarian who questioned it was excommunicated and condemned as a heretic.
    11. Jesus, Paul, and John had plenty of opportunities to explain clearly this previously unknown triune God, yet they failed to do so. Why? Completely alien to their Jewish audience, who believed in a unipersonal God, was the concept of a triune God. So obscure is the support of the doctrine of the Trinity and dual nature of Christ in the New Testament that around 400 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a good application of Greek philosophy, and the frequent use of force against dissenters were needed to discover it.
    12. Nowhere does the Bible declare that there are three equal, eternal beings, each of whom possesses all the attributes of Deity, yet they together constitute but one God. Moreover, nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature and that these two natures made one person. As these concepts would have been completely new to the Jewish audience to whom Jesus and the apostles preached, one would think that they would have explained these new concepts in detail.
    13. The Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of Jesus having two natures are two dogmas that have been so deeply inculcated in the Christian mind that few Protestants question it — and the few who do are usually condemned as heretics. Yet, these two dogmas are based on Catholic tradition instead of the Scriptures. Whatever scriptural support is given for them it is via Catholic traditional interpretation of Scriptures. However, these supporting verses can just as easily and usually more legitimately be interpreted such that they do not support the Catholic dogma of the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology. (Another Catholic doctrine based more on tradition than on the Scriptures is that of the unity of man, i.e., all humans are descended from a common set of parents. It has been so ingrained in the minds of men that even secular humanists, atheists, and nearly all other non-Christians do not question this dogma. The disagreement between them and the traditional Catholic dogma is when the initial set of patents came into being and how they came to be. Moreover, both believe in Darwinism although many of the followers of the traditional Catholic doctrine deny it.) So much for Protestantism’s boast of freeing itself from Catholic dogma.
    14. Beyond the comprehension of mere Christians are the Trinity Doctrine and its concomitant Christology. Only an enlightened elite, the illuminated ones, can truly understand them — so asserts Gregory of Nazianzus, a principal force behind making the Holy Spirit a coequal, coeternal God along with the Father and the Son. Moreover, Gregory rejected the notion that one can come to know God by applying rational thought to the Scriptures. Apparently, a great deal of philosophical speculation is necessary to really know God. Consequently, Gregory’s claim that only the enlightened can understand the mystery of God is akin to Gnosticism, for the Gnostics maintained that only the enlightened can comprehend the mystery of God.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.